NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone have a beef with it...

Nope.


*looks around room*

No? Everyone else agree with me?


Alright, well that's one way to win an argument. Have everyone agree beforehand.

The brain isn't fully developed before 18, so the judgement of anyone lower could be called into question. Personally, I think it should be raised.

The brain isn't fully developed before 18, so the judgement of anyone lower could be called into question. Personally, I think it should be raised.
Nay, unless you raise the age limit for drafting.

Nay, unless you raise the age limit for drafting.

OMG! There is a draft on. What am I going to do I'm going to have to move to Canada! :rolleyes:

The brain isn't fully developed before 18, so the judgement of anyone lower could be called into question. Personally, I think it should be raised.

Not neccesary, the vast majority of younger people don't vote, but I agree.

Lets see, you shouldn't be able to join the military (or be drafted if they implented one) before you are old enough to drink a beer.

You shouldn't be able to drink a beer unless you are old enough to serve.

But really, you should have to serve, and drink beer and do for four years before you are eligible to vote at all anyway... So drinking and serving would be 18, and voting should be restricted to veterans only, when they are 22.

You can still buy beer at 18, but if you never serve, you never vote :p

Lets see, you shouldn't be able to join the military (or be drafted if they implented one) before you are old enough to drink a beer.

You shouldn't be able to drink a beer unless you are old enough to serve.

But really, you should have to serve, and drink beer and do for four years before you are eligible to vote at all anyway... So drinking and serving would be 18, and voting should be restricted to veterans only, when they are 22.

You can still buy beer at 18, but if you never serve, you never vote :p

While I agree that mandatory service has worked for many of the countries "out there" I suggest lowering that service requirement to the international standard of two years. four years is a bit much. I'd agree to the rest. However, we'd have to change a few other things with the structure of our military, for example if service is required we can't discharge members for things as trivial as bring gay. Just some food for thought

Lets see, you shouldn't be able to join the military (or be drafted if they implented one) before you are old enough to drink a beer.

You shouldn't be able to drink a beer unless you are old enough to serve.

But really, you should have to serve, and drink beer and do for four years before you are eligible to vote at all anyway... So drinking and serving would be 18, and voting should be restricted to veterans only, when they are 22.

All military bases outside of the US have a drinking age of 18. Before the 80s if you joined the military, regardless of state laws, you could drink at [i]any[You can still buy beer at 18, but if you never serve, you never vote :p

All US military bases outside of the US (or within 50 miles of the Mexican border, US side) have a drinking age of 18. Before the mid 80s anyone on active duty could drink on a military base. MADD and such spoiled it for everyone. I swear if we set up a publicized recruitment drive + out of country service guarantee we'd be forming lines around the block at the recruiter's office.

I wouldn't trust a group as impressionable as people under the age of 18 with the vote. MTV is already their bible, do you really want it as your Government too?

Voting should primarily be limited to those between the ages of 20 and... hmm. 35.

No one else really matters enough to deserve a say! :eek:

Voting should be one of two things.

A. Age 16+

There are impressionable, idiots who are older than 18. People dont magically change from 16 to 18. By age 16, most people have gone through history classes and such. The only reason I say 16, is because younger people are likely to vote based on their parents. 16 seems a right age to not be quite pushed into voting.

B. No voting age, but aptitude tests.

Honestly, if we are using the "brain not developed enough" and "highly impressionable" reasons as qualifications for voting, there might as well be aptitude tests to see if you can vote or not, instead of voting age. These would be non-partisan, which would ask geopolitical questions as well as basic economic questions(what type of currency do we use, what type of tax is in place, what is a deficit). This would be much more fair than the age system, which just assumes people of a certain age are smart enough, or not, to vote. It would be even better if those with higher score's votes were worth more, but I honestly dont see that being passed.

Honestly, if we are using the "brain not developed enough" and "highly impressionable" reasons as qualifications for voting, there might as well be aptitude tests to see if you can vote or not, instead of voting age. These would be non-partisan, which would ask geopolitical questions as well as basic economic questions(what type of currency do we use, what type of tax is in place, what is a deficit). This would be much more fair than the age system, which just assumes people of a certain age are smart enough, or not, to vote. It would be even better if those with higher score's votes were worth more, but I honestly dont see that being passed.

This is very dangerous. What if the party in power makes the test out so only someone who agrees with their ideology can pass?

Yeah, I have a beef. My beef is that at 18 we are deemed old enough to have a say (and in fact an equal amount of say as any other citizen) in the future path of the world's greatest superpower, but not old enough to drink a freakin' beer. Glad I'm over 21 and don't have to care anymore.

This is very dangerous. What if the party in power makes the test out so only someone who agrees with their ideology can pass?

I wrote Non-partisan for a reason. If such a test was set up, im sure that congress would set it up so that the committee who reviewed the questions would be fairly large, with equal representation between the two parties(50-50), without regards to percentages in the congress and house. This committee would over-see that the questions were not partisan. The fact that these would be as basic as possible(questions, again, such as "What is a deficit" or "What tax system is the US under", with multiple choice answers) would further this. After annual testings were done, the tests would have been seen by huge numbers of people, so if partisan ones slipped through, they would be quickly noticed.

I figure 16. If you're old enough to become a parent, you're old enough to decide who runs the country. No aptitude tests, or the lower classes would become even more unrepresented. (ever read The Time Machine? Like the Morloks)

I wrote Non-partisan for a reason. If such a test was set up, im sure that congress would set it up so that the committee who reviewed the questions would be fairly large, with equal representation between the two parties(50-50), without regards to percentages in the congress and house. This committee would over-see that the questions were not partisan. The fact that these would be as basic as possible(questions, again, such as "What is a deficit" or "What tax system is the US under", with multiple choice answers) would further this. After annual testings were done, the tests would have been seen by huge numbers of people, so if partisan ones slipped through, they would be quickly noticed.

Makes sense. But like you said before, it will never pass. Both parties depend on the ignorant masses.

I figure 16. If you're old enough to become a parent, you're old enough to decide who runs the country. No aptitude tests, or the lower classes would become even more unrepresented. (ever read The Time Machine? Like the Morloks)

The Morlocks didn't have it that bad. I mean, they had superpowers.


Oh wait, wrong Morlocks.

with equal representation between the two parties(50-50), without regards to percentages in the congress and house.

So no third parties, then. Good, that's the way it should always be.

I figure 16. If you're old enough to become a parent, you're old enough to decide who runs the country. No aptitude tests, or the lower classes would become even more unrepresented. (ever read The Time Machine? Like the Morloks)

So we shouldnt protect our voting from those who are not mentally capable of making intelligent decisions in our politics?

There should be a single uniform age for responsibility whatever society or legislators deem that to be. Whether or not the brain is sufficiently formed or whether there is conformity to any one group's expectations matters not at all. There is no universal cultural or historical proof for any of those claims anyway - it is all rather arbitrary. So, the right thing to do is to just offer one age at which a citizen is deemed responsible, then allow them to be so - to vote, to serve in the military, to drink responsibly, to marry, to be tried as an adult, et al.

So no third parties, then. Good, that's the way it should always be.

The US is a two-party system for all intents and purposes. When third parties start getting canidates into office, or at least people into congress, then they can be included in things such as that. The purpose of a 50-50 committee is to assure that neither party can press their ideals onto the test.

The US is a two-party system for all intents and purposes. When third parties start getting canidates into office, or at least people into congress, then they can be included in things such as that. The purpose of a 50-50 committee is to assure that neither party can press their ideals onto the test.

You stated yourself "without regards to percentages in the congress and house". I figured that would actually mean it for everyone, but guess not.

Why can people who have no concept of how the government works, vote?

Why can people who do not have the basic knowledge of history and our government cast votes on issues that they don't understand?

A non-partisan test that makes sure that people who vote actually have some idea of what's going on in government makes a lot of sense.

Why should the ignorant masses decide on our future? And before someone rants about democracy, the founding fathers created the Electoral College in order to ensure that people couldn't be elected by idiots. Of course, that all changed when electors were forced to mimic the voters, but something should be put into place to stop such problems.

I really don't want people who don't know the US consists of 50 states, the capital being Washington DC, that we are bordered by Mexico and Canada, that the US dropped Atomic Bombs on Japan and that Iran is a theocracy to be voting. Currently, people vote based on sound bites and parties. That needs to change.

And, to keep this all on topic, if you can pass the test at 15, you should be able to vote. 15 or 16 at the yongest though. Even the smartest 12 year old may be influenced by their parents.

I like the idea of the lowered voting age. The problem is that those youth that can make a resonsible decision, possibly the majority of youth voters, would be unrepresented otherwise.

You stated yourself "without regards to percentages in the congress and house". I figured that would actually mean it for everyone, but guess not.

So what third parties should we add? There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Should we give the communist parties in america places in it, the socialists, the nazi's, the libertarians, and every other third party a place? The point isnt to represent parties, its the opposite. Having two opposing parties at equal strength means that one side can effectively stop the other from making the tests partisan. When I said irregardless of percentages, I meant the parties that at least had percentages in these places.

Why can people who have no concept of how the government works, vote?

Why can people who do not have the basic knowledge of history and our government cast votes on issues that they don't understand?

A non-partisan test that makes sure that people who vote actually have some idea of what's going on in government makes a lot of sense.

Why should the ignorant masses decide on our future? And before someone rants about democracy, the founding fathers created the Electoral College in order to ensure that people couldn't be elected by idiots. Of course, that all changed when electors were forced to mimic the voters, but something should be put into place to stop such problems.

I really don't want people who don't know the US consists of 50 states, the capital being Washington DC, that we are bordered by Mexico and Canada, that the US dropped Atomic Bombs on Japan and that Iran is a theocracy to be voting. Currently, people vote based on sound bites and parties. That needs to change.

And, to keep this all on topic, if you can pass the test at 15, you should be able to vote. 15 or 16 at the yongest though. Even the smartest 12 year old may be influenced by their parents.

Any 12 year old who is smart enough to pass such a test should be smart enough to know what his parents are doing is illegal. If he chooses to vote as they ask him to, thats not illegal. If they force him to, it is and he would know it. There should be no age limit.

So what third parties should we add? There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Should we give the communist parties in america places in it, the socialists, the nazi's, the libertarians, and every other third party a place? The point isnt to represent parties, its the opposite. Having two opposing parties at equal strength means that one side can effectively stop the other from making the tests partisan. When I said irregardless of percentages, I meant the parties that at least had percentages in these places.

I dislike the idea in general, to be honest. :D I was just wondering if you really had any reason behind only sticking to the two main parties. And the problem there is that they aren't necessarily "opposing".

And not to be nitpicky or anything - okay, yes, to be nitpicky - "irregardless" is nonsense. Just use "regardless". Pet peeve of mine, sorry. :)

I think it's perfect at 18. The thing I hate most is a minor that thinks they're mature enough to make decisions that effect the whole country. I used to have one in my class.

18's sensible enough. I say this as an under-18.

So we shouldnt protect our voting from those who are not mentally capable of making intelligent decisions in our politics?
Are you doing that now?

Are you doing that now?

If we were, would we have so many terrible, ineffectual and politically cowardly politicians?

No age limit, just a test developed by me! ME!!!!!

Only one question.

How would you rate your ability to rate yourself?


If a person could answer this adequately as determined by me then they could vote regardless of age.