Minor's right to vote - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

I would suggest that the most persuasive solution to the problem of political inclusion can be provided by resurrecting a simple proposal made by John Holt, which is endorsed by the research literature on political learning and childhood political socialization. Holt's prescription is as appealing as it is simple. He doesn't wish to lower the voting age incrementally but seeks 'the right to vote for people of any age.' No one should be left out. Eligibility, on his account, is determined by awareness and interest in political affairs. Everyone should have the right to vote when their interest, knowledge and involvement in politics are sufficiently developed to motivate them so to do; as interest develops, so participation will increase. This does not mean that all children would vote, and it seems probable that very young children with only a marginal, if any, interest in politics would abstain. Holt considers that few six-year olds would exercise their vote but that ten-year olds would be different, since they seem to understand at least as much about the world and its problems as I or most of my friends did when we left college...

FOUR OBJECTIONS

First, it will almost certainly be claimed that young people are ignorant of political affairs - that they would not know a good policy from a bad one. If this is true, then it is a truth which extends to adults and we must take care not to use double standards. In a political system where voters' ignorance of issues is readily acknowledged, and where no amount of ignorance, misinformation, or outright delusion will bar an adult from voting, it is a weak argument to suggest that a presumed ignorance of political affairs is sufficient grounds to exclude children from citizenship. The major point here is that arguments about ignorance are spurious. People should possess a vote, not because they are specialists in some area of government or because they have detailed knowledge of some aspect of political life, but because it is a matter of justice that they do. Democracy requires that everyone should have the right to participate in making political decisions which will affect their lives.

A second, related claim is that children should not be considered responsible electors and may cast their vote frivolously. While there is no evidence to support such a view, there is substantial literature which suggests that adults are less than responsible in their electoral motives. Harrop and Hague lament that 'By and large ... hopes have been dashed' that voters will cast their vote in an informed and intelligent way, while McLean suggests humorously that many voters appear to have a predisposition to vote for the first candidate on the ballot paper. Since candidates are arranged alphabetically, it is not surprising that this habit benefits politicians whose names begin with the letter A, or produces a preponderance of twentieth century prime ministers with surnames beginning with A, B, or C. As with the first claim, dual standards are unacceptable. If voters are to be excluded when it can be shown that they may vote frivolously, then this proposal would disenfranchise many adults.

Third, it might be argued that children are more likely to vote on the basis of the personality of the party leader than on the policies of the party. It is true that children tend to have an extremely benevolent and uncynical view of political authority which political leaders could exploit to their advantage, but these attitudes exist only in the period of early childhood and are transcended around the age of nine. Adults too are not indifferent to personalities when making electoral choices.

Leaders, party policy, self-interest and sheer partisan loyalty all influence voters to some degree, and disentangling precisely their separate effect is impossible. Moreover, the different personalities of the party leaders are relevant considerations which any voter might wish to take into account when assessing a party's potential for successful government and the achievement of its objectives.

Finally, it could be argued that there is a danger that parents might seek to exert influence upon children and coerce them to vote according to their preferences. This not only would render childhood suffrage meaningless, but would confer political advantage on those with children. This objection can be met in a number of ways.

First, if children had the right to vote and enjoyed a greater autonomy and responsibility for their affairs, they would be likely to be much less readily influenced by adults. Children would probably value their own judgement and grow in independence so that parental influence would diminish. Holt makes a related point when he claims that a society which had changed its attitude towards children sufficiently to acknowledge their right to vote would be a society in which adults would not seek to coerce young people, or, if they did, such interference would be frowned upon.

Second, a secret ballot ensures the child's autonomy, since no adult could discover the child's electoral choice.

Third, the argument must be conceded in a special sense. The most influential determinant of our political allegiance is the political preferences of our parents. If I had to guess the party for which a particular individual voted and I could ask only a single question (excluding "which political party do you vote for?), I would be advised to ask "Which political party do your parents support? Butler and Stokes's study revealed that 89 per cent of Conservative voters have parents who are both Conservative voters and 92 per cent of Labour supporters have parents who both support the Labour Party. The children of 'politically mixed' marriages divided 48 per cent Conservative and 52 per cent Labour. These data are, of course, complicated by the emergence of the SDP/Liberal Alliance, but such evidence suggests that, whether we are ten, thirty, or sixty when we vote, the electoral behaviour and preferences of our parents are a powerful and lasting influence; to exclude only young people because of parental influence is therefore unjust...

Conclusions and Prospects

In this chapter, I have tried to argue that the denial of political rights to children offends fundamental democratic principles and that the division between citizens and non-citizens, based upon age, is incoherent and cannot be sustained. I have tried to develop a different proposal which is more positive in its appraisal of children's capacities and their political interest and potentials. This would give rights to all young people but presumes that the majority of very young children, given their probable lack of concern for political affairs, would not utilize their franchise. There is, of course, a problem of abuse with such a procedure, although I consider it to be less substantial than might be imagined. Moreover, the potential danger of a few children voting who perhaps should not is far outweighed by the actual injustice involved when large numbers of children who are interested and informed about politics and wish to vote are excluded from so doing. The scale of the current exclusion of 12 and 1/2 million children is massive and somewhat akin to denying voting rights to everyone in Greater London. Giving children the right to vote has distinct advantages over other proposals aimed at the protection of their rights. Various institutional devices have been suggested, such as an ombudsman for children, a minister for children, a select committee on children as well as a children's council and children's congress discussed in the Deakin Report. The advantage derived from enfranchising children is that the responsibility for securing the best interests of children and protecting their rights would reside with children themselves. For the first time, children could deploy their vote to guarantee the enjoyment of their rights and the prosecution of their interests; child perceptions would replace adult interpretations of children's rights.

Research evidence suggests that the party political implications of change would be minimal, with no party finding its support disproportionately enhanced. But the abolition of age-related rights would lead to change in at least three areas.

First, it would be reasonable to speculate that all political parties would give higher priority and emphasis to policies relating to youth affairs than at present. There would be a new section of the electorate to be wooed which, if disappointed, could hold the parties to account.

Second, it could lead to the democratization of the whole range of educational, social and welfare institutions of which young people are currently the major consumers. If, for example, education were not compulsory, it is hard to imagine that many teachers could attract an audience for their tedious diet of rote learning and inconsequential knowledge. Young people would probably demand greater participation in all aspects of the operation of their school community, from issues of uniform to curriculum design. Similarly, the acquisition of suffrage would possibly initiate substantial reforms concerning children's rights in care and within the juvenile justice system.

Finally, I believe that the absence of all age qualifications, not simply political (dis)qualifications, would mean that young people could develop skills and potentials at a much earlier age across a variety of activities. If young people's efforts were taken seriously, criticized, evaluated and assessed in the way that as adults we assess each other's work in a dialogue between equals, then children's skills and intellectual achievements could be enhanced to a degree which, by existing standards, would appear precocious... Political equality would require adults to take young people more seriously and abandon patronizing attitudes which systematically underestimate and indicate disrespect for their abilities. If these are some of the possible implications of the extension of franchise to young people, I welcome them.

Children organizing for political rights will probably be treated initially with ridicule and derision, and then with misunderstanding and perhaps eventually violence if the experience of the struggle for women's suffrage is any precedent. Undoubtedly the greatest obstacle to be overcome is the adult refusal to acknowledge that children suffer political discrimination and exclusion. Adults do not perceive children as a minority group but as helpless, inexperienced, defenseless young people who need protection. Adult paternalism seeks to protect and if in this process it curtails freedom, truncates potential and destroys civil liberties this is taken to be incidental. The belief in the legitimacy of paternalism justifies and cements the existing power relationships between adults and young people. This attitude must be confronted, challenged and refuted if young people are to secure their political rights...

Found this by accedent at http://www.childliberation.org/english/vote.htm

I admit that I never seriously considered why children should or shouldn't vote. At first thought, it seems logical that kids wouldn't take it seriouly and would be easily controled so as to take advatage of them, but then I realized that adults seem to be just as likely to either not tkae it seriously, or be easily swayed by fearmongering or other forms of propoganda (is that a run-on sentance?).

What are your thoughts on the right to vote for minors?

(btw, the article, while informative and intelligent, does not necessarily reflect my views)

Cadwiz · 01-18-2005, 02:06 PM

A very interesting idea, but for the life of me, I can't stop thinking "Brittney for President". That thought makes me shudder.

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 02:36 PM

Children shouldn't vote because they are not mature.

Simple as that.

Mr Mephisto

Coppertop · 01-18-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Children shouldn't vote because they are not mature.

Simple as that.

Mr Mephisto

My girlfriend (along with most people who know me) doesn't consider me mature. Should I be disallowed form voting as well?

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2005, 03:18 PM

What's wrong with the status quo, where legal adults vote? Children are immature and irresponsible, so are some adults, but children it's a given. Let kids be kids no need to drag 10 year olds into the world of politics.

A legitimate comprimise would be someone who pay's taxes, if they are old enough to have their money taken by the government, they should have the right to determine who they want in office.

uncle_el · 01-18-2005, 03:26 PM

idk... seems like both sides of the argument could be played.

children are immature.

but there's no rationale behind "18 means you're an adult", nor "21 means your a full fledged adult"... the courts in the past few years seem to think that children are mature enough to be tried as adults... many child psychologists say that children know the difference between right and wrong (which i suppose is the "maturity" factor the courts look for) around the age of 10 or so.

don't get me wrong, i don't think children should vote... but i guess when it comes down to it, i don't have a very good reason.

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

My girlfriend (along with most people who know me) doesn't consider me mature. Should I be disallowed form voting as well?

If you're under 18, then yes.

If you're over 18, then no.

Mr Mephisto

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Children shouldn't vote because they are not mature.

Simple as that.

Mr Mephisto

Mature physically or mentally?

If you mean physically (which I doubt, but I try to cover all my bases), I'd say midgets might get mad.

If you mean mentally, I'd say that there are plenty of adults who are totally immature when it comes to politics and right and wrong who are allowed to vote. If the adults who are imature are allowed to vote, why can't the children vote? It's a double standard, and a way to keep certian americans from their rights. Children don't have freedom of speech, press, religion, as we've seen. The parent is heald responsible and the child is brushed aside. Seems like a double standard.

I make this argument because there are no minors on TFP to defend themselves.

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadwiz

A very interesting idea, but for the life of me, I can't stop thinking "Brittney for President". That thought makes me shudder.

2 words: Governor Arnold

I see these as being the same argument. 8 years ago, I was having a similar discussion with one of my friends about Regan. While Regan was qualified, I said that he could have won because he was an actor. I artgued that people who are attractive and likeable will beat people who are qualified in voting. Arnold is case in point. Children are just as likely as adults to make that aweful decision.

The_wall · 01-18-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

What's wrong with the status quo, where legal adults vote? Children are immature and irresponsible, so are some adults, but children it's a given. Let kids be kids no need to drag 10 year olds into the world of politics.

A legitimate comprimise would be someone who pay's taxes, if they are old enough to have their money taken by the government, they should have the right to determine who they want in office.

Sounds like a pretty good comprimise. That would make the voting age 16 correct?

Coppertop · 01-18-2005, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

If you're under 18, then yes.

If you're over 18, then no.

Mr Mephisto

So maturity has nothing to do with it? Why didn't you say that in the first place?

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If you mean mentally, I'd say that there are plenty of adults who are totally immature when it comes to politics and right and wrong who are allowed to vote. If the adults who are imature are allowed to vote, why can't the children vote? It's a double standard, and a way to keep certian americans from their rights. Children don't have freedom of speech, press, religion, as we've seen. The parent is heald responsible and the child is brushed aside. Seems like a double standard.

I make this argument because there are no minors on TFP to defend themselves.

Because, by definition, you need to have a point in time when voting is permitted.

Are you seriously suggesting, for example, that infants be given the right to vote? No, I don't think so.

If not 18, then when?
OK, 16? Why not younger?
OK, 14? Why not younger?
OK, 10? Why not younger?
OK, 7? Why not younger?

You get the point. There HAS to be a line. And 18 is that line. Moving it somewhere else doesn't do anything but move the "problem" (not that I think there's a problem at all).

Modern society generally accepts 18 as the "age of maturity"; at least in the West. As such it is an entirely appropriate age to welcome children into adulthood.

Are there people who are immature even though they are over 18? Yes. Yes there are.

Furthermore, are there people who are mature even though they are under 18? Yes. Yes there are also.

But generally speaking, statiscally (and even from an ontogenic point of view), humans develop over time. Whilst physically mature at the early teens, pyschologically they are not. Therefore sociey has adopted 18 as the point at which they are considered adult. Therefore they should be permitted to vote at 18.

Quid Erat Demonstratum

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

So maturity has nothing to do with it? Why didn't you say that in the first place?

That's not what I said.

See my post above for a more detailed explanation.

There's no need to be so immature!

Mr Mephisto

Coppertop · 01-18-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

That's not what I said.

See my post above for a more detailed explanation.

There's no need to be so immature!

Mr Mephisto

Oh, really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Children shouldn't vote because they are not mature.

Simple as that.

Mr Mephisto

It is what you said, actually. I know what you're saying, of course, but that should have been said in the first place to avoid confusion.

dy156 · 01-18-2005, 04:23 PM

Once upon a time I wrote an opinion peice for the local newspaper about how 16 year olds ought to be able to vote. They're old enough to spend money and drive cars and be taxed, they should have a say. Although I admit there is some logic to making 18 be the drawing line for everything- freedom to contract, drink, pose nude, get drafted, vote, etc..., I think society has placed limits on activities that seem to be pretty reasonable too. Most 16 year olds can drive, but shouldn't be trusted with alcohol, for example.

What I think is a better solution (that kinda goes against my anti-government normal sentiments) is to do away with age restrictions and limitations, but just make it very difficult for younger kids to do whatever. If there's a gung-ho 17 year old that wants to join the army, and he is willing to expend the effort to slog through the red tape to make it possible, maybe he should be able to do so. When I was 16 I would have done a whole lot to be able to vote, because I was a real political nerd, but I would have made a more informed decision than most that year. If we made it harder to vote, the ones that do vote really want to then, right? Maybe not red tape, but think up a test or something. Government red tape is bad, right?

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Because, by definition, you need to have a point in time when voting is permitted.
Are you seriously suggesting, for example, that infants be given the right to vote? No, I don't think so.
If not 18, then when?
OK, 16? Why not younger?
OK, 14? Why not younger?
OK, 10? Why not younger?
OK, 7? Why not younger?
You get the point. There HAS to be a line. And 18 is that line. Moving it somewhere else doesn't do anything but move the "problem" (not that I think there's a problem at all).
Modern society generally accepts 18 as the "age of maturity"; at least in the West. As such it is an entirely appropriate age to welcome children into adulthood.
Are there people who are immature even though they are over 18? Yes. Yes there are.
Furthermore, are there people who are mature even though they are under 18? Yes. Yes there are also.
But generally speaking, statiscally (and even from an ontogenic point of view), humans develop over time. Whilst physically mature at the early teens, pyschologically they are not. Therefore sociey has adopted 18 as the point at which they are considered adult. Therefore they should be permitted to vote at 18.
Quid Erat Demonstratum
Mr Mephisto

I am suggesting that it might be interesting to look into the possibility to give the right to vote to anyone who can check a box. I am not demanding change, I am asking for an open mind. I know you to be a man that has an open mind.
"There HAS to be a line." Why? Are children second-class citizens because they might not percieve the world as we do? I know that school funding might skyrocket if people who are actually in the elementary and highschools were able to have a say in the quality of their education. Pyschological maturity is mentioned as one of your prerequisits. Are mentally unstable people allowd to vote? We execute mentally retarded people (God bless America...

).
I am going to summerizer what you siad. There has to be an age below which you cannot vote (then you give no reasoning behind this). Modern society says 18 is the age of maturity, therefore you can vote at 18 (so this IS about maturity). People under 18 are not psychologically mature (are you sure about that? Proof?). Then you rest your case.

I'm confused. Can you please explain this to me?

Supple Cow · 01-18-2005, 04:32 PM

I don't buy the argument that parent's influence would be reduced by the increase of autonomy of the minor gained along with suffrage. Most kids are influenced heavily by their parents (or their legal guardians) whether they are autonomous or not - the influence comes from simply being in their care. While not all adults are living independently of the people who raised them, I would guess that the percentage of immature or dependent adults in the total voting population is still a far cry from the large percentage of conceivable minor voters who would still be living with parents or guardians.

wnker85 · 01-18-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supple Cow

I don't buy the argument that parent's influence would be reduced by the increase of autonomy of the minor gained along with suffrage. Most kids are influenced heavily by their parents (or their legal guardians) whether they are autonomous or not - the influence comes from simply being in their care. While not all adults are living independently of the people who raised them, I would guess that the percentage of immature or dependent adults in the total voting population is still a far cry from the large percentage of conceivable minor voters who would still be living with parents or guardians.

Very True.

Kids would vote with their parents because thats what their parents said, or they would vote the other way jsut to spite them. There shouldn't be anyone who votes this way. But, 18 is a good age because that is the age that most move out and become part of the world, and truely start to make enough money to supposrt themselves, or go to college. This is the time that people start to truely make up their own minds and the ability to vote will help them do it.

IMHO, As a 19 year old I know that people my age are not very versed in these topics. I am suprised that 21 million ppl my age went to vote, and Bush won. Who would have thought. This may show that ppl my age don't think the way that we think they do.

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supple Cow

I don't buy the argument that parent's influence would be reduced by the increase of autonomy of the minor gained along with suffrage. Most kids are influenced heavily by their parents (or their legal guardians) whether they are autonomous or not - the influence comes from simply being in their care. While not all adults are living independently of the people who raised them, I would guess that the percentage of immature or dependent adults in the total voting population is still a far cry from the large percentage of conceivable minor voters who would still be living with parents or guardians.

How many parents based their votes off what they saw on CNN and Fox? Can't you argue that a great deal of the votes were biased?

We all have bias. Most of us are controled to some degree. I argue that most adults are more controled than kids are by parents. My parents gave me floride pills when I was little b ecause our water wasn't flouridated. No one bothered to tell them that flouride research is 50 years old and that flouride can be dangerous to children. Why did they do that? Their dentist didn't do the research, so someone who is considered trustworthy in that field was wrong.

The news companies (where most of Americans get their information for voting) are controled by profit and ratings. This means that the information we get from them is at least tainted with what we want to see, not what we should see.

Not even emancipated minors can vote.

Zeld2.0 · 01-18-2005, 04:53 PM

18 is absolutely fine IMO

And it is absolutely true by many surveys and studies that most people are politically scaled to what their parents are/think - parents are probably your biggest influence in your life on these issues unless you rarely talk to them and you only discuss politics with friends... but thats unlikely.

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

Oh, really?

It is what you said, actually. I know what you're saying, of course, but that should have been said in the first place to avoid confusion.

OK. How about "That's not what I meant, and you know it"? I referred to to another more detailed post.

You're proving your girlfriend right.

Mr Mephisto

Coppertop · 01-18-2005, 05:02 PM

"Simple as that" is hardly an explanation. However, when asked for one, you provided an explanation. I thank you for it.

But not for your lame attempt at insulting for me pointing out that you did indeed say something you denied saying. And I'm the immature one?

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

"There HAS to be a line." Why?

Because I was basing my statement on the belief that you were not suggesting infants should be allowed to vote. That's just silly and you know it.

If an infant, unable to talk properly, unable to relate to the world around them, should be allowed to vote because they "can check a box" then you are living in a fantasy world.

That would mean parents could simply tell their children where to vote.
That, in turn, would subvert democracy.
That, in turn, is something I'm sure you're not supporting.

Therefore, we know there has to be line drawn somewhere. Because failure to draw that line results in unsafe results. Infants cannot make those judgements.

Once we have accepted the fact that a line is required, the only remaining issue is where that line be drawn; at what age should voting be permitted. As I said, Western society has evolved such that 18 is considered the normal stage when children are welcomed into adulthood. I have accepted that there are exceptions, but laws and rules cannot be based upon a case by case basis. A systematic, repeatable, consistent, definable solution is required. These are generally known as "laws" and, in this case, the law states that a person must be 18 or over to vote.

Now, you can argue the philosophical basis upon which those laws are based if you wish. The same way I can argue against society's assumption that I should wear clothes. But it doesn't change the fact that said laws (voting laws) are based upon generations of precedent, tradition and (recently) scientific fact.

Children mature during their teens. This has been proven. Please don't ask me to search the web for references, as I'm unwilling to believe you don't accept that. Therefore, a teen (statistically speaking) of 18 years age will be more mature than a teen of 17 years age. Indeed, a 21 year old will probably be more mature again. But we have moved away from 21 as the age of maturity to 18. And I don't see the benefit of going any younger.

Quote:

Are children second-class citizens because they might not percieve the world as we do?

Are you a father?

Do you let your child decide what the family is going to do every day?
Do you let your child decide what car you're going to buy?
Do you let your child decide what time you are to go to bed?
Do you let your child decide how much to spend on your mortgage?

We all know the answers to these questions. The answer is no. Or the answer would be no (if you're not a father). Does that make your child a second class citizen? No.

Do we let children buy weapons? No. Does that make them second class citizens? No.
Do we let children drive cars? No. Does that make them second class citizens? No.
Do we let children join the armed forces and fight in armed conflicts? No. Does that make them second class citizens? No.

Again, you get the picture.

Many "rights" are limited to those of a certain age. Driving. Purchasing weapons. Joining the military. Purchasing property. Voting.

Quote:

Pyschological maturity is mentioned as one of your prerequisits. Are mentally unstable people allowd to vote? We execute mentally retarded people (God bless America...

).

It is not one of my prerequisites. It is a fact that children mature. Therefore, society has deemed a certain level of maturity is required.

The fact that the US executes mentally handicapped people is beside the point. It's one of only a handful of countries that do. You're up there with you friends China and Iran. Good for you.

With regards to the question on whether mentally handicapped persons are allowed to vote, I don't believe they are. I'm not certain of US law however. This just goes to show that certain rights can be with-held.

Quote:

I am going to summerizer what you siad. There has to be an age below which you cannot vote (then you give no reasoning behind this).

Yes I did. I expound on that further above.

Quote:

Modern society says 18 is the age of maturity, therefore you can vote at 18 (so this IS about maturity).

When did I ever say it wasn't about maturity? It's not about a case by case analysis of maturity, but society's consideration as to when children are adult.

Quote:

People under 18 are not psychologically mature (are you sure about that? Proof?).

As I said above, if you don't believe me that children are less mature than adults please do your own google. I'm not going to waste time on such a ridiculous assertion.

And I said, statistically and ontogenologically speaking, children are less mature. You want proof? You really don't believe that?

Let's see how comfortable you would feel sending 14 year olds over to Iraq. How about letting 12 year olds on the roads. While we're at it, let's hand over responsibility for America's nuclear arsenal to 16 year olds. Let's make sure your bank manager's job is open to 8 year olds.

Quote:

I'm confused. Can you please explain this to me?

I hope I have.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

"Simple as that" is hardly an explanation. However, when asked for one, you provided an explanation. I thank you for it.

But not for your lame attempt at insulting for me pointing out that you did indeed say something you denied saying. And I'm the immature one?

Dude, you gotta relax. I wasn't insulting you. Touchy touchy.

It was a joke. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I assumed you were joking when you said everyone thought you were immature. Perhaps not. I shall be more careful when responding to you in the future.

Mr Mephisto

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Because I was basing my statement on the belief that you were not suggesting infants should be allowed to vote. That's just silly and you know it.

If an infant, unable to talk properly, unable to relate to the world around them, should be allowed to vote because they "can check a box" then you are living in a fantasy world.

Rememebr when I wrote "I am suggesting that it might be interesting to look into the possibility to give the right to vote to anyone who can check a box."? That discounts infants. They can't hold a pencil. Also, most young kids wouldn't be interested in voting, so that discounts the "Barney" vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

That would mean parents could simply tell their children where to vote.
That, in turn, would subvert democracy.
That, in turn, is something I'm sure you're not supporting.

Do you have kids? I coached t-ball and hockey for kintegardners for YEARS (community service to get into a private college, I'm not a pedaphile or anything). They listen when they want to listen. You cannot force a child to do anything unless you physically force them. If you are their parent, teacher, pastor, or any authority figure, they follow their own mind. I never did anything my parents told me to do. That at least partially invalidates your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Therefore, we know there has to be line drawn somewhere. Because failure to draw that line results in unsafe results. Infants cannot make those judgements.

Neither can senile people. And they are usually older.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Once we have accepted the fact that a line is required, the only remaining issue is where that line be drawn; at what age should voting be permitted. As I said, Western society has evolved such that 18 is considered the normal stage when children are welcomed into adulthood. I have accepted that there are exceptions, but laws and rules cannot be based upon a case by case basis. A systematic, repeatable, consistent, definable solution is required. These are generally known as "laws" and, in this case, the law states that a person must be 18 or over to vote.

The line, in my opinion, would be anyone who doesnt want to vote. Kids who are really little would rather be outside playing. Why does voting have to be a gift for becoming an adult? I know that the law states that 18 and older to vote. I'm not trying to change the law! I'm trying to explore the reason behind the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Now, you can argue the philosophical basis upon which those laws are based if you wish.

THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING! Welcome!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The same way I can argue against society's assumption that I should wear clothes. But it doesn't change the fact that said laws (voting laws) are based upon generations of precedent, tradition and (recently) scientific fact.

Children mature during their teens. This has been proven. Please don't ask me to search the web for references, as I'm unwilling to believe you don't accept that. Therefore, a teen (statistically speaking) of 18 years age will be more mature than a teen of 17 years age. Indeed, a 21 year old will probably be more mature again. But we have moved away from 21 as the age of maturity to 18. And I don't see the benefit of going any younger.

That's cool. In a perfect world everyone under 18 would be too imature to vote for themselves, and people over 18 would all be mature enough to make a rational decision in voting. This is no perfect world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Are you a father?

I'm the proud father of an 18 month old girl. And she can vote if she wants, but I think she's more interested in stuffed toys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Do you let your child decide what the family is going to do every day?
Do you let your child decide what car you're going to buy?
Do you let your child decide what time you are to go to bed?
Do you let your child decide how much to spend on your mortgage?

We are starting to let her make her clothing decisions. She automatically goes to sleep at 7:00 pm every night. I can set my clock by her. BUT, if she wanted to stay up, I'd let her learn when it was best to go to sleep. We own out house.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

We all know the answers to these questions. The answer is no. Or the answer would be no (if you're not a father). Does that make your child a second class citizen? No.

When my daughter is old enough to choose clothers, they will be her choice (limited only by budget). She will always have a say in finances if she wants, but I still doubt she'll be interested. When she starts becoming interested in the household finances, she'll probably have enough understanding to make decent decisions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Do we let children buy weapons? No. Does that make them second class citizens? No.
Do we let children drive cars? No. Does that make them second class citizens? No.
Do we let children join the armed forces and fight in armed conflicts? No. Does that make them second class citizens? No.

It is the responsibility of the parent to teach the child how to deal with the realitty of the world. That includes weapons, cars, and the armed forces. Each of those involves something voting doesn't: each involves a direct connection with mortal danger. A vote will not directly put you in mortal danger. Granted, someone you vote for could put you in danger, but I think we both know that's different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Again, you get the picture.

Many "rights" are limited to those of a certain age. Driving. Purchasing weapons. Joining the military. Purchasing property. Voting.

Purchasing property and voting don't belong in that group. "One of these things is not like the other".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

It is not one of my prerequisites. It is a fact that children mature. Therefore, society has deemed a certain level of maturity is required.

The fact that the US executes mentally handicapped people is beside the point. It's one of only a handful of countries that do. You're up there with you friends China and Iran. Good for you.

With regards to the question on whether mentally handicapped persons are allowed to vote, I don't believe they are. I'm not certain of US law however. This just goes to show that certain rights can be with-held.

I was trying to point out that people who are not "mature" can be victems of this countries sick capitol punsiment. it is hypocritical (not to mention morally reprehensible) to be able to execute someone who doesn't even have basic rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

As I said above, if you don't believe me that children are less mature than adults please do your own google. I'm not going to waste time on such a ridiculous assertion.
And I said, statistically and ontogenologically speaking, children are less mature. You want proof? You really don't believe that?
Let's see how comfortable you would feel sending 14 year olds over to Iraq. How about letting 12 year olds on the roads. While we're at it, let's hand over responsibility for America's nuclear arsenal to 16 year olds. Let's make sure your bank manager's job is open to 8 year olds.
I hope I have.
Mr Mephisto

What about the exceptions? If kids can't vote because they are not mature, why are immature adults allowd to vote? It's a double standard. The 34 year old man who lives in his mom's basement and has never heald down a full time job and who is mooching off the government and his mother for money can vote, but I couldn't vote when I was 17 (and was VERY active in politics)? It is a double standard.

RangerDick · 01-18-2005, 06:14 PM

I think the following is a good idea, regardless of the age of the voter.......

Each person must pass a 10 question quiz (7 out of 10) comprised of questions similar to these....

1. Name the governor of your state
2. Name 1 of your state's current Senators
3. Name 3 sitting Supreme Court Justices
4. Name 3 countries that sit on the UN security council
5. Name the current Secretary of State
etc...etc...

Randomly choose 10 question from a bank of 100 or so. Then lower the voting age to 16. Votes only count if you qualify.

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 06:15 PM

This is fun! Good debate, MrMephisto!

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

I think the following is a good idea, regardless of the age of the voter.......

Each person must pass a 10 question quiz (7 out of 10) comprised of questions similar to these....

1. Name the governor of your state
2. Name 1 of your state's current Senators
3. Name 3 sitting Supreme Court Justices
4. Name 3 countries that sit on the UN security council
5. Name the current Secretary of State
etc...etc...

Randomly choose 10 question from a bank of 100 or so. Then lower the voting age to 16. Votes only count if you qualify.

*In the official US census offics counting the votes*

Man 1 -"Do we have all the votes from California?"

Man 2 -"Yep. 12,000 from San Frencisco, and 12 from L.A. All 12,012 people who passed the test voted."

Man 1 -"Did anyone pass the test in Arkansas this year?"

Man 2 -"Nope. They all put 'Clinton' for all the answers."

Man 1 -"Hey someone from Hawaii put 'Aloha' in the governers spot."

Man 2 -"It's a good thing these people can't choose their leader."

EDIT: Anyone who is mad at this, take the test without cheating and see if you pass.

RangerDick · 01-18-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

*In the official US census offics counting the votes*

Man 1 -"Do we have all the votes from California?"

Man 2 -"Yep. 12,000 from San Frencisco, and 12 from L.A. All 12,012 people who passed the test voted."

Man 1 -"Did anyone pass the test in Arkansas this year?"

Man 2 -"Nope. They all put 'Clinton' for all the answers."

Man 1 -"Hey someone from Hawaii put 'Aloha' in the governers spot."

Man 2 -"It's a good thing these people can't choose their leader."

EDIT: Anyone who is mad at this, take the test without cheating and see if you pass.

Funny. Wave goodbye to all the D votes!

shakran · 01-18-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Because, by definition, you need to have a point in time when voting is permitted.

Are you seriously suggesting, for example, that infants be given the right to vote? No, I don't think so.

If not 18, then when?
OK, 16? Why not younger?

Because 16 year olds who have jobs have to pay taxes, yet they are not allowed to participate in the selection of the government that taxes them. Frankly that's unconstitutional (taxation without representation). Few kids younger than 16 have "real" jobs (i.e. you don't get a 1040 form from the mom you babysit for), but if they do get taxed, they should be allowed to vote.

And if the government thinks they're too young to vote, then they should also be too young to tax. Simple as that.

Mephisto2 · 01-18-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Rememebr when I wrote "I am suggesting that it might be interesting to look into the possibility to give the right to vote to anyone who can check a box."? That discounts infants. They can't hold a pencil. Also, most young kids wouldn't be interested in voting, so that discounts the "Barney" vote.

Aha!!!

So there is a line! And even you admit it!

So, like I said, the debate isn't about whether there should be a line or not (as we both agree there is), but where society should draw that line.

Quote:

Do you have kids? I coached t-ball and hockey for kintegardners for YEARS (community service to get into a private college, I'm not a pedaphile or anything). They listen when they want to listen. You cannot force a child to do anything unless you physically force them.

Nonesense. If I told a 14 year old cousin, "I'll let you have my X-box all weekend if you vote for Kerry", he would. That is, if we were in the US and 14 year olds could vote.

Ditto to 8 years olds "Mommy will buy you a big bag of candy"

No one is talking about forcing them, but telling them, bribing them, convincing them. Because they don't understand the aspects and complexities of adult life, they are easily led astray. That's got a lot to do with "immaturity".

Quote:

If you are their parent, teacher, pastor, or any authority figure, they follow their own mind. I never did anything my parents told me to do. That at least partially invalidates your argument.

Not at all.

I didn't do everything my parents told me to do, but I certainly did a great deal. And if we're opening up voting to millions of children, if only 50% of them do what their parents ask, tell or bribe them to do, then we have subverted democracy to an astounding amount. Bush didn't win by that much...

Quote:

Neither can senile people. And they are usually older.

You're right. That's why people who are certifiably of "unsafe mind" are precluded from voting. Society assumes everyone above 18 is fine and everyone below 18 is not an adult. With adulthood come certain additional rights.

Quote:

The line, in my opinion, would be anyone who doesnt want to vote. Kids who are really little would rather be outside playing.

How do you know? And more importantly, what kids? Kids of 4 or younger? 6 or younger? 10 or younger?

Where do you draw the line (now that you accept a line should be drawn)? And what makes YOUR line any more appropriate than the line already drawn?

Quote:

Why does voting have to be a gift for becoming an adult? I know that the law states that 18 and older to vote. I'm not trying to change the law! I'm trying to explore the reason behind the law.

Because Western society deems those under 18 to be children, in the face of the law, and those over 18 to be adults. And voting is a right given to adult citizens. As I mentioned earlier, this is based upon generations of precedent and tradition.

The franchise has changed in the past and it may change again. Once it was restricted to rich, male, white, Protestant property holders (in the UK). In the US millions of blacks were disenfranchised. In Australia the Aboriginals only got the vote (and citizenship rights) in the 1970's. Yes, you read that right. In the SEVENTIES.

So who knows? It may change again in the future, but I don't see any value. Going below 18 introduces potential voters that are patently not as mature or adult as those older. Most mental development has finished by that stage.

Quote:

THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING! Welcome!

haha
Touché!

Quote:

I'm the proud father of an 18 month old girl. And she can vote if she wants, but I think she's more interested in stuffed toys.

If I lived in a country where an 18 month old girl could vote "if she want[ed]", then I would leave post haste.

Quote:

We are starting to let her make her clothing decisions. She automatically goes to sleep at 7:00 pm every night. I can set my clock by her. BUT, if she wanted to stay up, I'd let her learn when it was best to go to sleep. We own out house.

Your dodging the question. What if she brought home a boy (when she's 12) and said she wanted to have sex with him?

Would you let her "learn her own lessons" then?

I doubt it.

You restrict her actions because she is a child. You may not think you do, but you do.

Do you let her leave the house at night alone? Why not? Do you consider her a second-class member of your family?!!

Quote:

When my daughter is old enough to choose clothers, they will be her choice (limited only by budget).

What if she comes home with a t-shirt that says "I hate niggers"?
Or a KKK suit?
Or perhaps "I support the American Nazi Party"
Or how about, when she's... say 15, a stripper outfit?

Quote:

She will always have a say in finances if she wants, but I still doubt she'll be interested.

So you'd let her spend her money on a litre of tequila?

Quote:

When she starts becoming interested in the household finances, she'll probably have enough understanding to make decent decisions.

She's probably have enough understanding...
That's the whole point! You can't be sure she will.

Quote:

It is the responsibility of the parent to teach the child how to deal with the realitty of the world. That includes weapons, cars, and the armed forces.

The parent? It's the responsibility of the state to ensure its children are not exposed to unnecessary dangers.

You keep saying that some children are more mature than others.
What about parents?
What if one parent says "Well, I don't care about you, but MY child is old enough to drive a car and use a handgun. Even if he is only 8 years old".

By your standard, there's nothing to stop that from happening.

That's why there are laws to prevent it happening.

Quote:

Each of those involves something voting doesn't: each involves a direct connection with mortal danger. A vote will not directly put you in mortal danger. Granted, someone you vote for could put you in danger, but I think we both know that's different.

Not at all. A subvertion of democracy could put entire NATIONS in danger.

Quote:

Purchasing property and voting don't belong in that group. "One of these things is not like the other".

You think children should be allowed to buy property?!

Anyway, I don't agree that voting and property rights don't belong in that list. I think they do.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you throw open the floodgates or you do not.

Quote:

What about the exceptions? If kids can't vote because they are not mature, why are immature adults allowd to vote?

Because you can't base voting rights on case by case examinations. That's not realistic.

Also, perhaps my use of the word "mature" is confusing things. Kids can't vote because they're not adults.

Quote:

It's a double standard. The 34 year old man who lives in his mom's basement and has never heald down a full time job and who is mooching off the government and his mother for money can vote, but I couldn't vote when I was 17 (and was VERY active in politics)?

Yep, that's right.

Why? Because he was an adult and you were not.

Quote:

It is a double standard.

No, it's a consistent standard. That's the whole point. Applied consistently across the entire population, it may result in some rare cases where people feel restricted, but such is life.

Great discussion indeed.

Mr Mephisto

RangerDick · 01-18-2005, 06:53 PM

Mr. Mephisto my eyes hurt...

fckm · 01-18-2005, 08:11 PM

The proposal is not well thought out.

Quote:

research literature on political learning and childhood political socialization

References please. It's simply not enough to state these things as fact without reference. In fact, I would say that in all my experience, the research literature in developmental psychology would suggest the exact opposite of the conclusions reached in this article.

The real issue at hand is one of mental maturity and competence. The issue of political power is secondary to that of mental maturity. There's a reason why there are statutory rape laws. There's a reason why children have legal guardians. There's a reason why children cannot be employed, why they can't open bank accounts, why they can't have credit cards. These are not separate issues. They all stem from the fact that children are children. There are very large neurological and psychological differences between children and adults. Puberty happens for a reason, and there are physiological differences between pre-pubescent and post-pubescent people. Children are not adults with small bodies.

Why 18? Because if it was 17, you'd ask "why 17"?
Like I said, there are differences between children and adults, and there must be a limit somewhere. Unlike driving a car, testing for political awarness is a bad idea. Not only is it unconstitutional, but is ripe for abuse (Think post civil war era South).

Willravel · 01-18-2005, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Aha!!!

So there is a line! And even you admit it!

Hahahaha. Yes! You got me! If an infant cannot muster the dextarity to vote, then why bother bringign them? They have that right, but they cannot explore it yet. They would have the right to vote, but they wouldn't have the ability. I'd say a 2 year4 old would have the edextarity, but not the need. They would no be able to sit in line for 6 hours like I did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

So, like I said, the debate isn't about whether there should be a line or not (as we both agree there is), but where society should draw that line.

So, to clairify my point, everyone is given the right to vote from age 0 to infinity. But the younger kids would lack the dextarity, interest, and patience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Nonesense. If I told a 14 year old cousin, "I'll let you have my X-box all weekend if you vote for Kerry", he would. That is, if we were in the US and 14 year olds could vote.

No one is talking about forcing them, but telling them, bribing them, convincing them. Because they don't understand the aspects and complexities of adult life, they are easily led astray. That's got a lot to do with "immaturity". [/QUOTE]
If a parent was bribing their kid to vote, that would be the same as buying a vote from an adult. If I offered the average 18 year old American male an X Box for their vote, they'd take it. You can't buy X Boxes for every 18 year old, so it doesn't really matter. You'd have to have organization the likes of which voters have never seen to have bribery work on a national level. I say no way Jose to that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

You're right. That's why people who are certifiably of "unsafe mind" are precluded from voting. Society assumes everyone above 18 is fine and everyone below 18 is not an adult. With adulthood come certain additional rights.

That means certification for minors to see which are of safe voting mind in order for it to be fair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Because Western society deems those under 18 to be children, in the face of the law, and those over 18 to be adults. And voting is a right given to adult citizens. As I mentioned earlier, this is based upon generations of precedent and tradition.

I know it's based on tradition and "precedent". I'm not trying to change the law, remember? It's just a debate. No law changing allowed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The franchise has changed in the past and it may change again. Once it was restricted to rich, male, white, Protestant property holders (in the UK). In the US millions of blacks were disenfranchised. In Australia the Aboriginals only got the vote (and citizenship rights) in the 1970's. Yes, you read that right. In the SEVENTIES.

Eek. Humans are so very evolved, aren't we!? Kinda scarey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

If I lived in a country where an 18 month old girl could vote "if she want[ed]", then I would leave post haste.

Well, you'd always be welcome to return to Sesseme Street.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Your dodging the question. What if she brought home a boy (when she's 12) and said she wanted to have sex with him?
Would you let her "learn her own lessons" then?
I doubt it.
You restrict her actions because she is a child. You may not think you do, but you do.
Do you let her leave the house at night alone? Why not? Do you consider her a second-class member of your family?!!
What if she comes home with a t-shirt that says "I hate niggers"?
Or a KKK suit?
Or perhaps "I support the American Nazi Party"
Or how about, when she's... say 15, a stripper outfit?
So you'd let her spend her money on a litre of tequila?

I answered your questions directly. It is my job to teach my daughter how to interpret inate morality and how it applies to the real world. It is also my responsibility to teach her about consequences for her actions that can have a detremental effect on her life or the lives of others. It is my responsibility to teach her tolerance and love and peace (*puts on flower necklace and sings*). If she wants to have sex at 12, she'll know the consequences. I realize that I am not the only influence on her, so I make sure that between now and when other influences take my place, I have installed all of the mental and emotional technologies she needs to deal with the world and grow. If she wants to be a slut, or a nazi, or an alcoholic, I will consider that a failure on MY part. She will always have the freedom to make her own mistakes, and I will love her unconditionally. Nothing she does will ever change that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

She'[ll] probably have enough understanding...
That's the whole point! You can't be sure she will.
The parent? It's the responsibility of the state to ensure its children are not exposed to unnecessary dangers.

There will always be an X factor that we can't protect our kids from. I want her to be ready herself for that X factor when it comes along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

You keep saying that some children are more mature than others.
What about parents?
What if one parent says "Well, I don't care about you, but MY child is old enough to drive a car and use a handgun. Even if he is only 8 years old".
By your standard, there's nothing to stop that from happening.
That's why there are laws to prevent it happening.

And that, my good fellow, is the potential flaw in the equasion. If it all started this way, if society started with all parents teaching this way, we wouldn't have to worry about that. This is still about voting, though. As far as the whole picture, that is a flaw, but voting does not come with a handgun. Unless you're in a red state. Heh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Not at all. A subvertion of democracy could put entire NATIONS in danger.
You think children should be allowed to buy property?!
Anyway, I don't agree that voting and property rights don't belong in that list. I think they do.

Children cannot gather the capitol to buy property (unless they are very mature...heh), so problem solved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Because you can't base voting rights on case by case examinations. That's not realistic. Also, perhaps my use of the word "mature" is confusing things. Kids can't vote because they're not adults.

Not maturity..hmmm....What is this magical thing that adults have that children don't? All I can think of is experience. The only reason children don't have experience with voting is because it is not available to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Yep, that's right.
Why? Because he was an adult and you were not.

But he is just as likely to be irresponsible and vote for the next dictator as any child. Whether it is for different reasons or not is moot, as the result would be the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

No, it's a consistent standard. That's the whole point. Applied consistently across the entire population, it may result in some rare cases where people feel restricted, but such is life.
Great discussion indeed.

Mr Mephisto

Maybe that's the answer. Complete consistancy of freedom is unattainable. That's kinda sad though.

King's to you.

alansmithee · 01-19-2005, 10:11 AM

Honestly, why is anyone trying to INCREASE the number of uninformed voters? I mentioned this around election time, and I will continue to mention it-too many people vote as is. The answer for irresponsible voters is not to add more, its to either educate the current voting population better or reduce the number currently allowed to vote. Honestly, this seems like the most rediculous thing I have seen on the political board. There is literally 100's of studies showing that the brain isn't as fully developed in younger children and teens. Debating something like this seems the equivalent of debating whether or not to eat glass shards, or if people should live underwater. There doesn't seem to really be any sort of logical basis for this.

shakran · 01-19-2005, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Honestly, why is anyone trying to INCREASE the number of uninformed voters? I mentioned this around election time, and I will continue to mention it-too many people vote as is. The answer for irresponsible voters is not to add more, its to either educate the current voting population better or reduce the number currently allowed to vote. Honestly, this seems like the most rediculous thing I have seen on the political board. There is literally 100's of studies showing that the brain isn't as fully developed in younger children and teens. Debating something like this seems the equivalent of debating whether or not to eat glass shards, or if people should live underwater. There doesn't seem to really be any sort of logical basis for this.

Again, the logical basis is that they are taxing these children. The children are not allowed to participate in the government that is taking money away from them. That is unfair and in fact when England pulled that little stunt on us, it inspired us to revolt and form our own country.

I'm not saying we should allow the children to vote. I'm saying that if we don't allow them to vote, we should not tax them.

Also, you seem to be pressing for only allowing informed voters to vote. While this would be great, keep in mind it's the government that would come up with the test to check if they're informed. That means that, for example, with the current power balance the republicans would be more inclined to use questions that would eliminate the democrats (cutting taxes for the wealthy is a good way to improve the economy, T or F?) as uninformed voters. Similarly, if the democrats were in power they'd be more inclined to use questions that would eliminate the republicans (Religion should play no part in government, T or F)

Any time you start requiring tests for voting, it becomes that much easier to force a group of people you don't like out of the voting booth.

Supple Cow · 01-19-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

How many parents based their votes off what they saw on CNN and Fox? Can't you argue that a great deal of the votes were biased?

We all have bias. Most of us are controled to some degree. I argue that most adults are more controled than kids are by parents. My parents gave me floride pills when I was little b ecause our water wasn't flouridated. No one bothered to tell them that flouride research is 50 years old and that flouride can be dangerous to children. Why did they do that? Their dentist didn't do the research, so someone who is considered trustworthy in that field was wrong.

The news companies (where most of Americans get their information for voting) are controled by profit and ratings. This means that the information we get from them is at least tainted with what we want to see, not what we should see.

Not even emancipated minors can vote.

I wasn't trying to say anything about the number of legal adults who are or are not influenced by things; I was only trying to say that I don't think it's worth the effort to give suffrage to a group of people who are almost certainly under the influence of a small, specific group of people (parents/guardians). Also, don't get me started on the science/health industry and the foolish trust most people have in "experts" unless you want to start another thread on that in General Discussion. But one person can't do all the research on everything - ultimately, you have to trust the information from somebody enough to let it influence your decisions. That still doesn't mean that we should include a large group of voters who will almost certainly just be amplifying the political influence of the closest adults in their lives.

Willravel · 01-19-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supple Cow

I wasn't trying to say anything about the number of legal adults who are or are not influenced by things; I was only trying to say that I don't think it's worth the effort to give suffrage to a group of people who are almost certainly under the influence of a small, specific group of people (parents/guardians). Also, don't get me started on the science/health industry and the foolish trust most people have in "experts" unless you want to start another thread on that in General Discussion. But one person can't do all the research on everything - ultimately, you have to trust the information from somebody enough to let it influence your decisions. That still doesn't mean that we should include a large group of voters who will almost certainly just be amplifying the political influence of the closest adults in their lives.

That's true. This argument proves that either you have full voting (all ages, no exceptions) or we have specific voting (being qualified in some way to vote). The fact that we now live between those two is absurd.

archer2371 · 01-19-2005, 09:37 PM

Mr. Mephisto, we agree again, this is getting to be a habit. Another point, I'm sure it's been made, and I'm just too lazy to look for it, but really, if all you have to worry about is taxes getting taken out of your spending money on CDs, DVDs and games, then you shouldn't have to vote. If it's getting taken out of your pay and you live by yourself and are trying to pay bills, you should have a voice. Otherwise, children should enjoy being children, there is no reason to drag them into the world of politics.

MSD · 01-19-2005, 11:10 PM

I think that anyone who pays taxes should be allowed to vote. Even those who get a full refund due to low income pay medicare and social security tax, and therefore suppport the government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Modern society generally accepts 18 as the "age of maturity"; at least in the West. As such it is an entirely appropriate age to welcome children into adulthood.

I find the arbitrary decision to declare the age of 18 as the line for legal adulthood almost as absurd as the even higher drinking age that our country imposes on us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

I think the following is a good idea, regardless of the age of the voter.......

Each person must pass a 10 question quiz (7 out of 10) comprised of questions similar to these....

1. Name the governor of your state
2. Name 1 of your state's current Senators
3. Name 3 sitting Supreme Court Justices
4. Name 3 countries that sit on the UN security council
5. Name the current Secretary of State
etc...etc...

Randomly choose 10 question from a bank of 100 or so. Then lower the voting age to 16. Votes only count if you qualify.

This will have little effect other than to disenfranchise those who are underpriveleged and unable to afford a reasonably high quality education. Basically, that means that racial minorities (who are unfortunately the majority of the lower economic class) would be denied even more rights than their position in society prevents them from enjoying. We might as well go back to the system in which minority voters are required to respond to absurd questions like "How many bubbles can be blown from a bar of ivory soap?"

01-18-2005, 02:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
Cadwiz Insane Location: work	A very interesting idea, but for the life of me, I can't stop thinking "Brittney for President". That thought makes me shudder. __________________ Semper Fi

01-18-2005, 03:18 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	What's wrong with the status quo, where legal adults vote? Children are immature and irresponsible, so are some adults, but children it's a given. Let kids be kids no need to drag 10 year olds into the world of politics. A legitimate comprimise would be someone who pay's taxes, if they are old enough to have their money taken by the government, they should have the right to determine who they want in office. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2005, 03:26 PM	#6 (permalink)
uncle_el Crazy Location: n hollywood, ca	idk... seems like both sides of the argument could be played. children are immature. but there's no rationale behind "18 means you're an adult", nor "21 means your a full fledged adult"... the courts in the past few years seem to think that children are mature enough to be tried as adults... many child psychologists say that children know the difference between right and wrong (which i suppose is the "maturity" factor the courts look for) around the age of 10 or so. don't get me wrong, i don't think children should vote... but i guess when it comes down to it, i don't have a very good reason. __________________ An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of inprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. - Martin Luther King, Jr. The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. - Malcolm X

01-18-2005, 04:32 PM	#17 (permalink)
Supple Cow Americow, the Beautiful Location: Washington, D.C.	I don't buy the argument that parent's influence would be reduced by the increase of autonomy of the minor gained along with suffrage. Most kids are influenced heavily by their parents (or their legal guardians) whether they are autonomous or not - the influence comes from simply being in their care. While not all adults are living independently of the people who raised them, I would guess that the percentage of immature or dependent adults in the total voting population is still a far cry from the large percentage of conceivable minor voters who would still be living with parents or guardians. __________________ "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." (Michael Jordan)

01-19-2005, 09:37 PM	#39 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Mr. Mephisto, we agree again, this is getting to be a habit. Another point, I'm sure it's been made, and I'm just too lazy to look for it, but really, if all you have to worry about is taxes getting taken out of your spending money on CDs, DVDs and games, then you shouldn't have to vote. If it's getting taken out of your pay and you live by yourself and are trying to pay bills, you should have a voice. Otherwise, children should enjoy being children, there is no reason to drag them into the world of politics. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

01-18-2005, 02:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Children shouldn't vote because they are not mature. Simple as that. Mr Mephisto

01-18-2005, 04:23 PM	#15 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	Once upon a time I wrote an opinion peice for the local newspaper about how 16 year olds ought to be able to vote. They're old enough to spend money and drive cars and be taxed, they should have a say. Although I admit there is some logic to making 18 be the drawing line for everything- freedom to contract, drink, pose nude, get drafted, vote, etc..., I think society has placed limits on activities that seem to be pretty reasonable too. Most 16 year olds can drive, but shouldn't be trusted with alcohol, for example. What I think is a better solution (that kinda goes against my anti-government normal sentiments) is to do away with age restrictions and limitations, but just make it very difficult for younger kids to do whatever. If there's a gung-ho 17 year old that wants to join the army, and he is willing to expend the effort to slog through the red tape to make it possible, maybe he should be able to do so. When I was 16 I would have done a whole lot to be able to vote, because I was a real political nerd, but I would have made a more informed decision than most that year. If we made it harder to vote, the ones that do vote really want to then, right? Maybe not red tape, but think up a test or something. Government red tape is bad, right?

01-18-2005, 04:53 PM	#20 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	18 is absolutely fine IMO And it is absolutely true by many surveys and studies that most people are politically scaled to what their parents are/think - parents are probably your biggest influence in your life on these issues unless you rarely talk to them and you only discuss politics with friends... but thats unlikely.

01-18-2005, 05:02 PM	#22 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	"Simple as that" is hardly an explanation. However, when asked for one, you provided an explanation. I thank you for it. But not for your lame attempt at insulting for me pointing out that you did indeed say something you denied saying. And I'm the immature one?

01-18-2005, 06:14 PM	#26 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	I think the following is a good idea, regardless of the age of the voter....... Each person must pass a 10 question quiz (7 out of 10) comprised of questions similar to these.... 1. Name the governor of your state 2. Name 1 of your state's current Senators 3. Name 3 sitting Supreme Court Justices 4. Name 3 countries that sit on the UN security council 5. Name the current Secretary of State etc...etc... Randomly choose 10 question from a bank of 100 or so. Then lower the voting age to 16. Votes only count if you qualify.

01-18-2005, 06:15 PM	#27 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This is fun! Good debate, MrMephisto!

01-18-2005, 06:53 PM	#32 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	Mr. Mephisto my eyes hurt...

01-19-2005, 10:11 AM	#35 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	Honestly, why is anyone trying to INCREASE the number of uninformed voters? I mentioned this around election time, and I will continue to mention it-too many people vote as is. The answer for irresponsible voters is not to add more, its to either educate the current voting population better or reduce the number currently allowed to vote. Honestly, this seems like the most rediculous thing I have seen on the political board. There is literally 100's of studies showing that the brain isn't as fully developed in younger children and teens. Debating something like this seems the equivalent of debating whether or not to eat glass shards, or if people should live underwater. There doesn't seem to really be any sort of logical basis for this.