Minor's right to vote
 

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)

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

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?

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.

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.

If you're under 18, then yes.

If you're over 18, then no.



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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

"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?

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.

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.

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.

Yes I did. I expound on that further above.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Neither can senile people. And they are usually older.

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.

THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING! Welcome! 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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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.

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 is fun! Good debate, MrMephisto!

*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!

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.

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.

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".

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...

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.

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?

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.

haha
Touché!

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

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?

She's 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.

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.


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.

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


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.

Yep, that's right.

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

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

Mr. Mephisto my eyes hurt... :)

The proposal is not well thought out.
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).

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.

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.
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.

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

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.

Eek. Humans are so very evolved, aren't we!? Kinda scarey.
Well, you'd always be welcome to return to Sesseme Street. :thumbsup:


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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

King's to you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

NO...NO....No..were adults and we voted Bush into office...think about who would be president if kids were allowed to vote. Britney Spears could get nominated...Yikes. but HOT!

No it's not!!! Apparently no one here has taken any courses in psychology. Like I've been saying before, a Child is mentally undeveloped. There are SIGNIFICANT mental differences between children and adults! And the sutle influence of adult on child cannot be discounted!

Children aren't taxed. They can't legally work bellow a certain age (I think it's around 15). Over that age, they aren't taxed. When I was working as a cashier in High School, I filled out a tax exemption form, and was never taxed. If anything, child tax credits means that children _recieve_ money from the government, not the other way around.

take a psych course. You'll understand much better the difference between children and adults. Again, a five year old is not an adult with a small body.
Assuming that you agree that children are not adults, you must realize that there needs to exist a line delineating legal adulthood. It is impossible to create some sort of adulthood test whereby each individual child is tested for adulthood and granted the rights thereof. Therefore, there needs to be a legal definition which separates children from adults. Any such line is arbitrary by definition. The reason why we choose 18 is because of cultural reasons. As such, these cultural reasons are as good as any, since the line is entirely arbitrary. Since the onset of puberty starts anywhere from 13-16 years old, 18 seems like a pretty fair choice.

CHILDREN ARE NOT ADULTS TRAPPED IN SMALL BODIES. GO TAKE A COURSE IN DEVELOPEMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, NEUROLOGY, BIOLOGY, ANYTHING!

I hold my b.a. in Psychology from Santa Clara U. Just fyi. I know children are not as "mentally developed" as adults. I am saying that adults are just as likely to be influenced as children. You can take that to the psychological bank. And you don't need to shout.

I don't know about you, but I have paid taxes ever since I made my first purchase. I pay taxes for school lunches, I paied taxes for my slothing, I paid taxes when I started working at 15. I paid taxes when I bought my first car at 16.

Of course not. You'll find that most adults that vote are uninformed, so maturity obviously has no direct connection to whether one should vote or not.

Still no need to yell, I'm right here (you should know that yelling is an intimidation tactic, and really isn't useful in conversation). Your argument bases on the belief that only adults should vote. You're having another argument. We are arguing whether minors should vote. We'll argue over what the age is seperating child from adult later.

I think that everyone should have the right to vote, regardless of their age, race, etc. If they're a a U.S. citizen, then they should be able to vote. That's why voting exists in the first place, so that EVERYONE can decide as a whole, who they want as a governor, president, etc.

So as to avoid thread jacking, here is the appropriate thread for minor's right to vote.

Throughout the history of our nation, the conditions for eligibility to vote has gone through a few changes. Right now, the age of 18 is considered the 'medium' between people who HAVE matured mentally and people who have NOT matured mentally. Because everyone is different to some degree, this is the best age, so far, that has been decided as mature enough to vote. If you think children younger than that should vote, bring it up with your representative and tell them you think 13 year olds should vote.

If you truly think 13 years of age should be old enough to vote, consider some of the teen idols we've seen and the popularity of said idols, then consider the number of voting adults compared to the number of teens that would vote simply because it's britney or kid rock.


the point has been made.

This is one of the best and most well thought out things I've seen you post. Very convincing, and well put.
I've made my case to a few representatives, but I don't think they read what I wrote based on their responses. They retorted with the points debunked by the article I posted in the OP. I was disappointed to say the least.
I hate to play the "yes but look at the other side doing that too" game, but adults seem to glorify and laude names like Britney and Paris.

I invite you to read the article in the OP. It changed my mind on the issue once upon a time.

consider the 28th amendment to the constitution

Amend. 28: All american citizens, upon reaching the age of 16, shall have the right to receive either a Lamborghini, Ferrari, or Porsche Carrera paid for by the public treasury and said vehicle shall be insured for the life of said citizen and will be immune from any traffic violations or citations.

I would hope that it go a little more something like this:
...to paraphrase one of my favorite amendments.

I do believe that the driving age is, if anything, too young. I'd like to see 18 be the driving age and the ability to get a license a bit more difficult. The right to travel, not drive, is ours. The right to vote is ours.

I would think you give teenagers too much credit. As politically knowledgable as I am and try to teach my kids, they don't care. They'd happily vote themselves a car, home, or free money if it meant that they could be lazy shits.

I have no faith in anyone under 18 unless they can personally show me some maturity. They may actually have it, but i'm not willing to give them the right to vote due to their peers.

Though it's painful to admit, you could have just as easily described most adults. Most adults don't care about politics. They'd happily vote themselves tax breaks, etc. if it meant they could be lazy. I do feel that assigning this description to minors alone is dishonest. Adults are very much like that, too.
While I'd love to see more maturity from both adults and teenagers, the reality is that maturity isn't a prerequisite to vote. Just like intelligence isn't a prerequisite. Nor is morality. The right to vote is a shared right by all, leaving them the opportunity to vote as they please and for their own reasons. Many people voted for Bush because they thought he would protect them. All of my huffing and puffing couldn't prevent them from feeling this way, and despite all the evidence to the contrary they voted away. Whether you think that Bush won fair and square or not, no one can deny that the man was voted for by many, many people. Close to 50%, even. That communicates to me that voting is no longer something reasonable or mature, necessarily.

Why do you think the radical left wants them to vote so badly?

They can't convince enough adults so they gotta go for those who haven't even had a job yet :thumbsup:

I guess you didn't read the OP, either. Too bad.

Sheltering yourself from information so that you won't be proven wrong is something that could be associated with immaturity, ironically. Of course, I don't think you're immature, so it's confusing when you make posts like this.

Sorry Will but the agenda is obvious and has been.

I hear the same argument against efforts to enforce voting rights abuses against blacks and hispanics.

Are you making the case that the radical right wants to leave voting to old white men like yourself?

So, let me get this straight, this quote comes from the trying a 14 year old as an adult thread, and you want to allow someone who's brain isn't fully developed the ability to vote?

We let stupid people vote all the time (again, thus Bush). Why would we not allow someone to vote because their brain isn't exactly the same as an adult?

The main differences between adolescent and adult brains have to do with impulse control, but that doesn't necessarily suspend reasoning skills. And, AGAIN, we have adults with that same issue and they're not kept from voting.

I like our current system. It works good enough.

The decline of the voting population has nothing to do with age. Is apathy.

Maybe lowered to 16 for drinking and smoking cowboy killers.

Voting for 16 year olds? Please.

I don't want Hillary Duff on the ballot.

There's nothing to suggest minors would throw their votes away. Looking at the past 7 years? Adults have no fucking clue.

so will, are you suggesting that we should have some sort of literacy and comprehension test for everyone to determine eligibility to vote?

Yes, but we pay taxes.

The opposite, in fact. While it's unfortunate that some people don't do a lot of research or think at all before they vote, it's their right. So when people would disqualify minors for reasons such as they are ignorant of politics or vote frivolously, they would also be disqualifying adults.

My complaint is with the double standard.

I've paid income taxes since I was 15 and sales tax since I was maybe 5. I didn't get to vote until I was 18.

That is you as an example. How many kids today actually have jobs?

I won't ref it, but rumor has it teen employment has dropped in the last few years.

The job market is weak for young adults, but they all pay sales taxes.

So do illegal aliens.

Minors aren't here illegally. They are citizens. I see that as the difference.

Alright, let's say that minors can vote.

How do you discriminate the 12 year olds that can't vote from the 13 year olds that can?

Where does it stop?

...

Joke:

"Politicians of This Thread's Future: Instead of sucking the voter dick, they'll pass out lollipops and XBox 360s!"

They can all vote.

Joke: What about an unwanted fetus before I abort it?

Can it thud once for Hillary and twice for Obama?

But who was responsible for you until then?

Depends. If you mean responsible for my work, be it at my job or at school, or chores and such? Me. If you mean if I commit a crime, then my parents. Hardly black and white.

Just wanted you to consider that kids are subjects of their parents, which is one reason why they don't vote: Kids' parents vote on their behalf.

Personally I think the voting age should be the same as driving age: 16. If you give someone the privilege to operate a motor vehicle in public, they should be responsible enough to vote. They should teach more about politics in high school.

I don't know about you, but my parents never asked me who I wanted to vote for. And to be honest, I never would have voted for Dole. He was an idiot.
There we go! Now we're talking. When I was back in high school I asked my teachers why no one in public schools could vote to fund them. They either greeted me with blank faces or BS answers that were pretty insulting. I could live with 16.

That's the thing. I doubt most parents would consult with their children regarding investments or life insurance, either--or whether it was fine time to re-shingle the house. Parents do many things on behalf of their children because they are responsible for them in a way that makes the children subjects as opposed to individuals free to do what they want. Medicine and education is a whole other ballgame.

We should start treating people in high school as adults, because when they leave, that's what they are. Why high school doesn't cover more of life's essentials, I don't know. They should teach both politics and finance in high school.

I'm inclined to give childrens the vote, but I don't think our society allows for autonomy for childrens. I can imagine myself as a child, knowing I could vote in secrecy, but still feeling sick to my stomach if I didn't vote for who my dad "suggested" I vote for. It's the article's last point of the four, then, that makes all-age voting something to avoid. Even if the household's position was never discussed openly, it's difficult to imagine that the values of the household wouldn't influence the child's vote. And thus, I see the breeders breeding political allies, whether they know it or not.

This discussion has a lot of back and forth, as in, "kids aren't mature enough to vote," which is then countered with "adults aren't mature enough to vote," which is actually true, but doesn't really get us anywhere in debate, because when will that ever change?

Our political systems are based on taxpayers voting for those who spend our tax money. So, and this is an honest question, does every current voter have to be a taxpayer? If you're unemployed are you now unable to vote?

If you gave a kid 1000 dollars do any of you think they would make smart choices on what to do with it? Odds are they would have a stack of Pokemon cards and then starve.

Kids are stupid.

Terrible idea.

"VOTE FOR BUSH OR YOU ARE GROUNDED" comes the battle cry from the parents.

How many children do you think would (dare to) vote differently than their parents? All it would accomplish is diluting the voting pool, and encouraging more people to pop out 50 babies so they can all vote for the same candidate as the parents.

Adults cannot have their food, shelter, schooling and entertainment denied by their boss because they voted for the "wrong" person. Nor can CNN discipline you or tell you how bad you are for doing so. PARENTS can do it to their CHILDREN, though.

I would only support allowing children who sustain themselves independently (emancipated minors) to vote before the age of 18.

The same can be said of many adults. I went to high school with a few people who might blow it on lottery tickets.
How is that any different than a pastor telling people to vote for Bush? Should congregates from those churches have their votes not counted?
No one is reading the OP, and it's pissing me off. Here is an excerpt:
And how will parents know who their child voted for? You've voted before (I hope), you know that one person goes up at a time and votes in an area that's not visible to the public. In other words, there is no way for them to see who the child is voting for.

Will: You're confusing disagreement with some sort of misunderstanding or some sort of inability to "grasp" your point.

I get it, really clearly. Your (and the quoted OP) position in simple form is that "Well, because adults are stupid and easily biased and children generally vote the same way their parents did when they grow up, why not let children vote?"

I get it. I really do. I understand your premise, but I do not agree that it follows. It's an argumentum ad populum, and it's really a problem becuase you're basically saying that it's bad, but since it's bad already, what harm will be done by introducing another bad thing?

Do you honestly believe that increasing the number of uninformed and strongly biased voters will HELP the voting pool? You acknowledge that there is a dramatic problem with under education and bias, and then you posit that we should ADD undereducated and biased MINORS to the pool of potential voters?

And to address your quoted passage, since you think I didn't read it. I read it, but I disagreed on the sentence level and thought it a bit pedantic to pull it apart sentence by sentence.

This premise is unsourced, and for good reason. How does he know this? How is "greater autonomy and responsibility" defined? How much autonomy do they need before they're less likely to be influenced by adults? How do we know they'd even be more likely? Has he done a study on this? Has anyone? Otherwise, it's a conclusion in absense of fact.

"Probably"? He used probably becuase he doesn't know, and neither do I. I'd assume that young children would not be able to value their own judgement, and would likely NOT grow in independence in the absense of parental influence. But since we're both making assumptions in absense of fact, I'm allowed to think that his is wrong.

How does he know this? This is an argument about the future, and about a situation which has never occured. How do we know that coercion would less likely? Or that it would be frowned upon? For this to be true we have to make a lot of assumptions about the "good" nature of humanity, and believe that it holds true always, particularly in politics, where lots of money and lots of ego are involved. And even if it were "frowned upon," how does this prevent it from occuring? Having sex before marriage is "frowned upon" by a lot of people, but it still fucking (pun intended) happens.

This is a ridiculous point that he makes, and seemingly one you support:

Children are NOT good at keeping secrets, especially from their parents. It doesn't "ensure" anything, and it doesn't mean that "no adult" could discover the choice. I doubt many children would not tell their parent who they voted for when threatened with "no supper" or being grounded for a week.

The difference between autonomous adults (no matter how ignorant you think they are [I agree]) and children is that our government cannot suspend the following rights:

Unlawful search
Unlawful detain
False imprisonment
Denial of due process
Denial of free speech
Denial of ...

The list goes on.

The government can't, but parents are allowed to do just about whatever they want to control their children, short of physical abuse. It's a long list. And I think it's a good thing, by the way. Without these controls, there would be a general neutering of parental ability.

Not really. I honestly think that getting teens to vote would provide them reason to pay attention in civics and government courses, considering it's they that might help decide in major issues that effect them. Imagine if teens were able to vote against Bush to end the war so they could join the military without having to go to Iraq. Wouldn't that be spectacular? Or, something I've mentioned above, imagine what public schools would look like if kids could allocate funds via voting so that their textbooks don't talk about a moon landing in the future tense and talk about the women's rights movement to be a success instead of a fad. Heaven forbid that kids get the opportunity to effect the world in which they live and learn some responsibility.
It's not bad that every adult (sans convicts) citizen can vote. It's a good thing. It allows the concerns of the many to be addressed instead of the few. If only people who had an IQ over 130 could vote or only people who got over a B in government in high school could vote, how would the poor or downtrodden defend themselves? The point is that because it's right to allow every adult to vote because they're citizens, it should be right to allow minors to vote. It's a positive thing. The thing is that people keep bringing up exclusion points that are just as applicable to adults. "If they let kids vote, they'd vote in Hillary Duff" could be replaced with "If they let adults vote, they'd vote in George Cloony". It really doesn't make any sense. Hillary Duff isn't over 35, and there's no way she could get on any ticket.
Undereducated? They're learning in school now what most voters learned years ago and have since forgotten. I'd say that they could potentially be more informed than their adult counterparts. I was better to prepared to vote at 16 than both my parents (one of whom actually voted for Bush, and has since been disowned).
I believe it's from a book. Influence from adults will always be there to a point, but can you really look back at when you were 16 and 17 and say you'd vote for whomever your parents said? I mean some kids are just as likely to vote against what their parents say out of spite as a part of their individuation process (learning to become an individual often means rebellion against one's parents).
He's a psychologist, so the expertise comes into play.
Children are fantastic at keeping secrets, especially from their parents. Short of admission, the parent cannot get the information any more than I can go online and find who you voted for in 2004. I have no clue where you get the idea that children are poor liars, and more so I have no clue as to why you'd think that so many parents would try to force their child to vote for someone. Why do you think the average parent would do that when the average parent doesn't even vote? Total turnout in the US 2004 elections was 123,535,883. There were 221,285,099 voting age adult citizens in the US in 2004.
Kids can't be unlawfully anything because "unlawful" means against the law. Children cannot be denied due process, cannot be falsely imprisoned, and in many cases can be covered by free speech and religion, though they should be covered completely.

They ALREADY have that reason! After they're 18, they're given the opportuniy to "help decide major issues that effect them." A lot of high school seniors are already 18, so I'm not sure what moving it back a few years would really accomplish is increasing attention span in school. That's an entirely different issue, one related more to poor parenting than when they get to vote, in my opinion. I paid attention in my civics and government classes, and it had nothing to do with how soon I'd be able to vote. Add in the fact that major elections are on two/four year intervals, and you'd basically be providing nothing they won't get when they graduate, anyway.

It becomes more and more clear that you want this becuase you really wish that Bush hadn't been elected. I'm totally with you, but I think that you'd actually make the situation worse. Conservative families typically have many more children (Bible belt, anyone?)

I don't think knowing that there are three branches of the government, "checks and balances," and two Houses of Congress really does much to "inform" voters on the issues. I don't see how things learned in school about the Gov of the US really change political opinion at all.

No, but I was raised in a family that valued individual opinion and expression. I'm not naive enough to believe that this is common, or even close to the majority. Ask Fred Phelp's family if they'd vote the same way their Daddy does.

That's great, except this is a sociological concern and not a pyschological concern. I really don't see how any expertise in the world could help tell us how future people will behave in a society. It's a guess. Maybe an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless.

Says who? Did you just make this up, becuase you thought you were good at keeping secrets from YOUR parentS? You've got to consider the massive amount of people you're talking about, and how different they all are.

Becuase I don't live in the vacuum that you seem to think this idea will be implemented in. It's much more sensible t believe that parents will attempt to manipulate their children then not. What if, for argument's sake, you conceded that all parents would maliciously manipulate their children to exact a vote in their favor. Can't you see how terrible that would be? If you then work backwards out in percentages, what percent of parents would have to be doing it for it to still be a bad idea?

You didn't live in my house. Being locked in your room without dinner for being a "bad boy," and not being allowed to leave until you apologize is a denial of due process, and is imprisonment. My freedom of movement is denied, as are .. well, the rest of my Consitutional rights. A minor child is considered in the custody of parents at all times, and ALL of their Constitutional rights can be suspended by that parent at any time, provided no direct mental or physical abuse can be demonstrated.

What would it accomplish? How about multiplying high school voters by as much as 8? Having also paid attention in civics and government, I found that throughout history people have had power taken away from them by more powerful forces and that a democracy, or in our case a democratic constitutional republic, is intended to ensure that everyone can take part in being responsible for their nation.
I made this decision long before Bush was elected. It came to me originally when I was in middleschool and I realized that only people outside of schools were allowed to vote on school funding. My citing presidential decisions was and is only to show that the argument that children should vote because they may vote irresponsibly is a double standard. I would want them to have the opportunity to vote responsibly instead of taking their opportunity because they may not.
I had a few good teachers. They didn't just teach me the bare-bone facts, they shared modern politics. There were some very important lessons to be learned.
Fortunately for everyone, there is only one Fred Phelps. Yes, some parents might make some effort to influence their child's voting, hypothetically, but to what degree would that assumption be reasonable? How many parents do you know that would actively seek to force their child to vote for someone or something? I can't think of any.
Child psychology and an understanding of the family unit is of pinnacle importance to the issue.
You mean like going to school and taking whole classes on child psychology? Lying is an easy way to deal with the demands that parents and other authority figures put on them without having to do the honest work. A such, it starts at a young age, and can continue on into and even past adolescence. The longer one lies to someone, the better that they usually become. As such, it's not unreasonable to assume that teenagers will already have the experience of lying to their parents that's necessary to get away with it. And without corroboration, or any clues as to whom the child voted for, the parent will just have to take the child at his or her word.
Not being fed as punishment is considered to be child abuse, and your parents could have gotten in trouble for that. I hardly see how soldiers being quartered or getting unfair bail could have possibly been done by your parents. You're being melodramatic.

sorry you pulled that multiplying voters number 8 out of your ass.

Sorry you missed the "as much as" because you were so excited to write "ass". I don't blame you, it's a fun word.

So you are saying they SHOULD be tried as adults? :D

Seriously the radical lefts desire on this is simple. They want more easy to influence voters who their unrealistic policies sound good to, and no group is easier to influence in this regard than children who have absolutely no idea who the economy works.

Wrap it as you like Will, but the goal is a more leftest government through the use of children.

Its not voter rights is exploitation.

Edit:And I'll add letting children decide school funding? :lol:

No, as much as... so even 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Any of those numbers, you've pulled them out of your ass. In other words, you have NO IDEA what the hell you are saying about how much it multiplies anything.

Actually I did have to go back to two posts in each thread to clarify my position seeing as how these two stances are seemingly in opposition. To be totally clear, teenagers should be able to vote because they aren't represented in government, but they should be judged based on their development, and few 14 year olds have the cognitive developments of their adult counterparts.
I'm not with anyone. I'm representing my own beliefs, and that have nothing to do with exploiting anyone. As for unrealistic policies, I believe that the right has that market in a monopoly right now. The left could present legislation to put a man on the sun and it'd look tame in comparison to our foreign policy, economic policy, and the million and one other things that have gone to hell in the past 7 years. Bu why pay attention to that when you can bash the left for... um... well nothing really.
There's no warping, and your telepathic abilities leave much to be desired. What I find hilarious, though, is that you post things like this:
You, Ustwo, have become a conspiracy theorist, and not a very good one at that. At least I present evidence. You sit there barking unfounded assumptions.

Yes.

So de facto you are saying that people with lower cognitive abilities would be disenfanchised by your system of allowing this "judged based on their development" and NEVER be allowed to vote since you've removed the age requirement.

I don't know how I can simplify the terms any more than I did, so I'll have to change them.

Would you shoot someone who is mentally retarded in the face if he took something from your house? No? Why not? Is it because they may not have known any better? There you have it, so far as the trying a child as an adult thread.

Did you know that mentally disabled people can vote? There you go.

????? What are you teaching koans via yoda?

You've lost me.

And you've lost me.