NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently my proposal on page 1 reads:
"When you are 16, you are old enough to pay taxes, old enough to drive(In many nations), old enough to die for your country,l old enough to get married and old enough to make a significant change to your community. So If you are old enough to do these things why are you not allowed to vote? Belmorian Scandinavia asks all nations to vote for this resolution to as to ensure a fair and equal voting age."

Can I have some feedback from you guys on how you think it could be improved or why you have/have not endorsed it.

Thanks,
The Belmore Family

If I was a Delegate, I would have approved it.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

If I was a Delegate, I would have approved it.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Thank You.

If I was a Delegate, I would have approved it.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Thank You.

If I was a Delegate, I would have approved it.As would I

Because 16 year olds tend to lack the maturity to do so?

Because 16 year olds tend to lack the maturity to do so?

Because 16 year olds tend to lack the maturity to do so?
I disagree, I believe the 16 year olds lacking the maturity will not vote whereas those who acctually support a party because they agree with whatr the party stand for will vote sensibly and with the maturity of an adult.

If we change the voting age to 16, then why not 15 or 12.

Its really more related to the fact that they want the voting public to understand and comprehend what they are voting for.

They feel i a HS education is needed for this to happen.

Since at 18 you should be already out of HS then that is the logical age.

We have approved your proposal and will vote for it if it reaches the floor.

Confederacy of the Isles Region UN Delegate
Hung Tony

Because 16 year olds tend to lack the maturity to do so?
I disagree, I believe the 16 year olds lacking the maturity will not vote whereas those who acctually support a party because they agree with whatr the party stand for will vote sensibly and with the maturity of an adult.

When you grant suffrage to 16 year olds you are effectively granting their majority... I don't know about you but most 16 year olds I know don't have the mental ability to spell majority let alone use it responsibly.

Because 16 year olds tend to lack the maturity to do so?
I disagree, I believe the 16 year olds lacking the maturity will not vote whereas those who acctually support a party because they agree with whatr the party stand for will vote sensibly and with the maturity of an adult.

When you grant suffrage to 16 year olds you are effectively granting their majority... I don't know about you but most 16 year olds I know don't have the mental ability to spell majority let alone use it responsibly.
So what bad could happen?

Do you play online games [other than Nation States]?

If not do... then you will see what I mean

Well, to have to pay taxes without having the vote is taxation without representation, so yes, I'd give 16 year olds the vote. Also, look at the arguments against suffrage at 16. These are all the same arguments as were given a century ago to prevent women from voting. I'd be suprised if in 20 years time 16 year olds had nothing to do on election day. Oh, and Dancing Leprechauns, have you ever asked those around the age of 16 about politics? I have, and they show amazing maturity. You don't have to know how to spell majority to know what a nation needs.

Your argument assumes every nation is exactly like yours:

"When you are 16, you are old enough to pay taxes,
Ithuania has no taxex.
old enough to drive(In many nations),
Driving age in Ithuania depends on what whoever owns the particular road in question decides.


Etc., etc.

Basically, not every nation is like yours. Hell, some nations don't even have elections. This is a decision best left to the discretion of each nation independently. If you want to do something that makes 16 the age of majority across the board, that's fine. But to make a proposal setting one particular age requirement and basing your argument for that proposal on things that are blatantly not true for all nations is not a good idea.

Your argument assumes every nation is exactly like yours:

"When you are 16, you are old enough to pay taxes,
Ithuania has no taxex.
old enough to drive(In many nations),
Driving age in Ithuania depends on what whoever owns the particular road in question decides.


Etc., etc.

Basically, not every nation is like yours. Hell, some nations don't even have elections. This is a decision best left to the discretion of each nation independently. If you want to do something that makes 16 the age of majority across the board, that's fine. But to make a proposal setting one particular age requirement and basing your argument for that proposal on things that are blatantly not true for all nations is not a good idea.

I think we're all missing one big point here: the purpose of approving proposals is to make sure that we aren't voting on stupid things like compulsory mullets. I support a vote on the suffrage at 16 issue, not because I agree with it, but because I think it's worthy of a vote by all UN members.

I agree with my esteemed colleague Ithuania. While I personally believe that 16 is the best age for a nation to adopt as the official age of majority, having it at some other age doesn't interfere with individual rights and therefore is not a United Nations issue.

Because 16 year olds tend to lack the maturity to do so?

Agree 100%. In fact, many 20-somethings lack the maturity. As unpopular as it may be, the right to vote in Panhandlia is more of a privilege, and while we don't have a Poll Tax, we do require potential voters to have completed High School (and that means passing a comprehensive academic attitude test before the end of the 12th grade.)

This ensures that the potential voter has the maturity and mental capacity to understand the choices he or she is being asked to make.

Is this unfair to the uneducated? Yes, but life in general is tough for the uneducated. Is it unfair to working teenagers? Yes, and that is too bad.

I agree with my esteemed colleague Ithuania. While I personally believe that 16 is the best age for a nation to adopt as the official age of majority, having it at some other age doesn't interfere with individual rights and therefore is not a United Nations issue.

One more point I agree with.

I am seeing too many proposals that seem meant more for feel-good purposes, than for actual pressing world-wide issues.

How could such a topic be a matter for the UN?

A large amount of nations if not the majority have no elections!

Such matters are purely for nations NOT the UN.

Therefore 'We are all Humanoids' could not possibly support such a proposal!

How could such a topic be a matter for the UN?

A large amount of nations if not the majority have no elections!

Such matters are purely for nations NOT the UN.

Therefore 'We are all Humanoids' could not possibly support such a proposal!

Great point...leave the UN for matters that actually affect all nations.

Because in some countries you are not allowed to vote at all!! :P

But nice secret try ;).

But try to make a difference between nation policy and world policy. Also try to make a difference between the nation IRL you live and the rest of the world.

I didn't read the whole discussion but only the first message.
Your argumentation seems reasonable however, I persume you already implemented it in your own nation. Maybe you should make an issue about it and send it in.

How could such a topic be a matter for the UN?

A large amount of nations if not the majority have no elections!

Such matters are purely for nations NOT the UN.

Therefore 'We are all Humanoids' could not possibly support such a proposal!

Not just not support. It practically should be removed by the moderators. :P It makes a lot of issues in the game illegal :D.

recomended ages of consent:
11 for sex and vote
15 for mutualy binding legal contracts
17 for recreational autoanesthisis
25 for military service
35 for driving a motor vehicule

=^^=
.../\...

Catholic Europe supports this proposal as we believe that 16 is a mature enough age to make such a decision. Also, 16 year olds are able to do many things that any other adult can do - even do full time work, so why do they not have the vote?

Hmmmm, because maybe at a later age they will be better at it?

And old enough to work.....pfff they are old enoug to work when they are six.....sweating over things to learn :P.

recomended ages of consent:
11 for sex and vote
15 for mutualy binding legal contracts
17 for recreational autoanesthisis
25 for military service
35 for driving a motor vehicule

=^^=
.../\...

I'd say Puberty for sex
16 as legal age of majority (driving, vote, binding contracts, military, etc.)

There shouldn't be a drug at all. That just increases drug abuse by kids. The US is the only western country with a legal age for alcohol. We're also the country with teh biggest alcohol problems because of that.

About the alcohol thing...that's not entirely true--most other Western nations have a legal age for alcohol, it's just lower than in the US.

The carefully-planned civilization of the Logarchy would be intensely disrupted by this proposal. Our children become part of the military when we have determined that the course of channeled violence is best suited for them. It is our view that "the wisest rule"- is a 16 year old truly wise? Our voting age is carefully planned into our society based on the needs of the people. Do not support this proposal, as it would adversely affect our society and bring disharmony to a harmonious whole.

Because 16 year olds tend to lack the maturity to do so?
I disagree, I believe the 16 year olds lacking the maturity will not vote whereas those who acctually support a party because they agree with whatr the party stand for will vote sensibly and with the maturity of an adult.

When you grant suffrage to 16 year olds you are effectively granting their majority... I don't know about you but most 16 year olds I know don't have the mental ability to spell majority let alone use it responsibly.
So what bad could happen?

A lot, bogus parties with no experience in running a country could be elected for trival reasons, etc. Many older voters now vote not based on politics, but for trival reasons. Teens are less mature, and therefore, less likely to vote based on politics and party platforms. Therefore, you'll have parties choosen not for their beleifs or platforms, but for which one had the coolest music in their commercial, who looks the hottest, etc. Teens are simply not mature enough to vote.

(OOC: In one of the last elections in my province, a small group created a "Pot Party" and ran in the election. They didn't really care about any of the important issues or politics, all they really cared about was getting into power so they could legalize pot. They lost the election, big time, don't think they got even a single seat in the legislature. Thank god too... Tons of teens though, who were thankfully not old enough to vote, loved this party, why? Because they all wanted to get stoned without getting in trouble. Imagine where the province would be today if all those teens could have voted, and the "pot party" won. (although, it probably wouldn't have been worse than Gordon Campbell, but that's another story... :lol: ))

So you're saying that sixteen year olds should not be able to choose who runs the country, even though they are allowed to join the military and die for their country.

So you're saying that sixteen year olds should not be able to choose who runs the country, even though they are allowed to join the military and die for their country.

Yes.

Although they don't so much choose, per se... They're more assigned, in our case.

OOC: IRL, I would hold off a lot of things until 18. The right to vote, minimum age for death penalty (although I'd try to ban that, too), being charged as an adult, joining the military, pretty much anything that restricts rights or grants unnecessary privileges.

wisedom, like puberty, does not begin at a fixed and absolute age
i was perhapse not being totaly serious in all of that, 11 being
in my experience and average age for puberty to begin.
wisedom develops in those who develop an interest in and motivation
toward it in early adolescence. in everyone else of course it develps
much later, and i would estimate that in a very large number of humans
perhapse as high as 40 percent (possibly even higher) it never
actualy develops at all.
so in otherwords those who are going do develop wisedom will generaly
do so well before reaching legal majority
while those who have not done so by then
are not greatly more likely to in another ten years or even twenty

there is no magical age at which anyone ceases to be gullable
if anything gullability is the one true human nature if there
even is any such thing other then the desire to express ourselves
creatively.
it only appears to diminish over time with the aquasition through
experience of raw data. there is no guarantee anyone will learn
from their experiences and many patently do not.
the only disadvantage of youth is having had less time to aquire it.

(the ignorant and the youthful do seem to have demonstrated an
unfortunate propensity for voting more pseudoconservatively/pro-
aggressively. this may however be something of a cultural phenomina.
while we are uncertain as to it's origen we remain unwilling to take
at face value assumptions popular
in our ooc/mundain world's ambient culture)

(p.s. with proper training and certifications persons under the
age of 35 can and do opperate the little trains, we do not have a
standing army and the private passinger automobile does not exist)

=^^=
.../\...

Whoever said that 16 year olds lack the maturaity and that 18 year olds would be better fit, all I have to say to you is i am 17 years old another one of my friends is the same age, we know more about politics than most 18 year olds. Just because of the stereotypes people think that 16 year olds aren't mature. I think you need to rethink what you are posting here. Don't just think of a small minority think of everybody in that age group most people would love to vote and have plotical knowledge.

Whoever said that 16 year olds lack the maturaity and that 18 year olds would be better fit, all I have to say to you is i am 17 years old another one of my friends is the same age, we know more about politics than most 18 year olds. Just because of the stereotypes people think that 16 year olds aren't mature. I think you need to rethink what you are posting here. Don't just think of a small minority think of everybody in that age group most people would love to vote and have plotical knowledge.
I have to concur.

How sweet sixteen is.....but I do not agree that people of sixteen should be able to vote at all. I was sixteen once and looking back just a few years ago I don't think I was not ready to vote at all even though I was very informed of political affairs. The truth is that most sixteen year olds are still living with Mom and Dad in their own family-friend-inner circle bubble. To really be a person capable of making decisions that would affect the entire populus, even in an in-direct way, people have to be independent and on their own for a little while. Looking at your check from work and looking at what taxes are, or learning how to drive really well will, after a while, creates a more rounded person.

To make government decisions, people really have to be able to understand what the world is like. Eighteen year olds can scarcly do this as it is. While sixteen year olds do have some benefits in society, like the privilage to drive, it doesn't mean that they can have all of them, including the 'right' to vote.

:arrow: Basically, we need well-informed, well-rounded and more experienced people to make important decisions that are done by voting. Sixteen year olds don't have the capacity to do that quite yet.

lets face it who wants 16 year old to be able to vote except maybe 16 year olds and perhaps 17 year olds. I SAY NO :!:

lets face it who wants 16 year old to be able to vote except maybe 16 year olds and perhaps 17 year olds. I SAY NO :!:
*Considers halting the explanation of the World Cup*

TBH, what bad could happen with an extra 2% of the population voting?

lets face it who wants 16 year old to be able to vote except maybe 16 year olds and perhaps 17 year olds. I SAY NO :!:
*Considers halting the explanation of the World Cup*

TBH, what bad could happen with an extra 2% of the population voting?

The Belmore Family, read my post above. There is a lot of bad things that could happen.

lets face it who wants 16 year old to be able to vote except maybe 16 year olds and perhaps 17 year olds. I SAY NO :!:
*Considers halting the explanation of the World Cup*

TBH, what bad could happen with an extra 2% of the population voting?

The Belmore Family, read my post above. There is a lot of bad things that could happen.
Do you think that all 16 year olds have that mentality? I am much younger than 18 and I have a clear political standing. I would trust myself with the vote.

On another note should we ban 40 year olds because most alcholics are of that age (In most nations), no! Surely you can see where I am coming from....

lets face it who wants 16 year old to be able to vote except maybe 16 year olds and perhaps 17 year olds. I SAY NO :!:
*Considers halting the explanation of the World Cup*

TBH, what bad could happen with an extra 2% of the population voting?

The Belmore Family, read my post above. There is a lot of bad things that could happen.
Do you think that all 16 year olds have that mentality? I am much younger than 18 and I have a clear political standing. I would trust myself with the vote.

On another note should we ban 40 year olds because most alcholics are of that age (In most nations), no! Surely you can see where I am coming from....

Your analogy (sp?) doesn't work. Teens with a clear understanding of politics make up a VAST Minority, it's extremely rare. The VAST Majority of teens are not mature enough to be trusted with a vote. This is where your analogy is wrong, alcholics make up the minority of 40 year olds, yet teens who are not mature enough to vote make up a VAST Majority of all teens.

As I pointed out in my first post, youth are much more likely to vote for "frindge" parties (if you want to call them that, I'll use it for lack of better word) because they do not have an understanding of true politics. These "Frindge" parties have a very closed-minded agenda, they have one thing they want to do, one opinion on one issue, and that's all. Many have no real experience in politics or running a country. They run in elections because they believe that if they get in power, they can complete their goals quickly. They rarly, if even ever, have plans beyond that goal. They appeal more to youth for a number of reasons:
-understanding their intent, beliefs, and plateform is easier
-they are normally set up by younger people (20's-30's range)
-they take advantage of current pop culture to get votes more often then major parties
-many of them focus on an issue that youth are interested in (such as the "pot party" in BC, Canada, as shown in the OOC part of my first post)

On a more personal note, you may think you understand politics, but you probably don't. Don't take it personally, many teens believe this, I did when I was younger. Now that I'm older, events and politics has more of an effect on my daliy life, so I have learned more. I have also taken political science in college. I look back on what I thought at your age now, and realise I knew nothing. The same will likely happen to you as you grow older.

16 is just too young to vote. Further more, I believe that 18 is even too young to vote. Teens just don't have enough real world experience to vote, they don't feel the effects of politics on their lives like the rest of us, because it doesn't effect their lives so much as it does for adults. Plain and simple, teens shouldn't be allowed to vote.

lets face it who wants 16 year old to be able to vote except maybe 16 year olds and perhaps 17 year olds. I SAY NO :!:
*Considers halting the explanation of the World Cup*

TBH, what bad could happen with an extra 2% of the population voting?

The Belmore Family, read my post above. There is a lot of bad things that could happen.
Do you think that all 16 year olds have that mentality? I am much younger than 18 and I have a clear political standing. I would trust myself with the vote.

On another note should we ban 40 year olds because most alcholics are of that age (In most nations), no! Surely you can see where I am coming from....

Your analogy (sp?) doesn't work. Teens with a clear understanding of politics make up a VAST Minority, it's extremely rare. The VAST Majority of teens are not mature enough to be trusted with a vote. This is where your analogy is wrong, alcholics make up the minority of 40 year olds, yet teens who are not mature enough to vote make up a VAST Majority of all teens.

As I pointed out in my first post, youth are much more likely to vote for "frindge" parties (if you want to call them that, I'll use it for lack of better word) because they do not have an understanding of true politics. These "Frindge" parties have a very closed-minded agenda, they have one thing they want to do, one opinion on one issue, and that's all. Many have no real experience in politics or running a country. They run in elections because they believe that if they get in power, they can complete their goals quickly. They rarly, if even ever, have plans beyond that goal. They appeal more to youth for a number of reasons:
-understanding their intent, beliefs, and plateform is easier
-they are normally set up by younger people (20's-30's range)
-they take advantage of current pop culture to get votes more often then major parties
-many of them focus on an issue that youth are interested in (such as the "pot party" in BC, Canada, as shown in the OOC part of my first post)

On a more personal note, you may think you understand politics, but you probably don't. Don't take it personally, many teens believe this, I did when I was younger. Now that I'm older, events and politics has more of an effect on my daliy life, so I have learned more. I have also taken political science in college. I look back on what I thought at your age now, and realise I knew nothing. The same will likely happen to you as you grow older.

16 is just too young to vote. Further more, I believe that 18 is even too young to vote. Teens just don't have enough real world experience to vote, they don't feel the effects of politics on their lives like the rest of us, because it doesn't effect their lives so much as it does for adults. Plain and simple, teens shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I see your point but most teens I know fall into the catergories in politics

Clear Political Views
Couldn't give a damn


Now, you say that the people in the second catergory will all go out and vote for "frindge" parties. But I disagree, those who couldn't give a damn would not be bothered to go out and vote. I expect if you asked 1000 teens the question
"If you had the oppertunity to vote, would you go out and vote."
I expect about 300 of those will say no. Because people, and teenagers in particular are lazy. So only those who care will go out and vote.

Also (Sorry if this sounds egotistical), My political standing is pretty clear. I am a member of the Liberal Demorcrats and a strong believer in the prevailence of the left. I am probally quite unusual that I am active in polotics at a young age and I have a political stance that should be heard!

It really depends on the nation you belong to. For example the Dictatorship of Benicius does not currently hold elections, so it really does not matter how old you are haha.

But seriously, the age for everything such as voting, marriage etc should be 18. As many have pointed out, 16 year olds are not mature enough as a generalisation. Though I would argue the maturity of some 50 year olds that is a totally separate debate.

We want educated voters and at 16 people are still children undertaking their education.

Besides, democracy is overrated. Why bother voting when someone is here to tell you what to do? If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Heil Benicius!
Undersecretary to the Minister for Propaganda and Enlightenment.
Dictatorship of Benicius.

lets face it who wants 16 year old to be able to vote except maybe 16 year olds and perhaps 17 year olds. I SAY NO :!:
*Considers halting the explanation of the World Cup*

TBH, what bad could happen with an extra 2% of the population voting?

Grin....and that is how the oldies stay in power. Actually thinking like this we could year by year increase the age ;)

Has anyone got any ideas on how they think the proposal could be improved?

This is how this proposal currently stands:

"When you are 16, you are old enough to pay taxes, old enough to drive(In many nations), old enough to die for your country,l old enough to get married and old enough to make a significant change to your community. So If you are old enough to do these things why are you not allowed to vote? Belmorian Scandinavia asks all nations to vote for this resolution to as to ensure a fair and equal voting age.

Note: Dictatorships are exempt from this resolution"

This is clearly an issue to be decided by nations individually, and has no business being debated in the UN. I recommend this proposal not go to vote.

The Republic of Brunodom would be delighted to vote in favour of this legislation.

In the UK for example it is possible to get a job, smoke, get married, join the army or even have children. Many 16 year olds with such legal responsibilities placed upon them should therefore have every right to vote at this age.

I believe the age of consent should be taken as a perfectly logical age from which people should be allowed to vote.

This is clearly an issue to be decided by nations individually, and has no business being debated in the UN. I recommend this proposal not go to vote.

Agreed!

lets face it who wants 16 year old to be able to vote except maybe 16 year olds and perhaps 17 year olds. I SAY NO :!:
*Considers halting the explanation of the World Cup*

TBH, what bad could happen with an extra 2% of the population voting?

The Belmore Family, read my post above. There is a lot of bad things that could happen.
Do you think that all 16 year olds have that mentality? I am much younger than 18 and I have a clear political standing. I would trust myself with the vote.

On another note should we ban 40 year olds because most alcholics are of that age (In most nations), no! Surely you can see where I am coming from....

Your analogy (sp?) doesn't work. Teens with a clear understanding of politics make up a VAST Minority, it's extremely rare. The VAST Majority of teens are not mature enough to be trusted with a vote. This is where your analogy is wrong, alcholics make up the minority of 40 year olds, yet teens who are not mature enough to vote make up a VAST Majority of all teens.

As I pointed out in my first post, youth are much more likely to vote for "frindge" parties (if you want to call them that, I'll use it for lack of better word) because they do not have an understanding of true politics. These "Frindge" parties have a very closed-minded agenda, they have one thing they want to do, one opinion on one issue, and that's all. Many have no real experience in politics or running a country. They run in elections because they believe that if they get in power, they can complete their goals quickly. They rarly, if even ever, have plans beyond that goal. They appeal more to youth for a number of reasons:
-understanding their intent, beliefs, and plateform is easier
-they are normally set up by younger people (20's-30's range)
-they take advantage of current pop culture to get votes more often then major parties
-many of them focus on an issue that youth are interested in (such as the "pot party" in BC, Canada, as shown in the OOC part of my first post)

On a more personal note, you may think you understand politics, but you probably don't. Don't take it personally, many teens believe this, I did when I was younger. Now that I'm older, events and politics has more of an effect on my daliy life, so I have learned more. I have also taken political science in college. I look back on what I thought at your age now, and realise I knew nothing. The same will likely happen to you as you grow older.

16 is just too young to vote. Further more, I believe that 18 is even too young to vote. Teens just don't have enough real world experience to vote, they don't feel the effects of politics on their lives like the rest of us, because it doesn't effect their lives so much as it does for adults. Plain and simple, teens shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I see your point but most teens I know fall into the catergories in politics

Clear Political Views
Couldn't give a damn


Now, you say that the people in the second catergory will all go out and vote for "frindge" parties. But I disagree, those who couldn't give a damn would not be bothered to go out and vote. I expect if you asked 1000 teens the question
"If you had the oppertunity to vote, would you go out and vote."
I expect about 300 of those will say no. Because people, and teenagers in particular are lazy. So only those who care will go out and vote.

Also (Sorry if this sounds egotistical), My political standing is pretty clear. I am a member of the Liberal Demorcrats and a strong believer in the prevailence of the left. I am probally quite unusual that I am active in polotics at a young age and I have a political stance that should be heard!

Read my post agian. People in the first catagory, like yourself, may think they know a lot about politics and how it effects the world. But, plain and simple, you don't. Teens just do not have enough real world experience to know enough to make an educated vote, this includes ALL teens. It's just not possible for them to have the life experience because many political decisions do not directly effect them, and many teens have not been out in the real world long enough to know enough. 16 year olds still live at home, they do not fend for themselves, they don't pay income tax (in many nations) and a number don't even have an income (in other words, no job). They also don't have to pay for their own medical insurance, and similar things. So, sorry to say, teens, and this includes you, simply don't know enough to make an educated vote. When I was your age, I thought I knew enough too, but now I realise, I didn't. Teens just don't have enough real world experience to be trusted with the vote.

And the second catagory WILL vote for frindge groups if the frindge group appeals to them. Like the "pot party" example I gave. If 16 year olds were aloud to vote, every teen in the province would have voted, and the VAST majority would have voted for the "pot party". The "pot party" would've won the election had teens been aloud to vote, and that's a scary thing since they have 0 experience or plans for running the province, once they got pot legalized, they wouldn't care about anything else, and they wouldn't do anything. The whole province could've collapsed if they were in power, the economy would have fallen apart because they wouldn't know how to keep it from collapsing. Teens voting is a very scary prospect.

sorry, double post

Read my post agian. People in the first catagory, like yourself, may think they know a lot about politics and how it effects the world. But, plain and simple, you don't. Teens just do not have enough real world experience to know enough to make an educated vote, this includes ALL teens. It's just not possible for them to have the life experience because many political decisions do not directly effect them, and many teens have not been out in the real world long enough to know enough. 16 year olds still live at home, they do not fend for themselves, they don't pay income tax (in many nations) and a number don't even have an income (in other words, no job). They also don't have to pay for their own medical insurance, and similar things. So, sorry to say, teens, and this includes you, simply don't know enough to make an educated vote. When I was your age, I thought I knew enough too, but now I realise, I didn't. Teens just don't have enough real world experience to be trusted with the vote.

Acctually you're wrong. In ALL nations 16 year olds pay tax. Most 16 year olds have a job. You say 16 year olds may make rediculous descions but they deserve to have their views heard. We aren't as stupid as you make out that we are. You, in my opinion, are just a stubborn old man that thinks that just because we are young that we can't have views and opinions.

Your other point about teens only thinking about themselves and not how it will affect others is a pile of BS because most adults do that. When Maggie Thatcher was in power in the UK people were voting with their pockets and ignoring those such as the minors that she DESTROYED!

You must be joking.
Most of the 25 year old children I know and come into contact with are incapable of determining their own lives, let alone mine with the vote.
Mind you, I sympathise with your proposal. In the progressive state of Colinda we have entered onto the statute that 25 is when youths come of age.
25 is the minimum age for marrying (along with consent to sexual intercourse).
Although all youths have the benefits of military discipline in their teens with our compulsory military service before either work or Higher Education, they are not be allowed on active service until they have matured.
Equally, a few years free of direct taxation helps youngsters establish themselves and no one in Colinda has to pay income tax until they are at least 25 years old and earning a minimum of 50% of the national average wage.

:lol:

Read my post agian. People in the first catagory, like yourself, may think they know a lot about politics and how it effects the world. But, plain and simple, you don't. Teens just do not have enough real world experience to know enough to make an educated vote, this includes ALL teens. It's just not possible for them to have the life experience because many political decisions do not directly effect them, and many teens have not been out in the real world long enough to know enough. 16 year olds still live at home, they do not fend for themselves, they don't pay income tax (in many nations) and a number don't even have an income (in other words, no job). They also don't have to pay for their own medical insurance, and similar things. So, sorry to say, teens, and this includes you, simply don't know enough to make an educated vote. When I was your age, I thought I knew enough too, but now I realise, I didn't. Teens just don't have enough real world experience to be trusted with the vote.

Acctually you're wrong. In ALL nations 16 year olds pay tax. Most 16 year olds have a job. You say 16 year olds may make rediculous descions but they deserve to have their views heard. We aren't as stupid as you make out that we are. You, in my opinion, are just a stubborn old man that thinks that just because we are young that we can't have views and opinions.

Your other point about teens only thinking about themselves and not how it will affect others is a pile of BS because most adults do that. When Maggie Thatcher was in power in the UK people were voting with their pockets and ignoring those such as the minors that she DESTROYED!

First off, I'm not a stuborn old man, I'm a 19 year old college student. Second, yes, everyone pays taxes when they purchuse goods, I was talking about income tax, which only people over the age of majority (19 here in canada) pay. I didn't say teens think only of themselves and not of others, if you can't understand what I'm really saying, then it just proves that you're not mature enough to vote. What I said, about a hundred times now, is that Teens Do Not Have Enough Real Life Experience To Make An Educated Decision. Teens do not live on their own, they live with their parents, they do not have to support themselves, and they do not have to pay for their own health insurance, etc. You can't have an understanding of how the real world works until you are out on your own supporting yourself. Period.

Furthermore, attempting to enforce an international min. voting age would violate the political freedom of every nation in exsistance, as well as a number of international laws. This proposal should've never been written and should be left to die.

Although I agree in principle, and would probably support a NationStates campaign to publicize and encourage nations to endorse voting rights at 16, I could not support this as a UN proposal.

Why?

1. It interferes with national soverignty.
2. It is not an issue of vital importance, such as peace, the environment, non-torture conventions, etc., and as such, I do not want my citizenry taxed via UN compliance if it is voted into effect. We are taxed enough for UN issues, and it has become a large issue in my nation -- too many taxes to support the world, rather than their tax money going to support our own basic infrastructure and national improvement.

Again, based on its merits, I would be willing to support your proposal actively outside of the UN framework -- promoting it to my region (PS I am not Delegate but I am active on the region boards) and to friends in other regions, but not as a UN proposal. If you ever decide to approach the issue this way, please get in touch with me and I will make good on my word.

Thank you BTW for bothering to formulate a proposal at all, and for choosing a topic that addresses rights and fairness. Just because I can't support this one doesn't mean I won't support your next one, depending on what it is.

Sincerely,

Freelander
(Honorific of the Democratically Elected Leader of the Wailing Minds of Reiki Practitioners)

:evil: THE FREE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SILLY. 16 YEAR OLDS ARE TOO BUSY HAVEING FUN AT SCHOOL TO BE BOTHERED WITH VOTING. DO NOT PRESS THES ISSUES UPON THEM AT SUCH AN EARLY AGE. INSTEAD LET THEM WATCH AND LEARN UNTIL THEY ARE AT A SUITABLE AGE AND MATURITY TO VOTE.

WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE OF "COMPULSORY MULLETS" SHOULD BE FOREFRONT IN EVERYONES AGENDA, AS IT IS A FUNDAMENTALLY SERIOUS ISSUE.