NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it is very unfair that the government can tax you from the age of 16 and yet you get no say in how that money is spent until you are 18.
I'm 17 and will miss out on being able to vote in the election by two months. I have political opinions as do many of my friends and would like to be able to express my opinion.

edit: yes I do realise that the pol says voing instead of voting but i was in a hurry K?!

I just turned 17 about 2 months ago, and I hate it. Its taunting me. IT should be lowered.

Meh, in some backwater parts of the world you can put on a uniform and go get shot to bits in a war before you can drink a beer. In some places, the age for watching porn is 18 but the age for having sex is 16 or lower. Do you have to keep your eyes shut the whole time?

Meh, in some backwater parts of the world you can put on a uniform and go get shot to bits in a war before you can drink a beer. In some places, the age for watching porn is 18 but the age for having sex is 16 or lower. Do you have to keep your eyes shut the whole time?

Right, so lots of things are illogical and don't make sense, so we should just shut up and accept it?

I think it is very unfair that the government can tax you from the age of 16 and yet you get no say in how that money is spent until you are 18.

That is somewhat unfair - so it would be better to not have you taxed until you are of voting age. Which should either be increased to 21, or "political awareness", explaining the different types of government and politics, should be obilgatory courses in schools. And this should go FAR beyond the primitive republican-democrat viewpoint. Explaining the differences between socialism and communism & the systems used in the rest of the world would be nice for instance.

Right, so lots of things are illogical and don't make sense, so we should just shut up and accept it?

*shrug* it works for christians..

That is somewhat unfair - so it would be better to not have you taxed until you are of voting age. Which should either be increased to 21, or "political awareness", explaining the different types of government and politics, should be obilgatory courses in schools. And this should go FAR beyond the primitive republican-democrat viewpoint. Explaining the differences between socialism and communism & the systems used in the rest of the world would be nice for instance.

I agree that politics should be taught properly in schools. So many people just vote the same way their parents vote or choose one issue to decide their vote.
I don't think that raising the voting age to 21 would make any difference as that won't solve the problem. If people are interested in politics, they are likely to have found out more about it when they are of voting age so that they can vote with knowledge. It won't make much difference when the voting age is.
Oh dear i've expressed myself badly.

I agree, 16 should be the voting age, but for slightly different reasons. I believe that the law should have fixed, clear definitions of "minor" and "adult", and that as soon as one reaches adulthood, all rights should be available at once. In my opinion, 16 should be the age of consent, and the only age of consent which exists. At that point, you should be permitted to consume tobacco, alcohol, drive a car, have kids, marry, vote, etc etc etc.

If you're a minor, you should be entirely the responsibility of your parents, and if you are a law abiding, sane adult, you should be entirely under your own jurisdiction, with no exceptions.

The voting age might make a difference though, mostly since peopel are more attuned to political shifts when they are first introduced. Like me. I wasn't truly a communist believer until I had civics in Gr 10.

Lots and lots of people who are 16 are idiots, if you lowered the voting age to 16 you would get people buying votes, with absolutily stupid politices.

imagine how many 16 would vote if a party tried to legalise canabis for example?

Hell you may even get parties who actually offer free stuff to vote for them.

voteing is not a right in a repbulic its a duty, and you should be able to fully understand what your doing first.

Hell i should have voted to put it up to 21.

I agree, 16 should be the voting age, but for slightly different reasons. I believe that the law should have fixed, clear definitions of "minor" and "adult", and that as soon as one reaches adulthood, all rights should be available at once. In my opinion, 16 should be the age of consent, and the only age of consent which exists. At that point, you should be permitted to consume tobacco, alcohol, drive a car, have kids, marry, vote, etc etc etc.

If you're a minor, you should be entirely the responsibility of your parents, and if you are a law abiding, sane adult, you should be entirely under your own jurisdiction, with no exceptions.

That is a very good explanation.

I had a job at 15 and I paid taxes. It's not unfair because while you can't vote yet you still enjoy government services like police, libraries, school, etc.

The voting age should stay at 18. When I was 16 I wasn't all that bright and totally inexperienced in how the world works. I wasn't much better at 18, but still 16 is a bit too young to participate in major decisions.

I don't think it should be lowered. Why not 16? Why not 15? Why not 12?

It has to have some limit.

18 is perfect. Right at what is considered a normal adult age, where one is usually allowed to do almost anything by law at that point (save for some states who hold out at 21 for such things as drinking).

Besides, I honestly think that many people at 18 still do not have the maturity to make an informed decision about voting. As for people below that age... they tend to be impulsive, wanting to vote for people who promise the world and deliver none of it, or tend to follow political ideologies that are too radical. At 18, one still has youth and drive, but also tempers it with more experience and better judgement.

Mr. A = "Congratulations, son! You're now 18! What do you want to do? Buy a new car? Move out?" (Hopefully :p )
Son = "I want to vote!"

I can't imagine that.

I do feel that it should be lowered to 16. Having the voting age so high (along with drinking and consent) is ridiculous.

Firstly if you are taxed at the age of 16 you can actually get it refunded. I know all of my friends (and me) had jobs between the ages of 16 and 18 and if we got taxed, we had words with the Inland Revenue who refunded it. Most employers won't deduct it anyway and will get you to sign a form saying you are under 18 years of age.

Secondly, I remember what most people (MOST not all) are like at the age of 16 and I would not entrust them with the vote.

Firstly if you are taxed at the age of 16 you can actually get it refunded. I know all of my friends (and me) had jobs between the ages of 16 and 18 and if we got taxed, we had words with the Inland Revenue who refunded it. Most employers won't deduct it anyway and will get you to sign a form saying you are under 18 years of age.

Secondly, I remember what most people (MOST not all) are like at the age of 16 and I would not entrust them with the vote.

Why dose it matter if the ages for concent things are diffrent

lowering the drinking age to 16 in the u.k would be a very poor idea, because culturally unlike Germany or France, we would have thousands of 16 olds binge drinking. 18 for that is sensible, as by then you should know your physical limits.

The entire backing behind this campaign is the whiney I’m 16 I’m intelligent as a 42 year old bullshit.

intelligent perhaps.

Educated as much no
Responsible for as much no

Why dose it matter if the ages for concent things are diffrent

lowering the drinking age to 16 in the u.k would be a very poor idea, because culturally unlike Germany or France, we would have thousands of 16 olds binge drinking. 18 for that is sensible, as by then you should know your physical limits.



They drink anyway. Often making something out of reach means that people want it more. Having two different consent ages just blurs the lines, I'm in agreement with the person who said everything should come at one and only one age.

16 yr old kids are ignorant of the real world. What you learn in the classroom does not equate with the real world. I say leave it at 18 or boost it up to 21.

Besides, how many kids would actually get out to vote. This past Presidential election saw a small turnout of youngsters (yet again). I seriously doubt most 16 yr olds would make an effort to get to the polls.

The entire backing behind this campaign is the whiney I’m 16 I’m intelligent as a 42 year old bullshit.

intelligent perhaps.

Educated as much no
Responsible for as much no

Correctamundo! The stupidest 42 yr old is more life smart then the most intelligent 16 yr old.

I was pissed because I could help a campaign and help a candidate, but not vote. I'm 17 :mad:

I dunno, but when I was 16 I couldn't even make my mind up about simple things like whether or not to revise for my exams, so I think for the large majority of under 18's it would be a waste of time, and tbh easy votes for parties, since alot of kids tend to support their parents political ideologies.

what country is this related to?

Eighteen is the right age for voting in the US. You do not want the country's leadership to be decided by arbitrary votes from those that are not mature enough to understand and those younger than 18 are less likely to have an entire awareness of the issues in an election. Perhaps some do, but the vast majority are ignorant of, and not yet with enough maturity to make a decision about, the issues of an election. Part of this is just the cultural identification of adulthood at Eighteen. At Eighteen, youth expect to change (it being the year of draft entry, adulthood, etc.), so it is accepted by them, that Eighteen is their graduation to non-adolescence.

Besides that, efforts to lower the voting age would most probably be an attempt at a sort of gerrymandering, not inclusion of younger voters because of their merits.

what country is this related to?
The US I think.

Judging by some of the sixteen year olds I've seen, the thought of them voting is frightening. I saw a series of posters made by a high school math class, and they couldn't even spell "using" right and wrote "geometry are shapes".

Judging by some of the sixteen year olds I've seen, the thought of them voting is frightening. I saw a series of posters made by a high school math class, and they couldn't even spell "using" right and wrote "geometry are shapes".
Is that a joke?

The US I think.
Uk actually, its currenlty an election issue.

election in may btw

Is that a joke?

No. Sadly, 100% true. :(

If you give 16 year olds the right to vote I don't think even 1% of them will exercise that right. Most are too busy trying to get laid, stoned, or invited to the next big party. You'd get a handfull of way too serious fundamentalist kids voting straight party line Republican, and a handfull of nerdy intellectual kids voting Democrat and Green. Most would just enjoy having election day off to get stoned and hang out.

They drink anyway. Often making something out of reach means that people want it more. Having two different consent ages just blurs the lines, I'm in agreement with the person who said everything should come at one and only one age.
i know it was a bit hypocritical of me, but making it legal would vastly increse the problem.
Prehaps making eveything up to 18 would work, but then you would have to have education up to 18 to, becuase sending people out into the world at 16 and treating them as kids is a poor idea.


Why not lower it to 17 prehaps, hell i dont know, one year of collage or work can really change peoles views and maturity.

The voting age should be raised to 55, to match the speed limit

If you give 16 year olds the right to vote I don't think even 1% of them will exercise that right. Most are too busy trying to get laid, stoned, or invited to the next big party. You'd get a handfull of way too serious fundamentalist kids voting straight party line Republican, and a handfull of nerdy intellectual kids voting Democrat and Green. Most would just enjoy having election day off to get stoned and hang out.

Thank you, I totally agree.

Also, when you look at elections nowadays, look at the participation. I'd say with a lower voting age the participation will look even worse.

First of all, when I was 16, I got all that tax money back on my refund because I was a dependent of my parents. That's really a moot point.


Second of all, have you ever met a sixteen year old? Here's some people you would be giving the vote to...

http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=mAtTsBaByCaKe
http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=NickOleLynn_07
http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=SwEeTbAbYgUrL11

Nevermind this, but 16 year olds in most American schools haven't had one hour of political discourse, let alone enough information to make a wise and informed decision on the future of our nation. They're too busy being "iN -=-=-~~@#LuV#@~~-=-=-" with "BoBiEe WyLsUn" because he has a bitchin' Camaro or some such.

A great deal of 16 year olds are still struggling with puberty. Don't give them the vote. Wait until they're out of high school, actually are paying their taxes in full, and are contributing to society on a level other than Junior Varsity Football.

You don't get all your taxes back if your under 18. The govt still takes out Social Security and Medicare. At least that's how it worked in Florida and Virginia.

You don't get all your taxes back if your under 18. The govt still takes out Social Security and Medicare. At least that's how it worked in Florida and Virginia.

There is no (listed) medicare tax here in Ohio, and in theory, you should get back that SS money at a later point in time.

Anyhow, I think taking 2-5 dollars out of Little Jimmy's McDonald's paycheck does not warrant giving him the vote.

As for the voting age, 18 is reasonable. I had just turned 18 when I was called for Jury Duty. When the next election came up, I figured if cared enough to show up and sit through a trial, I'm sure as hell care enough to vote for County District Attorney and Police Chief. Being a part of politics is important to me, even more so since I've spent a year abroad, but you can't make politics important to every 18, 20, or even 50 year old. I do see a problem with voter turn out, but I don't see a solution. Just as one juror, a plastic surgeon lobbied to be excused, I thought, you are an educated person, please use your judgement for something other than making money. It was absolutely mind boggling, why couldn't this plastic surgeon bother to use his life experience/education to be a juror? In the US we have legal residents who don't bother to learn English and plastic surgeons who don't care enough to serve jury duty, do you think these people are voting? This is my biggest pet peeve.

I think it is very unfair that the government can tax you from the age of 16 and yet you get no say in how that money is spent until you are 18.


The government does a lot of unfair things. Get used to it. You live in a country where we pay farmers not to plant crops. Welcome to the jungle.

EDIT: But frankly, the idea that the voting age should be lowered to 16 is insane. It would open up this crazy new demographic and God only knows what kinds of crazy assholes this demographic would want in power. Think about it: do you really want every dick you knew in High School telling you how fast you can drive, or where you're allowed to smoke cigarettes? While they're still in High School?

The government does a lot of unfair things. Get used to it. You live in a country where we pay farmers not to plant crops. Welcome to the jungle.
Welcome to the jungle
We've got fun 'n' games
We got everything you want
Honey, we know the names
We are the people that can find
Whatever you may need
If you got the money, honey
We got your disease

?

Edit: AMEN to that edit.

I agree, 16 should be the voting age, but for slightly different reasons. I believe that the law should have fixed, clear definitions of "minor" and "adult", and that as soon as one reaches adulthood, all rights should be available at once. In my opinion, 16 should be the age of consent, and the only age of consent which exists. At that point, you should be permitted to consume tobacco, alcohol, drive a car, have kids, marry, vote, etc etc etc.

If you're a minor, you should be entirely the responsibility of your parents, and if you are a law abiding, sane adult, you should be entirely under your own jurisdiction, with no exceptions.
what dogburg said
except that in the US that age is 18.
well except that the age of consent, which defines statutory rape, should be 14.

Fuck that. I'm sorry but 16 year olds seldom have any idea how the real world operates. Most American teenagers are nowhere near autonomous, and as such it's impossible for them to make an informed decision. Allow 16 year olds to vote and elections will become ten times the beauty pagent they ever were; and just when you thought that wasn't possible.

Sure, there are your informed intelligent 16 year olds that can cast an honest vote and will stand by their decision. BUt they're about as frequent as natural lakes in the South.

i dont know about voting, but a few other things should be lowered (us laws anyway :-/)

I think it is very unfair that the government can tax you from the age of 16 and yet you get no say in how that money is spent until you are 18.
I'm 17 and will miss out on being able to vote in the election by two months. I have political opinions as do many of my friends and would like to be able to express my opinion.
"Taxation without representation is tyranny." - James Otis

Then again our founding fathers were putting holes in people's heads over a tax on a breakfast beverage. And it wasn't even coffee!

You really think those people would put up with this shit? Trying to use a phrase like that in this context is like running up to that big burly dude over there with the huge Klan mask on and telling him he's a racist. It's already painfully obvious, and everybody sort of knows it anyway.

If the voting age was suddenly lowered to 16 here I would be able to vote in the next election. But I wouldn't. All the politicians have only shown contempt for the electorate so I wouldn't give this farce any legitimacy by voting. So I don't really care wether I get the vote or not. Besides, if you lower it to 16 you'll then get people saying "Why not 14?" and then "Why not 12?" until you eventually get people campaigning to give toddlers to vote (Trust me, these idiots already exist).

If the voting age was suddenly lowered to 16 here I would be able to vote in the next election. But I wouldn't. All the politicians have only shown contempt for the electorate so I wouldn't give this farce any legitimacy by voting. So I don't really care wether I get the vote or not. Besides, if you lower it to 16 you'll then get people saying "Why not 14?" and then "Why not 12?" until you eventually get people campaigning to give toddlers to vote (Trust me, these idiots already exist).A voting age doesn't help. Maturity would, but there's no way to measure and legislate that. Meanwhile, mature and intelligent 17 year olds can't vote, and any jackass who's 18 or more can.

Yes, we all know that age doesn't determine maturity or understanding, but we have to draw a line somehwere and somehow I don't think we as a nation are going to probe $EVERYTEEN and let the sane ones vote. A practical line has to be drawn somewhere.

A voting age doesn't help. Maturity would, but there's no way to measure and legislate that. Meanwhile, mature and intelligent 17 year olds can't vote, and any jackass who's 18 or more can.

I felt the same way when I was young. And, the proportion of people who don't really seem mature enough to vote doesn't magically shift at any particular age. So in that sense it is a little artificial.

But, look at it this way. If you're 16, and the voting age is 18, that gives you two good years to study the political system and determine which was to vote is really in your best interests.

You wouldn't marry somebody without putting a lot of time and thought into it, would you? And that only affects you! When you put someone in office you're affecting a lot of other people too.

Umm... no. I'm 17 and I do not think having 16 and 17 year-olds vote is a good idea.

A voting age doesn't help. Maturity would, but there's no way to measure and legislate that. Meanwhile, mature and intelligent 17 year olds can't vote, and any jackass who's 18 or more can.
Frustrating as it may be at times, the "One man, one vote" principle is well-established in most democracies.

I believe, whether it is 16 or 18 there should be a universal age for drinking, sex, smoking, voting, taxation, etc.

Yes, the majority of teenagers are politically ignorant, but how much of the electorate actually knows that much about what they're doing? Most people vote for the Republican, or the Democrat, just because they are members of the same party.

Honestly, I'd rather have a test, similar to the one you take to become a citizen, to determine who gets to vote. If an 8-year old passes, and his 42-year old mother doesn't, shame on her.

I think it is very unfair that the government can tax you from the age of 16 and yet you get no say in how that money is spent until you are 18.
I'm 17 and will miss out on being able to vote in the election by two months. I have political opinions as do many of my friends and would like to be able to express my opinion.

edit: yes I do realise that the pol says voing instead of voting but i was in a hurry K?!
BZZZT!!! WRONG!

There is no minimum age for being taxed in the USA.

I would want to lower the voting age to 16, but who knows who'll vote then. Most people under 18 have no political sense, but neither do some of the people over 18, so you can't win.
I don't think that a 'test' would do it. What questions would be on it? It's better off like it is now, as if we elect an evil dictator (it could happen...) the under 18s can't be blamed :)

The idea that we should devise a test to determine who can vote is fascism, nothing more. It undermines the basic premise that the government needs to exist as a manifestation of the whole of society. When you try to divvy it up and throw up partitions, that's when it becomes fascism.

I would want to lower the voting age to 16, but who knows who'll vote then. Most people under 18 have no political sense, but neither do some of the people over 18, so you can't win.
I don't think that a 'test' would do it. What questions would be on it? It's better off like it is now, as if we elect an evil dictator (it could happen...) the under 18s can't be blamed :)
What questions would be on it? Maybe basic questions about the constitution, list X states, i dont know, but it would help weed out the 1/3 of adult americans that believe Canada is part of the US

BZZZT!!! WRONG!

There is no minimum age for being taxed in the USA.

Well it's lucky I'm in the U.K then.

Listen to yourselves very carefully. You're supposing that a certain group of people ought not to be allowed to vote because they don't know what's best for them and you do. Regardless of who's right and wrong, that's the standard you're applying here: "Most people are idiots, so lets give them this test and make sure that the only people allowed to vote are those that are at least as smart as I am." Fascism.

Listen to yourselves very carefully. You're supposing that a certain group of people ought not to be allowed to vote because they don't know what's best for them and you do. Regardless of who's right and wrong, that's the standard you're applying here: "Most people are idiots, so lets give them this test and make sure that the only people allowed to vote are those that are at least as smart as I am." Fascism.
Well for one thing, using the "they dont know what they're doing" arguement was used against blacks and women in the past

If you believe that kind of test is fascist, then I'm a facsist, and proud.

The right to vote is of seminal importance in any true republic. Providing that right to one untutored in basic social dynamics (not just politics) is dangerous and self-defeating. It was for this reason, at least in the United States, that voting was limited early on to the group most thought to be prepared to participate in voting---white males. This restriction proved to be unfounded, of course, but the point in limiting the vote is well taken.

Only those who take the time to learn about the political system, participate in social institutions (work, school, etc.) should have the right to cast a vote for our national (and local) leadership. To do otherwise allows the system to be high-jacked by those who are least prepared---or even likely---to experience the repurcussions of an unstudied vote directly.

By the way, how many of you are participating in the Global Treasure Hunt? Check the region of Treasure Island for details.

I'm sorry for you then. Restrictions and constraints never benefit society; they only serve to tear it down from within. A test like you describe would drive still more walls up between an already very divided, very differentiated egomass. Hate Crime laws are a good example of this.

The USA is a very illogical country. You have to pay full adult fares at 12 and taxes at 16, but you don't get to vote until 18. In other words, the teens are years that combine the disadvantages of childhood with the disadvantages of adults.

I'm sorry for you. :P

I'm sorry for you then. Restrictions and constraints never benefit society; they only serve to tear it down from within. A test like you describe would drive still more walls up between an already very divided, very differentiated egomass. Hate Crime laws are a good example of this.

I must respectfully disagree, MC. Hate Crime laws are designed to target a particular evil in our society and culture. I generally dislike such specialized legislation, but there is merit to this particular type of law. I can tell you as a practitioner that it is not designed to "socialize" people in any particular way. Rather, hate crime laws are meant to punish criminal acts which have, as their impetus, racial animus. These types of crime tend to be rather violent and disasterous, and merit special attention.

Sorry to preempt the thread, here. Just though MC's response deserved a reply.

Why should those cases require special attention? All hate crime laws do is promote the idea that we're all different and should be treated differently according to our race or sexual preference. All crimes are hate crimes: it's silly to suppose that the motivation for doing something wrong should have any bearing on the verdict.

So, then, is it better for me to murder a white man? Why is that more morally acceptable thank killing a black man?

I'm sorry for you then. Restrictions and constraints never benefit society; they only serve to tear it down from within. A test like you describe would drive still more walls up between an already very divided, very differentiated egomass. Hate Crime laws are a good example of this.
I'd say that restrictions and constraints are what separates society from anarchy

As for the walls, get yourself some basic 7th grade education and you're fine

Why should those cases require special attention? All hate crime laws do is promote the idea that we're all different and should be treated differently according to our race or sexual preference. All crimes are hate crimes: it's silly to suppose that the motivation for doing something wrong should have any bearing on the verdict.

So, then, is it better for me to murder a white man? Why is that more morally acceptable thank killing a black man?

You raise a valid point, MC, but respectfully stretch the logic. You are less likely to be killed as a white man by a black man because you're white [an assumption, I concede, in all respects.] The US has a proven history of blacks and other minorities being killed simply because of our race, and in ways designed to be both torturous and publically-horrific. Can that same claim be made as toward whites?

Again, the specialized Hate Crimes legislation is designed to account for an evil which already exists; not to foster separation by encouraging a non-existent distinction. Your argument presupposes, respectfully MC, that such a distinction has not already been made.

Which, of course, illustrates my point about restrictions on the voting age and circumstance. Imagine someone untutored in the realities of social, business and political dynamics (this does NOT refer to you in any sense, MC) casting a vote about a leader in the position to affect those very institutions?

The USA is a very illogical country. You have to pay full adult fares at 12 and taxes at 16, but you don't get to vote until 18. In other words, the teens are years that combine the disadvantages of childhood with the disadvantages of adults.

I'm sorry for you. :P

No wonder that we are 'Misunderstood'.

Lowering the voting age to 16 would give parents more votes.

"Vote for Bush or you're grounded!"

No ... it should stay 18.

If the age was lowered, generally everyone under the age of 20 supports the liberals for some unknown reason. about 10% don't. only when they realise that social equaltiy is too much hard work and too expensive do they realise that its not reasonable to vote for them.

Lowering the voting age to 16 would give parents more votes.

"Vote for Bush or you're grounded!"

No ... it should stay 18.
people said giving women the right to vote gave the married men 2 voted and single men 1, i personally am almost the political opposite of my parents

umm, actually, in the UK, we're taxed pretymuch whenever we buy things. 17.5% VAT ring any bells?

If the age was lowered, generally everyone under the age of 20 supports the liberals for some unknown reason. about 10% don't. only when they realise that social equaltiy is too much hard work and too expensive do they realise that its not reasonable to vote for them.


Yet, when they lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, Nixon won.

Go figure.

people said giving women the right to vote gave the married men 2 voted and single men 1, i personally am almost the political opposite of my parents

Difference: You can ground your kids for not voting your way. You can take away their car and shoes.

Can't do that to your wife. Never could in this country.

Difference: You can ground your kids for not voting your way. You can take away their car and shoes.

Can't do that to your wife. Never could in this country.
but particularily at the time, women did what the men said, besides, teenagers have that whole rebellion against authority thing

people said giving women the right to vote gave the married men 2 voted and single men 1, i personally am almost the political opposite of my parents

I agree with this. I would vote the same way as my parents, but that is only because of the area I live in. Labour is really weak in my area so i would vote for the lib dems like my parents as it is really a choice between them or the conservatives and I prefer the lib dems to the conservatives.
I would say that I am more likely to influence the way that my mother votes than she is to influence me. My father has his own political opinions that I respect and agree with to a certain extent. We discuss politics quite often and have been known to change each others opinions on certain issues.

I agree it should be lowered. Here in America, it's 18 to vote. But ANYONE regardless of age can be taxed. Make more than $600, Uncle Sam comes a-knockin'.

I agree with this. I would vote the same way as my parents, but that is only because of the area I live in. Labour is really weak in my area so i would vote for the lib dems like my parents as it is really a choice between them or the conservatives and I prefer the lib dems to the conservatives.
I would say that I am more likely to influence the way that my mother votes than she is to influence me. My father has his own political opinions that I respect and agree with to a certain extent. We discuss politics quite often and have been known to change each others opinions on certain issues.
my mother has been affected by my opinions, not as much my father, but now they disagree on some issues :) . I live in one of the most Liberal areas of the US (Mass.), so I disagree with 3/4 of the popular opinion, but thankfully, my parents aren't overly stubborn in their opinions

umm, actually, in the UK, we're taxed pretymuch whenever we buy things. 17.5% VAT ring any bells?
I think all of the states but five have some sort of sales tax here.

teenagers have that whole rebellion against authority thing

That's another problem. Voting out of rebellion, rather than by careful study and thought, should be illegal. Personally, I believe there should be a test on current affairs, issues, political parties, political figures, history, and economics that must be passed *before* anyone is allowed to vote.

No. I've seen 16 year olds. You're all idiots. I wish they'd raise the voting age to 25, but then people in the military couldn't vote. Maybe they could make a waiver for people in the military so just they could vote under the legal age.

That's another problem. Voting out of rebellion, rather than by careful study and thought, should be illegal. Personally, I believe there should be a test on current affairs, issues, political parties, political figures, history, and economics that must be passed *before* anyone is allowed to vote.
that was my original argument, but if you let everyone vote, dont accuse teens of having bad reasons to vote, just because hes a Republican/Democrat/Whatever doesn't make him a good candidate

I am 16, and have been since june 1st, before the elections. I am in my third year of high school. Through this time, I have had classes in world history, european history, and am in a US history class. This all adds to what I have researched myself, trying to prepare myself for politics. I infact plan on majoring in Political Science in college. Some of you may say I am an exception, but so? The percent of adults who vote on something other than what the media tells them, or their party tells them, are very small. Few judge from actual policies.

I was lucky in the election, if you can say that. My mother told me she would vote for whomever I told her to, because she knew I knew the policies much better than her. She was turned off from voting kerry because he was appealing to hunters, and she saw him with a gun. Its that kind of thing that destroys the argument for ignorant votes. But let me get back to my examples.

My AP US history class, before the elections, were given an assignment to watch the three presidential debates, and analyse them. I have been given a good education toward politics, and I am in one of the worst funded school systems in the nation(california). No, not everyone pays attention, or works their hardest to learn about these things. But they are available to people by 16.By 16, most people are in their sophomore or junior year in highschool. They are all literate, have a basic concept of politics and history, and it grows. The fact that many people at my school, a horrible school in a horrible school system, can articulate their opinions about politics, shows me the good choice. It is illegal for people to force you to vote one way, and people should be made aware of that. The ability to vote cannot be withheld, in a democracy, to those who are not intelligent enough to vote, nor because of their majority affiliation. I say no one under 16, because they likely havn't had any real history classes. They have had no availability, except the internet, to gain understanding of politics. Lowering the age to 16 means that the lowest age to vote have had at least rudimentary classes in history, and many people are in economics and other classes too. Many of those who don't understand politics probably wont vote. Some might vote for their parents sake, but thats no better nor worse for voting blindly for a party. You dont deny voting to people because of people whom abuse the system, its wrong to those who legitimatly want to vote. With the internet, the growth of political information to those younger than 18 is growing. With further growth, it might come that people even younger than 16 are educated enough to vote, and if there was a signifigant number of 14 year olds who wanted to vote, I would support it. But I havn't seen anything from anyone younger than 16.

To close, I am not doing this out of self interest. The 2006 elections will allow me to vote, as well as the 2008 presidental election. I gain nothing out of getting the right for 16 year olds to vote, not personally. I simply sympathise for them.

Ban elections! :)

edit: yes I do realise that the pol says voing instead of voting but i was in a hurry K?!

Glottal stop?

I'm 16, UK citizen, and I say no to this. I know what most of my year are like, and tehre are only a few who I would say are mature enough to see past the basics to the policies within. of course, being as arrogant as I am, I'd say that I am too, but hey....

This talk of tests is truly horrendous. I would hate to live in a society where everyone was tested just to see if they could participate in democracy.

I think it is very unfair that the government can tax you from the age of 16 and yet you get no say in how that money is spent until you are 18.
I'm 17 and will miss out on being able to vote in the election by two months. I have political opinions as do many of my friends and would like to be able to express my opinion.

edit: yes I do realise that the pol says voing instead of voting but i was in a hurry K?!
i believe the age of consent for all things should be 16 years. voting, drinking, driving, sexual consent, taxes, etc.

You raise a valid point, MC, but respectfully stretch the logic. You are less likely to be killed as a white man by a black man because you're white [an assumption, I concede, in all respects.] The US has a proven history of blacks and other minorities being killed simply because of our race, and in ways designed to be both torturous and publically-horrific. Can that same claim be made as toward whites?

Again, the specialized Hate Crimes legislation is designed to account for an evil which already exists; not to foster separation by encouraging a non-existent distinction. Your argument presupposes, respectfully MC, that such a distinction has not already been made.

Which, of course, illustrates my point about restrictions on the voting age and circumstance. Imagine someone untutored in the realities of social, business and political dynamics (this does NOT refer to you in any sense, MC) casting a vote about a leader in the position to affect those very institutions?

Of course hate crime laws are designed to account for an evil which already exists. All laws are designed to account for an evil which already exists; this is implicit in governance alone. To me it makes no difference why someone commits a crime: regardless of the motivations for your actions a crime is a crime, and in most cases, the person who commits said crime has no respect for the property or well being of $VICTIM and needs to be treated as such, regarldess of why he sees it fit to harm $VICTIM.

To wit: murdering a person--any person--for any reason other than self-defense is showing a disregard for the value of human life and needs to be treated as such. Whether he kills one or fifty, black or white, it's the same principle. It's also an excuse to look at everything through a "I'm going to lock you up for being a racist" lens which isn't healthy either.

Let's exaggerate the situation grossly based on the same principle behind hate crime laws. Lets say, that if you're white, you can get away with killing other white people the majority of the time. Whatever defense you employ or however you get out of it is irrelevant, but somehow you manage to avoid doing any real time for it. One day, you kill a black man and go to jail for life. Legislation like this opens the door for people to be imprisoned for doing something to another race that they would never being jailed for doing to their own.

i believe the age of consent for all things should be 16 years. voting, drinking, driving, sexual consent, taxes, etc.

And then parents shouldn't have to be responsible for them in any way (housing, insurance, food). That's the trade off.

Let's see how many kids vote for that.

Edit: College funding too, no more PLUS loans.

The only reason lowing the voting age is being proposed (in Canada, the UK and the USA) is to combat voter apathy by getting citizens involved in the process earlier.

I think this concept is flawed.

(most) 16 year olds are not mature enough nor do they pay enough attention to what is happening in the world to entrust them with such a responsibility. I blame our pop-culture-reality-televison-MTV-fastfood-consumerism way of life. It's bull shit! We pay more attention to who got voted off on survivor last night than we do to what our governing oficials are up to on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps more classes on civic responsibilities would be a possible fix to the problem?

Which leads to my next point:

Why would anyone agree that in order to vote, one should have to pass a voters entrance exam?

I believe it's because some of us are sick and tired of being out voted in our areas by people who pay little or no attention to world events and to what our governing oficials are up to on a day-to-day basis. Let alone people who can't name every state/province in their coutry or those fucking morons who think Canada is a part of the USA.

The bottom line is that our education system is failing us and certain politicians are taking advantage of that fact to boost the number of votes they get.

I'd never support a voters entrance exam, but I REALLY hate being out voted by people who opt for "Reality TV" over the evening news.

If it was lowered to 16, then 18-21 year olds would no longer be the lowest voter turnout group in America.

I think things are fine the way they are now, and am not convinced a change needs to occur yet.


I'd never support a voters entrance exam, but I REALLY hate being out voted by people who opt for "Reality TV" over the evening news.

Why? What makes you more important than they are?

I'm 16, UK citizen, and I say no to this. I know what most of my year are like, and tehre are only a few who I would say are mature enough to see past the basics to the policies within. of course, being as arrogant as I am, I'd say that I am too, but hey....

This talk of tests is truly horrendous. I would hate to live in a society where everyone was tested just to see if they could participate in democracy.

I agree with you about the tests, but as to seeing past the basics of politics, Narrow minded people tend to be narrowminded their whole life. I don't think two years makes much difference. I know so many people in my year who won't vote or will vote without having a clue and I'm at a frickin Grammar school.
We need more education about politics so that people will learn what they are voting for and what their options are.

Of course hate crime laws are designed to account for an evil which already exists. All laws are designed to account for an evil which already exists; this is implicit in governance alone. To me it makes no difference why someone commits a crime: regardless of the motivations for your actions a crime is a crime, and in most cases, the person who commits said crime has no respect for the property or well being of $VICTIM and needs to be treated as such, regarldess of why he sees it fit to harm $VICTIM.

To wit: murdering a person--any person--for any reason other than self-defense is showing a disregard for the value of human life and needs to be treated as such. Whether he kills one or fifty, black or white, it's the same principle. It's also an excuse to look at everything through a "I'm going to lock you up for being a racist" lens which isn't healthy either.

Let's exaggerate the situation grossly based on the same principle behind hate crime laws. Lets say, that if you're white, you can get away with killing other white people the majority of the time. Whatever defense you employ or however you get out of it is irrelevant, but somehow you manage to avoid doing any real time for it. One day, you kill a black man and go to jail for life. Legislation like this opens the door for people to be imprisoned for doing something to another race that they would never being jailed for doing to their own.

And therein lies the danger in your analysis, MC: Hates crimes legislation does NOT create penalties where no penalties exist. Rather, the legislation is designed to ENHANCE pre-existing penalties through what is referred to in most states as an "aggravating factor" of racial animus. To apply it to your example, murder is an indictable offense regardless of the race of the victim. Both are punishable by both a term of years and, in some particularly heinous cases, death (in some states.) The crime of murder has an inherent penalty.

Now add to this the additional aggravating factor of a racial motive for the killing. The available penalties are enhanced, and the punishment more severe (death notwithstanding, of course.) That is how Hate Crimes legislation works, MC. It does not allow intra-racial crime to go unpunished. Rather, it works to enhance the punishment for those criminals who inflict injury on others solely due to race, religion, gender, age and in some states, sexual orientation.

Finally, motive behind the criminal act DOES matter, respectfully, MC. Under the laws of all US states (I will leave Louisiana alone for the moment,) categories of crime (and their penalties) are determined by looking at two aspects: The nature of the act and the state of mind of the perpetrator. This isn't law school, so I won't bore you with the details---except to say that these factors are referred to as MENS REA (The Evil Mind) and ACTUS REAS (The Evil Act.) You can plot out crimes on a matrix and see how these factors work to differentiate crimes and their penalties. It is, for example, how the act of killing another human being is differentiated among murder, manslaughter and reckless homicide.

[Getting off soapbox, and returning thread to original intent. LOL.]

Personally, I believe there should be a test on current affairs, issues, political parties, political figures, history, and economics that must be passed *before* anyone is allowed to vote.

I am incapable of disagreeing more on this. Why should you have to be intelligent to vote? Why don't you just make it so that you have to own property to vote? How are the poor and less educated going to be able to pass these tests?

I'd hate to be in this form of society. It would probably become elitist up the core.

it works to enhance the punishment for those criminals who inflict injury on others solely due to race, religion, gender, age and in some states, sexual orientation.

I don't see why killing an African American, just because he was black, deserves higher punishment. These laws seem to be begging to be abused.

Since no one gives a shit about voting in the US, I can't imagine any really bad side effects.

I am incapable of disagreeing more on this. Why should you have to be intelligent to vote? Why don't you just make it so that you have to own property to vote? How are the poor and less educated going to be able to pass these tests?

I'd hate to be in this form of society. It would probably become elitist up the core.

Consider that Adolph Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany by a single vote (as legend has it.) Now ask your question again.

I agree that property ownership is irrelevant. But having a formal education (the extent of which may certainly be debated) is critical to a thorough understand of all the issues relevant to electing local and national leadership. Consider that George W. was elected President here in the US, and you may begin to understand why solicitation of votes from the untutored is a dangerous thing. It makes it easier to use symbolism to secure political (and thus, economic and social) power.

Glottal stop?

Alveolar trill?

Consider that Adolph Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany by a single vote (as legend has it.) Now ask your question again.

This is a myth. http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/onevote.htm

I think it is very unfair that the government can tax you from the age of 16 and yet you get no say in how that money is spent until you are 18.
I'm 17 and will miss out on being able to vote in the election by two months. I have political opinions as do many of my friends and would like to be able to express my opinion.

edit: yes I do realise that the pol says voing instead of voting but i was in a hurry K?!

When I was sixteen, I thought the voting age should be lowered. when I was Eighteen, I thought it was just fine.

At Thirty-Two, with the benefit of experiences I had no idea really existed in my teens, I think the voting age should be raised back to twenty-one.

When you're a teenager, and a dependent, you're really not yet responsible for yourself-many people stay in this condition (Most people, really) until the point wherein they have all the Legal responsibilities of adulthood. (not just taxes, but Rent, car insurance, buying your own groceries...) this usually happens between age 19, and 21 (though some late-bloomers and college students don't get there until they're 25).

Voting is a serious responsibility, leaving it to someone who still hasn't had to deal with the consequences of their actions is probably one of the worst things you can do in a society.

I'm 20. But I think 21 would be a right age.

Your lucky your involved, matured or knowledgeable about politics at such a young age. (I hope). But then most again, you wouldn't really know the consequences or the actions of your votings, except that everybody seems to hate Bush. Plus most 16 year olds are just thinking about whats the latest handphone or who their going to bang.

Plus Uni is a fun time where you'll meet most different types of people and politically skewed people. Like they say, Uni is the time where you'll form your own ideals and thats the age where it'll change you for life.

I don't see why killing an African American, just because he was black, deserves higher punishment. These laws seem to be begging to be abused.

There is an historical precedent for this, Kerubia. And your response, respectfully, illustrates the wisdom of the legislation. To suggest that the law will be abused simply by virtue of its passage is to ignore why it was passed in the first place. Do you really believe that intentionally shooting and killing someone during a robbery is the functional equivalent of dragging a man to death behind a vehicle simply because of his race? Remember that the legislation works BOTH ways, Kerubia; it punishes atrocities against whites based on racial animus---or any prohibited animus---more harshly as well. Matthew Shephard, anyone?

The fact that people presuppose it will only be used to prosecute whites who attack blacks kind of proves the point, yes? Be honest about the history in this country (USA) and please avoid hairsplitting. Racially-motivated crimes are punished more harshly because race has been used as a historical weapon in the USA (and other countries.) Acknowledge this point and the basis for Hate Crimes legislation becomes clear.

I think eighteen is fine (Bumping it down to sixteen wouldn't help me, but not raising it to 21 would be nice. Taking back sufferage is never a good idea.). But I also think that anyone that can drive should be allowed to vote, with parental permission.

And therein lies the danger in your analysis, MC: Hates crimes legislation does NOT create penalties where no penalties exist. Rather, the legislation is designed to ENHANCE pre-existing penalties through what is referred to in most states as an "aggravating factor" of racial animus. To apply it to your example, murder is an indictable offense regardless of the race of the victim. Both are punishable by both a term of years and, in some particularly heinous cases, death (in some states.) The crime of murder has an inherent penalty.

Now add to this the additional aggravating factor of a racial motive for the killing. The available penalties are enhanced, and the punishment more severe (death notwithstanding, of course.) That is how Hate Crimes legislation works, MC. It does not allow intra-racial crime to go unpunished. Rather, it works to enhance the punishment for those criminals who inflict injury on others solely due to race, religion, gender, age and in some states, sexual orientation.

Finally, motive behind the criminal act DOES matter, respectfully, MC. Under the laws of all US states (I will leave Louisiana alone for the moment,) categories of crime (and their penalties) are determined by looking at two aspects: The nature of the act and the state of mind of the perpetrator. This isn't law school, so I won't bore you with the details---except to say that these factors are referred to as MENS REA (The Evil Mind) and ACTUS REAS (The Evil Act.) You can plot out crimes on a matrix and see how these factors work to differentiate crimes and their penalties. It is, for example, how the act of killing another human being is differentiated among murder, manslaughter and reckless homicide.

[Getting off soapbox, and returning thread to original intent. LOL.]

I'm going to agree to disagree with you on this one. Since this isnt what the thread is about I'll let it die, but I still think the ideas behind hate crime laws are bullshit, and I'll probably continue to think so for the remainder of my natural life.

It should be dropped to 12. My 12 year old brother pays tax so that the Governator can buy yet another Assault Humvee, and yet he's not represented! and I remember that when I was twelve, I wanted to vote too! The government should represent everyone, not just those over 18. So. I win.

If I had to choose a single age for voting? 21. Grandfather in anyone 18 or over, but 21. I may have known what I was doing when I voted last year - I spent half the day researching proposals and candidates, for Hod's sake - but I also know enough from my years of high school and college to know that I'm by far among the minority.

I'm not certain that a multiple-majority-age system is that bad of an idea - but if it is done, it should be along sensible lines (and the 16/18/21 system in the US is clearly not). The lines I'm thinking of are consent, contract and service.

At some point, you're more or less good to go in terms of handling yourself - what you do, how you do it, who or what you do it with... Standard concept of consent pretty much applies here.
Later on, you get to the point where you can manage to hold your end of a bargain. Hence, contract. Jobs, notarised documents, real property, licencing, etc.
Finally, you become competent in the relationship between citizen and state, and it's really rather meaningless for one to participate in government until this point. (This includes voting -and- political office (and most likely any government job), volunteer -and- conscript military, because yes, regardless of how smart and reasonable you are, you're too dumb and impulsive to be on a battlefield, whether ideological or mortal, before this point.)

16/18/21 actually would WORK if applied in that manner. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why it would never be allowed to work, however.

14, but only for me :)

No, I think it should be kept the same: apathy is pretty widespread, but lowering the age increases the proportion of people who just don't give a damn. The number of people my age who actively care in a ratio to those who don't, compared to a similarly defined ratio at, say, 21, shows a pretty big disparity.

I'm 20. But I think 21 would be a right age.

Your lucky your involved, matured or knowledgeable about politics at such a young age. (I hope). But then most again, you wouldn't really know the consequences or the actions of your votings, except that everybody seems to hate Bush. Plus most 16 year olds are just thinking about whats the latest handphone or who their going to bang.

Plus Uni is a fun time where you'll meet most different types of people and politically skewed people. Like they say, Uni is the time where you'll form your own ideals and thats the age where it'll change you for life.

Why wouldn't I know the consequences of me voting?

Why wouldn't I know the consequences of me voting?

Not you, personally, but most young people couldn't be trusted with the vote. I'm pretty sure that's going to be a continuing theme here.

Not you, personally, but most young people couldn't be trusted with the vote. I'm pretty sure that's going to be a continuing theme here.

People wonder why teenagers rebel so much, I don't think it helps that people are continually telling them that they can't be trusted to think for themselves.

People wonder why teenagers rebel so much, I don't think it helps that people are continually telling them that they can't be trusted to think for themselves.

I was still a teenager five years ago. The problem isn't teenagers who think for themselves, but who think that being popular with the crowd is a form of thinking for themselves.

"But mommy, everyone's getting their navel pierced!"

Meh, in some backwater parts of the world you can put on a uniform and go get shot to bits in a war before you can drink a beer. In some places, the age for watching porn is 18 but the age for having sex is 16 or lower. Do you have to keep your eyes shut the whole time?

In the US you can put on a uniform and get shot to bits before you can even put a quarter in a machine and pull a lever. Whats more of a gamble to you? That quarter, or the life of that 18 year old?

Heres the thing, I think less people in general should be allowed to vote. I'm sort of anti-democratic since I look at it as a system where a demagouge offers people whatever they want no matter how bad it is for them or the nation as the whole, like socialized medicine or high taxes on the wealthy. There should probably be some kind of test so people can actually understand the issues they find important and some empirical examples of a similar plan in action. Like how bad socialized medicine works.

Lots and lots of people who are 16 are idiots, if you lowered the voting age to 16 you would get people buying votes, with absolutily stupid politices.

imagine how many 16 would vote if a party tried to legalise canabis for example?

Hell you may even get parties who actually offer free stuff to vote for them.

voteing is not a right in a repbulic its a duty, and you should be able to fully understand what your doing first.

Hell i should have voted to put it up to 21.

There are lot of people who are 40 and dumb.

Heres the thing, I think less people in general should be allowed to vote. I'm sort of anti-democratic since I look at it as a system where a demagouge offers people whatever they want no matter how bad it is for them or the nation as the whole, like socialized medicine or high taxes on the wealthy. There should probably be some kind of test so people can actually understand the issues they find important and some empirical examples of a similar plan in action. Like how bad socialized medicine works.

Well, if you consider socialized medicine and high taxes on the wealthy wrong, YOU are the whose matureness is questionable.

But seriously: This kind of assessing whether people should have the right to vote is dicrimination.

Do you guys have any idea how the presidency vote works? First the blind USian patriots falsly think their opinion matters and go to the booth where they vote for one canidate. The electorial colleges of the state look at the votes which are called popular votes and agree who to vote on whether it agrees with the popular or not. Since not all states have the same amount of electorial votes that means not everybodies votes are the same, but they werent in the beginning. In other words if you vote for the president and you are not in a public office (such as senator which is more important then a representative) then your vote is worthless for the presidency. For voting on senators and representatives then your vote actually count (or do they... Nope I think they actually do *gasps*). SO anyone sholuld be allowed to vote for presidency while everyone else should have to take a test to determine if they are ready to vote on an important issue. Therefore only people who are actually ready to vote for a nonPresidency office are actually ready and in the right mind set (Unlike me, I'll never vote while I am in this country).

Do you guys have any idea how the presidency vote works? First the blind USian patriots falsly think their opinion matters and go to the booth where they vote for one canidate. The electorial colleges of the state look at the votes which are called popular votes and agree who to vote on whether it agrees with the popular or not. Since not all states have the same amount of electorial votes that means not everybodies votes are the same, but they werent in the beginning. In other words if you vote for the president and you are not in a public office (such as senator which is more important then a representative) then your vote is worthless for the presidency. For voting on senators and representatives then your vote actually count (or do they... Nope I think they actually do *gasps*). SO anyone sholuld be allowed to vote for presidency while everyone else should have to take a test to determine if they are ready to vote on an important issue. Therefore only people who are actually ready to vote for a nonPresidency office are actually ready and in the right mind set (Unlike me, I'll never vote while I am in this country).

Damn too much to late. Damn thingy that said this was an active thread. Now you better take your damnable leave. Good day to you :mad:.

Well, if you consider socialized medicine and high taxes on the wealthy wrong, YOU are the whose matureness is questionable.

But seriously: This kind of assessing whether people should have the right to vote is dicrimination.

Socialized medicine is expensive, and it emperically is inferior to privatized systems. Similarly, high taxes on the wealthy are ruinous to the economy since they invest the most and spend the most.

I think it is very unfair that the government can tax you from the age of 16 and yet you get no say in how that money is spent until you are 18.
I'm 17 and will miss out on being able to vote in the election by two months. I have political opinions as do many of my friends and would like to be able to express my opinion.

edit: yes I do realise that the pol says voing instead of voting but i was in a hurry K?!
why wait until sixteen? Why not thirteen? or six?

How many 16 and 17 year olds make enough money a year to have to pay tax in the first place. I think 18 is the age because 16 and 17 year olds are very immature and nieve of the world. I'm not saying that 18 is any better, but when i was 18 i was the only one who voted, and thats because I love polotics.

But having a formal education (the extent of which may certainly be debated) is critical to a thorough understand of all the issues relevant to electing local and national leadership.

I agree it's important; what I don't agree with is testing people to see if they're smart enough. Since the poor are on average less educated, and the poor are more likely to be minorities, this could very easily be discriminative to them.

The whole idea of democracy is that all law-abiding citizens get to participate equally, if they choose to. Having a higher education does not make my voice more important than anyone elses.

The only thing I'm seeing from these "IQ tests for voting" is a bunch of people angry that their voice isn't more important than the next person down the street.

Well, it isn't, as I'm sure you'd agree.

why wait until sixteen? Why not thirteen? or six?

Up to age 16 you are still in compulsory education. If we are considered old enough at 16 to get a full-time job, pay tax, get married etc, then we should be considered old enough to vote.