NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, in all my years (thirteen in total) I have seen total asses vote and people, much brighter, but younger, haven't been able to vote... I feel that peoples should take tests just like a drivers license... whats your view? Oh and we have our elections every three years so I've seen... 4, although I was only one when I saw the first one.

voting laws are about when the average person is old enough to judge their own best interest in an election.

18 is a good age. most people who are going to vote as soon as they have turned 18 are politically aware and educated enough to know what the stakes are

id be happy with a system where 16 year olds could vote if they could pass a test of american history/government/politics but i dont see it happenning any time soon.

Speaking from a purely american perspective, I don't think it would be constitutional to deny people the right to vote based in intellegence or competency.

I think everyone should get it at 18, but with the possiblity of testing and getting it from age 15 up.

Just prove you know what the heck you're doing(know some politics, history, current events, etc) and you can vote. Seems fair to me.

I think everyone should get it at 18, but with the possiblity of testing and getting it from age 15 up.

Just prove you know what the heck you're doing(know some politics, history, current events, etc) and you can vote. Seems fair to me.
huh, never thought of that. Interesting, but it would create complicated socio-political issues like:
"Hah hah. I can vote and you can't. You're stupid!"

Well, in all my years (thirteen in total) I have seen total asses vote and people, much brighter, but younger, haven't been able to vote... I feel that peoples should take tests just like a drivers license... whats your view? Oh and we have our elections every three years so I've seen... 4, although I was only one when I saw the first one.

Everyone should get the right to vote. It is something all Americans get. Your idea would never pass, and millions would be denied their right to vote.

Any age really.

You cant argue responsibility comes with age and you all know it, and you could argue that parents will influence the vote, but they do anyway so's...

Speaking from a purely american perspective, I don't think it would be constitutional to deny people the right to vote based in intellegence or competency.
Depending on what sort of election it would be, it would be acceptable to deny sufferage in some cases. You just can't do it because of age, race, sex, etc.

Voting should be determined by knowledge to prevent apathy. Thus, everyone over, say age 13 who passes a test on history and government should be able to vote, and everyone who doesn't pass shouldn't have the right. That'll give us a much more representative and sensible outcome. :p

Oh, and get rid of the electoral college, and any parliaments and senates we still have left. If everyone is properly educated we can have direct democracy and it would work...

Depending on what sort of election it would be, it would be acceptable to deny sufferage in some cases. You just can't do it because of age, race, sex, etc.

Such as?

I agree at that 18 is a good voting age but i also think if some one say 17 wanted to vote on a sertian election espically if they turned 18 after the election is over i say they should be allowed to do so if he/she wanted to even if it is a major election and they know what the stakes are...............:)

Such as?
Intellegence, for one. There are penalties for doing so, but a state could, if they want, make a test for intellegence as a prerequisite to vote, so long as it isn't biased against certain classes of people.

huh, never thought of that. Interesting, but it would create complicated socio-political issues like:
"Hah hah. I can vote and you can't. You're stupid!"

Well I would never say it should boil down to 'Smart People Vote, stupid people sit down and shut the hell up.'

I mean the reason a voting age exists at all is to ensure competence, right? Well if you can prove you're competant before the age, then I believe it would be wrong to deny you the vote. But to ensure it doesn't ever become too meritocratic and exclusive, you give everyone the vote at 18, period.

Well, in all my years (thirteen in total) I have seen total asses vote and people, much brighter, but younger, haven't been able to vote...

Before you get the right to vote, you always think that the legal voting age should include you. To be honest, 13 is too young for anyone to really have a comprehensive understanding of politics (of course, you could be an exception, but the vast majority of people at your age have very little experience with the adult world of work, money and society).


I feel that peoples should take tests just like a drivers license... whats your view?

Denying people the right to vote based on "intelligence" or some other similar criteria is far too easy to abuse, even if it might seem fairer. Who decides what constitutes intelligence? It also inherently bypasses the modern democratic process, which is based on equal suffrage for all sane adults.

18's a good legal age for anything. By then, regardless of intelligence, one has demonstrated the ability to survive and function within a society, so it would be reasonable at that age to allow them to vote.

Less than 18? Not long enough of a track record. This is not to say that teenagers are not capable of making good decisions, but they have not been around long enough to establish a record of consistently making good decisions.

Well, in all my years (thirteen in total) I have seen total asses vote and people, much brighter, but younger, haven't been able to vote... I feel that peoples should take tests just like a drivers license... whats your view? Oh and we have our elections every three years so I've seen... 4, although I was only one when I saw the first one.
As soon as you turn 18, you'll stop caring.

And who is "we"? American's don't have elections every three years by any measure. National elections are held every two years. The presidency is voted on during every other national election. Congresspersons are voted on during every national election. Senators are voted to six year teams, but a third of all senators are still voted on during every national election. There's no three years about it if you're American...

Voting should be determined by knowledge to prevent apathy. Thus, everyone over, say age 13 who passes a test on history and government should be able to vote, and everyone who doesn't pass shouldn't have the right. That'll give us a much more representative and sensible outcome. :p


There's more to sensible voting than a knowledge of history. Certain aspects of politics govern areas of life which young adolescents have had little or no experience in. Things like employment and sexuality should be discovered and learned about through personal experience before someone has the ability to sway a nation's legislature.

voting laws are about when the average person is old enough to judge their own best interest in an election.

18 is a good age. most people who are going to vote as soon as they have turned 18 are politically aware and educated enough to know what the stakes are

id be happy with a system where 16 year olds could vote if they could pass a test of american history/government/politics but i dont see it happenning any time soon.

Now that we have eliminated discrimination by race, religion, gender etc, the primary criterion for being able to vote seems to be age (there are often exceptions to general suffrage such as the "insane" or "criminal" as defined in many democratic countries). Why is this?

It isn't as if just being older makes you more politically aware - in fact it might make you less interested in the political process as other things in life (career, family etc) take precedence. I have heard it argued that it is about maturity, but as people become mature at a huge range of ages, this does not seem to be a good argument for saying that everybody can vote at the same age. After all, people go through puberty at different rates. Why have any minimum age?

PS I am aware that this looks like a different issue, but I think the point is critical to the initial question.

Oh, and get rid of the electoral college, and any parliaments and senates we still have left. If everyone is properly educated we can have direct democracy and it would work...

AHAHAHAHA!! No it wouldn't, or at least not in a country the size of the US, or the UK. I think even the Vatican would be pushed.

All you would do is get rid of the one fairly small house (senate/parliament) and replace it with a bloody huge one filled by nearly the whole country, and they wouldn't be doing it as a job, which would make any kind of debate nearly impossible.

Direct democracy is a pipe dream.

AHAHAHAHA!! No it wouldn't, or at least not in a country the size of the US, or the UK. I think even the Vatican would be pushed.

All you would do is get rid of the one fairly small house (senate/parliament) and replace it with a bloody huge one filled by nearly the whole country, and they wouldn't be doing it as a job, which would make any kind of debate nearly impossible.

Direct democracy is a pipe dream.
If we take only the citizens with the knowledge and thus ability to vote, it won't be quite as large as all that. Besides, participation as such can be optional, or with rotating shifts of, say one-sixth of the eligible citizens selected or elected each year. I think it can work.

Besides, who wants to live in a large country like that? ;)

Before you get the right to vote, you always think that the legal voting age should include you. To be honest, 13 is too young for anyone to really have a comprehensive understanding of politics (of course, you could be an exception, but the vast majority of people at your age have very little experience with the adult world of work, money and society).

As if demented 85 year olds have anything resembling a comprehensive understanding of politics.... are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow them the vote? Not to mention that the average joe isn't very informed about politics either...

Dogburg, I hardly see what relevance sexuality of said person has to do with his ability to understand party programs and politics. The argument about employment is hardly fair, I am sure there are people that have never done a job in their entire life and still vote.

I am not saying that you should allow 13 year olds to vote but the problem with arguing that adolscents shouldn't be allowed to vote invariable leads to questions how come some other parts of the population is allowed to vote.

Now that we have eliminated discrimination by race, religion, gender etc, the primary criterion for being able to vote seems to be age (there are often exceptions to general suffrage such as the "insane" or "criminal" as defined in many democratic countries). Why is this?

It isn't as if just being older makes you more politically aware - in fact it might make you less interested in the political process as other things in life (career, family etc) take precedence. I have heard it argued that it is about maturity, but as people become mature at a huge range of ages, this does not seem to be a good argument for saying that everybody can vote at the same age. After all, people go through puberty at different rates. Why have any minimum age?

PS I am aware that this looks like a different issue, but I think the point is critical to the initial question.
every citizen should have the right to vote but age IS an issue (can't have the newborn going into the voting booth alone)

small children cant read or understand the issues. parents would unduly influence their minor children givng them extra votes.

there just has to be SOME age where you are too young to vote. we have chosen "under 18". it could be lower but it has to be somewhere.

Now that we have eliminated discrimination by race, religion, gender etc, the primary criterion for being able to vote seems to be age (there are often exceptions to general suffrage such as the "insane" or "criminal" as defined in many democratic countries). Why is this?

It isn't as if just being older makes you more politically aware - in fact it might make you less interested in the political process as other things in life (career, family etc) take precedence. I have heard it argued that it is about maturity, but as people become mature at a huge range of ages, this does not seem to be a good argument for saying that everybody can vote at the same age. After all, people go through puberty at different rates. Why have any minimum age?


It's because politicians can legislate in areas of life which the very young have not yet come across - like having a job, being married, paying taxes and so on. You might understand the difference between Karl Marx and Adam Smith, but it doesn't mean you have any idea what it's like to run a family or earn a living.

As if demented 85 year olds have anything resembling a comprehensive understanding of politics.... are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow them the vote? Not to mention that the average joe isn't very informed about politics either...

Dogburg, I hardly see what relevance sexuality of said person has to do with his ability to understand party programs and politics. The argument about employment is hardly fair, I am sure there are people that have never done a job in their entire life and still vote.

I am not saying that you should allow 13 year olds to vote but the problem with arguing that adolscents shouldn't be allowed to vote invariable leads to questions how come some other parts of the population is allowed to vote.
Where does Dogburg mention sexuality?
...

My argument against the 13-year-old voter is that Sponge Bob doesn't tell you about the War in Iraq, Social Security, or any other issues that really matter...
You could say "just test them," but the United States has already appropriately determined that any sort of test on one's education to be used as a form of denying one the fundamental right to vote is too easily exploited.

If we take only the citizens with the knowledge and thus ability to vote, it won't be quite as large as all that. Besides, participation as such can be optional, or with rotating shifts of, say one-sixth of the eligible citizens selected or elected each year. I think it can work.

Besides, who wants to live in a large country like that? ;)

Your voters each time will still be in the 6 digit region, I think, at least. It's a logistical nightmare.

Might work in the Vatican, though.

every citizen should have the right to vote but age IS an issue (can't have the newborn going into the voting booth alone)

small children cant read or understand the issues. parents would unduly influence their minor children givng them extra votes.

there just has to be SOME age where you are too young to vote. we have chosen "under 18". it could be lower but it has to be somewhere.
To add to all of that...generally speaking, people are not truly independent from their parents when they turn 18. At this age, they no longer are the responsibility of anyone but themself and also have the freedom to essentially do what they want. Most people do not truly beginning developing their own self-image too much before they turn 18, which means voting before then would simply be too much peer pressure or parental influence. "I'm voting for X candidate because mommy says he's a good choice." etc.

Wanksta Nation, the bold.

There's more to sensible voting than a knowledge of history. Certain aspects of politics govern areas of life which young adolescents have had little or no experience in. Things like employment and sexuality should be discovered and learned about through personal experience before someone has the ability to sway a nation's legislature.

As if demented 85 year olds have anything resembling a comprehensive understanding of politics.... are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow them the vote? Not to mention that the average joe isn't very informed about politics either...

Someone who is genuinely demented is usually prevented from voting in my country. I don't know about yours.

As for average joe, you may not think he's the sharpest tool in the box, but who's to say he's not just of a different political leaning than you.


Dogburg, I hardly see what relevance sexuality of said person has to do with his ability to understand party programs and politics. The argument about employment is hardly fair, I am sure there are people that have never done a job in their entire life and still vote.

I didn't mean withdrawl of suffrage based on sexuality, rather that the average 13 year old is unlikely to fully understand the complexities of adult relationships. An adult hobo still has a greater understanding of the ins and outs of personal economics independant from a parent figure, even though he might not hold down a paying job.


I am not saying that you should allow 13 year olds to vote but the problem with arguing that adolscents shouldn't be allowed to vote invariable leads to questions how come some other parts of the population is allowed to vote.

There's no objective way to say who should vote and who should not - the whole point of democracy is that nobody really knows what's best but hopefully most people will have some idea. However, I feel there are clear, important differences between an adult and a child which determine how appropriate somebody's suffrage is, and most children are inadequately informed and experienced to vote. My condolences if you're 13 and some sort of enlightened genius, but most 13 year olds aren't.

Someone who is genuinely demented is usually prevented from voting in my country. I don't know about yours.

As for average joe, you may not think he's the sharpest tool in the box, but who's to say he's not just of a different political leaning than you.

There's no objective way to say who should vote and who should not - the whole point of democracy is that nobody really knows what's best but hopefully most people will have some idea. However, I feel there are clear, important differences between an adult and a child which determine how appropriate somebody's suffrage is, and most children are inadequately informed and experienced to vote. My condolences if you're 13 and some sort of enlightened genius, but most 13 year olds aren't.

Nah I wish I was 13, god knows I do, life was much simpler back then (heck, even better if I could be 3).

I have heard people going "my parents voted for them and my grandparents voted for them, therefore I'll vote for them" more than once.... I don't mind people from other political leanings as long as they can present the arguements as to why they hold to that leaning, which most people seem unable to do.

As to that there are laws against letting demented people vote, are you sure? What is the definition of demented according to the law then?... I have a hard time seeing the government officialy classifying someone as demented just because they don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the political system anymore...

Not to mention that, for example my grandmother, doesn't even speak the language and still gets to vote and I assure you she is not unique.

Approximately 2% of American adults are denied the right to vote based on criminal records.

Nah I wish I was 13, god knows I do, life was much simpler back then (heck, even better if I could be 3).

I have heard snip

Life is simple when you're 13. Too simple for participation in the electoral system.

Regarding the rest - I agree, it's tricky. There's no way to objectively classify people with regard to their voting aptitude. The best we can hope to do is install rough boundaries which filter out those who really aren't capable of it.

About the demented and insane - I believe some legislation preventing the voting of lunatics, but I'm not totally sure. I wouldn't expect people who were genuinely insane to be exercising their right to vote anyway (unless they happened to stumble into a booth somehow).

Now, on both issues, there are always going to be some people who aren't actually insane and are wrongly diagnosed and incarcerated, and there may well be some children who are wise geniuses.

But consider also the practical implications of letting everyone aged 13 and up pick a government. Somebody so young is extremely prone to coercion or influence by all kinds of biased parties - their parents, their teachers, their peers. Politics for lots of young people is very black and white, increasing the likelyhood of some radical nutjob getting elected. And as I've already said, the majority of children don't have much of a clue about what it's like to pay taxes, raise a family and hold down a job (or face the consequences of not holding down a job).

The difficulty with democracy is that people have a right to be part of the political process regardless of race, religion, literacy, language, property, job, role in society etc. If one argues that there is no reason for a person to have the franchise denied for these reasons, why should the young be denied?

My fear is that the argument for denying children the right to vote seem to be that they are incapable of making the decision wisely (didn't have the life experience, lacked intelligence, were easily coerced etc). This is very similar to the arguments used against female suffrage until the last century.

The difficulty with democracy is that people have a right to be part of the political process regardless of race, religion, literacy, language, property, job, role in society etc. If one argues that there is no reason for a person to have the franchise denied for these reasons, why should the young be denied?

My fear is that the argument for denying children the right to vote seem to be that they are incapable of making the decision wisely (didn't have the life experience, lacked intelligence, were easily coerced etc). This is very similar to the arguments used against female suffrage until the last century.

There's a huge difference between the mental competence of an adult woman and a child.

The difficulty with democracy is that people have a right to be part of the political process regardless of race, religion, literacy, language, property, job, role in society etc. If one argues that there is no reason for a person to have the franchise denied for these reasons, why should the young be denied?

My fear is that the argument for denying children the right to vote seem to be that they are incapable of making the decision wisely (didn't have the life experience, lacked intelligence, were easily coerced etc). This is very similar to the arguments used against female suffrage until the last century.
Women, and minorities...and 18-21 year olds... all got the right to vote when they became a real part of society.

I don't agree necessarily with how women or minorities were treated (and to some extent, still are today), but in an era before television and radio, is a woman who stays at home to cook and raise a family really that interested in politics at all? Women got the right to vote after making themselves a real part of society and taking a serious interest in politics on a large scale. When I see 13 year olds putting off homework to watch CSpan, (as opposed to Sponge Bob) (and I mean on a large scale, not just one or two here and there)~, then I'll know they're one step closer to being mature enough to vote.

Women, and minorities...and 18-21 year olds... all got the right to vote when they became a real part of society.

I don't agree necessarily with how women or minorities were treated (and to some extent, still are today), but in an era before television and radio, is a woman who stays at home to cook and raise a family really that interested in politics at all? Women got the right to vote after making themselves a real part of society and taking a serious interest in politics on a large scale. When I see 13 year olds putting off homework to watch CSpan, (as opposed to Sponge Bob) (and I mean on a large scale, not just one or two here and there)~, then I'll know they're one step closer to being mature enough to vote.

As the existence of the UN Children's Summit and other similar political organisations of children goes to prove, there are children who are interested in such matters, but that is back to the discussion on whether there should be a test of political acumen before enfranchisment.

If democracy is rule by the people, it should not matter whether those people spend all their time at home, are not interested in politics, simply read the cartoons in newspapers or are political activists. The principle is one person = one vote, I thought.

I have yet to be convinced that the arguments excluding children from voting can be consistently applied to adults without removing a large number from the voting register (while even so probably allowing in a substantial number of children on the same criteria!).

As the existence of the UN Children's Summit and other similar political organisations of children goes to prove, there are children who are interested in such matters, but that is back to the discussion on whether there should be a test of political acumen before enfranchisment.

It's not just political acumen which counts. There is such a huge range of activities and social functionality which are inaccessible to children and which are influenced by the political process.


If democracy is rule by the people, it should not matter whether those people spend all their time at home, are not interested in politics, simply read the cartoons in newspapers or are political activists. The principle is one person = one vote, I thought.

Children are not fully developed people. They are not employed, cannot drive, engage in sexual relationships or own property and they do not pay taxes. Since they have fewer responsibilities, they have fewer rights. I doubt you would advocate child labour and an age of consent as young as 13, so why should you advocate the right of children to vote?

Lots of young people work, and by young people, I mean high school kids. I worked when I was in high school...sor of on and off, but I worked. I understood the value of a dollar. I had a car and I knew what it took to fix it. At one time, I held down a job while I was taking high school AND college classes. I was more well-informed than a lot of people in the U.S. who were allowed to vote.

Therefore, I believe that young people should be given the chance to vote, but they should have to earn it. At age 16, a young person can pass a test proving that they understand how the government works, how economics work, and maybe a little about American history...things they should learn in school. Sort of like taking a driver's test. It might even increase political interest among youth if the right to vote is something they have the opportunity to earn.

That doesn't mean that a person can never earn the right to vote. Sometime between 18 and 20ish, people would be given the right to vote regardless of passing a test. Sort of like how people can just take their driving test at 18 and get a license, but they have to take classes and in-car training to get it before then. Needless to say, everyone wants to drive. Hopefully, everyone will want to vote as well.

snip

At 16, maybe. Lots of people in this thread are talking 13 and up, or even younger.

It's not just political acumen which counts. There is such a huge range of activities and social functionality which are inaccessible to children and which are influenced by the political process.

Children are not fully developed people. They are not employed, cannot drive, engage in sexual relationships or own property and they do not pay taxes. Since they have fewer responsibilities, they have fewer rights. I doubt you would advocate child labour and an age of consent as young as 13, so why should you advocate the right of children to vote?

I understand the argument and can see the point - with responsibility comes rights. It's a great theory but I'm not sure how clear the relationship is in reality - there are a lot of irresponsible people with power, but that is another discussion.

I guess we are not advocating that an adult who is not in paid employment, cannot drive, is celebate, owns no property and does not pay taxes (such as a Fransiscan friar) is denied the right to vote. So there must be something different about a child. And it isn't simply that they cannot chose to be without these things - many unemployed people, for example, are so despite wanting to be otherwise.

snip
Therefore, I believe that young people should be given the chance to vote, but they should have to earn it.
snip
It might even increase political interest among youth if the right to vote is something they have the opportunity to earn.


I can see the value of this - make something difficult to obtain and people desire it more. I've heard the same argument used for paid education.

Would you also advocate removing the right under any circumstances? Is it necessary to retest intermittently?

My concern with the proposal is that it puts an arbiter between the citizen and their democratic right (like certain criminal or psychiatric records). However, it seems a more equitable alternative to the arbitrary age limit.

I remeber learning about people having to take a literacy test to be able to vote. It was used to keep African Americans from voting in the forties and fifties. This is why I don't trust the notion of having to take a test to see if ou can vote.

As with the topic of another thread ( the one on parental notification when underage children want an abortion ), it would be nice if we had some foolproof way of determining when someone was mature enough to vote ( or have an abortion ), but in the absence of such a test, the current rather arbitrary age of 18 will have to do.

This really shouldn't be something to argue about. I'd doubt the government would change the sufferage age, it has been working well. Isn't 18 years old international sufferage anyway?

I can see the value of this - make something difficult to obtain and people desire it more. I've heard the same argument used for paid education.

Would you also advocate removing the right under any circumstances? Is it necessary to retest intermittently?

My concern with the proposal is that it puts an arbiter between the citizen and their democratic right (like certain criminal or psychiatric records). However, it seems a more equitable alternative to the arbitrary age limit.

Once you earn the right to vote, either by reaching the appropriate age or taking the test to earn it earlier, the right is yours. I don't necessarily agree with allowing those in prison to vote, but to remove the right to vote from paroled felons is something I do oppose.

Bear in mind that people will get the right to vote sooner or later no matter what under my idea. People who take a test just get it sooner; that is all.

My Greetings to All and Sundry,

Voting age is a difficult issue to determine and has as much to do with psychology as society. There is a push on to lower the voting ages in many countries. Some would argue that education might be treated as a serious issue if more people in grade schools were able to vote. It is also a valid point that citizens might turn up more to vote if voting was part of life before most students graduated or were near graduation.

Let’s face it there are a lot of adults out there who would have you believe that age isn’t the most important factor in voting, since so many are uneducated; having little knowledge of the world around them; have turned their backs on the electoral system in protest; or just plain too lazy to pay attention to the political realities around them until someone in jack boots drags them out of their home. There is a case for at the very least allowing young people the chance to vote at the age of 15-16 to encourage participation in democracy and ingraining that behavior earlier to avoid the embarrassing turn outs for elections at every level. Likewise schools should do a much better job at teach students about their electoral systems, with more depth to prepare them for their futures, instead of quick cookie cutter units at best on the subject or just ensuring everyone knows their current national leader and capital.

Psychologists have stated that the ability to think in abstract thoughts is probably a good determining factor for gauging politics and similar gray areas of our society. Although our politicians and media tend to work in black and white understanding of everything, meaning that they themselves have not mentally mastered this particular part of adulthood and are behaving like 8 year olds. I have heard references to studies that suggested that 13 year olds don’t make any worse voting decisions than adults do and given the state of the media that probably isn’t far from the truth.

My guess is that 13 is probably for most people a bit young, although some people at that age understand the issues better than most adults, but that 14-15 would be a good age to begin someone’s understanding of the electoral system. Some people are going to point out that people that young are too influenced by adults, but the same could be said of adults who are strongly influenced by spouses, bosses, and peers.

The Bruce