NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that the voting age should be changed to whatever age you become literate enough to fill out your voter registration form without adult supervision. It's wrong how children are owned by the government and they get no say in their own education. Some kids may vote for stupid things like no mandatory education, but as long as adults outnumber kids there will be mandatory education. However, if kids could vote adults would be forced to take their problems seriously. Maybe they would start letting kids go to school at 9 instead of 7, because according to every study done on this subject kids get better grades and are happier if they are allowed to sleep longer. Maybe they would get somebody less stupid to write the textbooks. Maybe they would stop letting the kids who beat everyone up go to school with the normal kids.

I went to vote in the primary today, and everyone I saw was way older than I am. I couldn't help but wonder why there are so many more old voters than college aged voters. Part of the reason college aged people don't vote is because they have so many things going on in their lives, but another part of the reason is that they often don't care. Why don't they care?

Children start out their intellectual lives caring. Children don't have to be taught to respect authority, like some people think. Children are born with a natural respect for authority and they are interested in being part of the system. Often children lose their respect for authority by being treated unfairly at school or by their parents. In school children are told they should question authority and practice critical thinking, but in practice they are often punished for questioning the teacher out loud. Students learn that their lives are owned by the school and by their parents, and since they have no power over the situation they fall out of the habit of caring about the higher powers. In order for a student to start caring again, they must re-learn that there is nothing wrong with accepting personal power and responsibility. I think it would be easier for young people to accept responsibility if they grew up with their basic human rights, instead of having those rights handed to them after 18 years of being told they're too stupid to have freedom of speech or any other freedom.

Um no they should not be allowed to vote. Hell there are some adults that should not be allowed to vote but there's nothing that can be done about that. Kids though are not mature enough to vote.

It can't be argued that kids are mature. But it can be argued that people become more mature when they are given more responsibility. Women and black people where very ignorant at the time when they where given the right to vote. After they got their rights they slowly started to become as well informed as everyone else.

Why? What would be the point?

Kids though are not mature enough to vote.

which is why if you remember, on the day we turned 18, we were given magical maturity pills that suddenly changed things from one day to the next.

No wait, that never happened, and trying to defend an 18 year old voting age with some blanket "they're not mature enough" statement is ascinine.

<snip ignorant tripe>

I take it you're just barely old enough to vote.

also this:
Um no they should not be allowed to vote. Hell there are some adults that should not be allowed to vote but there's nothing that can be done about that. Kids though are not mature enough to vote.

which is why if you remember, on the day we turned 18, we were given magical maturity pills that suddenly changed things from one day to the next.

No wait, that never happened, and trying to defend an 18 year old voting age with some blanket "they're not mature enough" statement is ascinine.
He did say that some adults are not mature enough

which is why if you remember, on the day we turned 18, we were given magical maturity pills that suddenly changed things from one day to the next.

No wait, that never happened, and trying to defend an 18 year old voting age with some blanket "they're not mature enough" statement is ascinine.

It's funny how this exact line is consistently argued by pedophiles.

which is why if you remember, on the day we turned 18, we were given magical maturity pills that suddenly changed things from one day to the next.

No wait, that never happened, and trying to defend an 18 year old voting age with some blanket "they're not mature enough" statement is ascinine.

I'm not here to debate the Constitution which gives 18 yos the right to vote. They are not minors under the eyse of the law.

When u are mentally able, u should be allowed to vote.

Entirely irrelevant, and in fact, that just serves to defeat his own point. By saying "some adults are not mature enough" it is at least a recognition that people mature differently at different rates.

Congratulations on passing human physiology 101.

So if there are some 19 year olds who are not mature enough to vote, it stands to reason that there are some 17 year olds who are mature enough to vote, and saying that the voting age should be 18 because "they're not mature enough" while, in the same breath, recognizing that this is not, universally, the case, is, as I said, ascinine.

People do mature differently but under the law of the land, the age of maturity is (in most states) 16 to drive and in all states-18 to vote and 21 to drink.

So tell me Neo Art. You are trying to pick my argument apart but yet you have yet to speak your opinion on this issue.

probably yes. However I am not in favor of lowering the voting age from anything other than what it is now. There are good reasons for it, same as there are good reasons for age of consent laws.

And we can hold that position even recognizing that yes, some kids are mature enough to vote even if they're not legally old enough and yes, some kids are mature enough to have sex, even if they're not legally old enough. There are good enough reasons to keep the voting age what it is, without trying to delve into the realm of magical make believe where we have to pretend that under 18 is "not mature enough" as if that were some universal truth.

Well I think you have definitely misinterpreted what Corneliu is saying then.

He did say that some adults are not mature enough

Entirely irrelevant, and in fact, that just serves to defeat his own point. By saying "some adults are not mature enough" it is at least a recognition that people mature differently at different rates.

So if there are some 19 year olds who are not mature enough to vote, it stands to reason that there are some 17 year olds who are mature enough to vote, and saying that the voting age should be 18 because "they're not mature enough" while, in the same breath, recognizing that this is not, universally, the case, is, as I said, ascinine.

Why not just give parents more votes based on how many kids they have?

No, your 18th birthday isn't like a magical bonk on the head that suddenly makes you aware of the world and even headed, but it's an overall 'average' watershed. You have, at that point, completed your primary compulsory education, you've reached majority. Yes, some people are not yet mature at 18, or 36 (Mathew McConnahoweveritsspelled seems to be making his career out of portraying them), but it's an average watershed. By most of our standards and measures, you have not received enough information and/or experience to be responsible for your decisions until that point. On the surface it might seem arbitrary, but unless you're going to implement voter eligibility tests, which has its own bag of problems, thats what you got.

Maybe there should be a test given to everyone proving that they can understand political issues. If they had a test like that every citizen who passes it should be able to vote, even if they are 12. A test like that would also get rid of many senile old voters.

I would favor allowing minors at the age of 16 to vote, as they would be allowed to drive, in a manner that makes it cool to vote. Kids look forward to getting their driver's licenses, as it's a point of status in high school. Why not do the same with voting? Kids will want to vote, they will want to be knowledgeable, and though there may be a lot of kids who do crazy things like vote for third-party candidates, it's far less likely to cause negative outcomes as, say, their habit of driving 110 in a 55 zone.

Young children don't need to be voting. High schoolers? Why the hell not.

When u are mentally able, u should be allowed to vote.
When you stop thinking it's cute to spell "you" as "u", you should be allowed to vote.

It's funny how this exact line is consistently argued by pedophiles.

probably yes. However I am not in favor of lowering the voting age from anything other than what it is now. There are good reasons for it, same as there are good reasons for age of consent laws.

And we can hold that position even recognizing that yes, some kids are mature enough to vote even if they're not legally old enough and yes, some kids are mature enough to have sex, even if they're not legally old enough. There are good enough reasons to keep the voting age what it is, without trying to delve into the realm of magical make believe where we have to pretend that under 18 is "not mature enough" as if that were some universal truth.

Why not just give parents more votes based on how many kids they have?

No, your 18th birthday isn't like a magical bonk on the head that suddenly makes you aware of the world and even headed, but it's an overall 'average' watershed. You have, at that point, completed your primary compulsory education, you've reached majority. Yes, some people are not yet mature at 18, or 36 (Mathew McConnahoweveritsspelled seems to be making his career out of portraying them), but it's an average watershed. By most of our standards and measures, you have not received enough information and/or experience to be responsible for your decisions until that point. On the surface it might seem arbitrary, but unless you're going to implement voter eligibility tests, which has its own bag of problems, thats what you got.I think the only reason people come of age at 18 is because 1) that's when you happen to graduate high school and 2) that's when you start to reach your physical peak, meaning you make a good candidate for military service.

Many people do become more mature at age 18, but I believe this is because that age is the first age when they are allowed to make real choices and learn from them. People mature by learning from experience. You can be 30 and have no valuable life experience.

No.

Most minors (MOST) dont know enough about politics to make an informed descision, and will probably just vote for whoever their parents tell them to.

I'm not here to debate the Constitution which gives 18 yos the right to vote. They are not minors under the eyse of the law.

which:

1) is not what you said

and

2) you realize that this thread is for debating the constitution and the applicability of that law, yes? The whole premise of this thread is whether the law should be changed.

If you're "not here to debate the Constitution which gives 18 yos the right to vote." then why the fuck are you here, in a thread that's designed to debate the law which gives 18 year olds the right to vote?

Why not just give parents more votes based on how many kids they have?

No, your 18th birthday isn't like a magical bonk on the head that suddenly makes you aware of the world and even headed, but it's an overall 'average' watershed. You have, at that point, completed your primary compulsory education, you've reached majority. Yes, some people are not yet mature at 18, or 36 (Mathew McConnahoweveritsspelled seems to be making his career out of portraying them), but it's an average watershed. By most of our standards and measures, you have not received enough information and/or experience to be responsible for your decisions until that point. On the surface it might seem arbitrary, but unless you're going to implement voter eligibility tests, which has its own bag of problems, thats what you got.


And this is one of those "much better arguments" that I was talking about.

Entirely irrelevant, and in fact, that just serves to defeat his own point. By saying "some adults are not mature enough" it is at least a recognition that people mature differently at different rates.

So if there are some 19 year olds who are not mature enough to vote, it stands to reason that there are some 17 year olds who are mature enough to vote, and saying that the voting age should be 18 because "they're not mature enough" while, in the same breath, recognizing that this is not, universally, the case, is, as I said, ascinine.

And that is the problem with any age-related cut-off, do you have a reasonable suggestion as to a way to avoid it?

Also the word is asinine.

So tell me Neo Art. You are trying to pick my argument apart but yet you have yet to speak your opinion on this issue.

My opinion on the issue is entirely irrelevant to the fact that you had a shitty argument. My pointing out that your argument was bad is in no way reflective of my position, it just means you had a bad argument.

My opinion on the issue is entirely irrelevant to the fact that you had a shitty argument. My pointing out that your argument was bad is in no way reflective of my position, it just means you had a bad argument.

What's your Opinion on the issue Neo Art.

No.

Most minors (MOST) dont know enough about politics to make an informed descision, and will probably just vote for whoever their parents tell them to.

Hell most adults don't know enough about politics to make an informed decision.

And that is the problem with any age-related cut-off, do you have a reasonable suggestion as to a way to avoid it?

Not at all, but that assumes I want to avoid it. Rather, I'm pretty comfortable with it, I'm willing to accept that problem, and keep the cut-off based on age just the way it is. Why would you assume I wanted to avoid it?

Also the word is asinine.

That's nice. Above you began a sentence with the word "And"

I'm unsure how many ways I can interpret "Kids though are not mature enough to vote."

That seems like a pretty blanket and universal statement to me.

Shall we look at the op? It states "when they are literate enough to fill out" This implies kids. As in those under 16.

I would favor allowing minors at the age of 16 to vote, as they would be allowed to drive, in a manner that makes it cool to vote. Kids look forward to getting their driver's licenses, as it's a point of status in high school. Why not do the same with voting? Kids will want to vote, they will want to be knowledgeable, and though there may be a lot of kids who do crazy things like vote for third-party candidates, it's far less likely to cause negative outcomes as, say, their habit of driving 110 in a 55 zone.

Young children don't need to be voting. High schoolers? Why the hell not.

That's an interesting proposition. We could lump civics education in with driver's ed, and have a two part test at the end. One for driving, one for voting, or voting comes automatically when you turn 18 (as driver's ed is no longer mandatory, in VA anyway, when you turn 18).

Well I think you have definitely misinterpreted what Corneliu is saying then.

I'm unsure how many ways I can interpret "Kids though are not mature enough to vote."

That seems like a pretty blanket and universal statement to me.

Timewarps are out in force today.

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 5 seconds.

Not at all, but that assumes I want to avoid it. Rather, I'm pretty comfortable with it, I'm willing to accept that problem, and keep the cut-off based on age just the way it is. Why would you assume I wanted to avoid it?

Because you were complaining about it

Shall we look at the op? It states "when they are literate enough to fill out" This implies kids. As in those under 16.The poll isn't asking if you agree with my personal opinion, it's asking if minors should vote. That could be 16, 17, or whatever.

Because you were complaining about it

I suggest spending a little less time on the forum and a little more time polishing up on reading comprehention. I made no complaint about age limits for voting, I made no effort to say it should be changed, I made no effort until just then to actually tell you my position one way or another.

What I did say was Corneliu's argument in favor of them was a bad argument. A "take it out back and shoot it" argument. There are many good arguments for keeping it the way it is, the main one that was made recently by another poster. With all the good arguments to be made for it, resorting to, as I said, a magical proposition wherein "kids aren't mature enough" which as a blanket statement is demonstrably false is, again, a very bad argument.

The poll isn't asking if you agree with my personal opinion, it's asking if minors should vote. That could be 16, 17, or whatever.

You see? This is the problem. To me I consider 16 and 17yos to be practically adults. I consider kids to be younger than 15. Maybe you should have specified precisely what you meant.

I suggest spending a little less time on the forum and a little more time polishing up on reading comprehention. I made no complaint about age limits for voting, I made no effort to say it should be changed, I made no effort until just then to actually tell you my position one way or another.

What I did say was Corneliu's argument in favor of them was a bad argument. A "take it out back and shoot it" argument. There are many good arguments for keeping it the way it is, the main one that was made recently by another poster. With all the good arguments to be made for it, resorting to, as I said, a magical proposition wherein "kids aren't mature enough" which as a blanket statement is demonstrably false is, again, a very bad argument.

Perhaps you should just be a little less abrasive and confrontational then. If you were concerned that his post was a little too general then you could easily point out something like "that's not entirely accurate, some kids are actually etc....". Hell, I'm not even of the legal voting age yet (by only a month though), but I'm not in the least bit irritated by what Corneliu said, I doubt he really intended to mean 100% of all people under the age of 18.

What's your Opinion on the issue Neo Art.

My opinion is simple. There are two ways to resolve thie issue, either:

1) pick an age in which we as a society believe the votes are most likely to capture mature and educated voters, not too late so as to disefranchise significant would-be voters, but not too early to allow voters who are not capable of intelligently participating in the process (and 18 seems to fit that pretty well, though I have argued that in today's society 21 might be more appropriate), or;

2) create a poll test, which not only has the risk of significant bias, a massive headache to administer, but can leave poor, and often minority, neighborhoods disenfranchised, leading to a very bad cycle in which the poor get shafted by established government, who marginalize them, cut education, cut facilities, and effectively leave them completely cut off from adequately funded education and then design a poll test which they can't possibly pass, and are therefore unable to elect representatives who would actually fix the problem, effectively causing a viscious cycle in politics where the poor stay poor and their problems don't get fixed because their problems render them unable to vote in anyone who will fix it. Which is what some things like the Civil Rights Act were designed to prevent. Any attempt to try to place "voter requirements' on a vote will result in one thing and one thing only, a total shafting of the poor.

2) create a poll test, which not only has the risk of significant bias, a massive headache to administer, but can leave poor, and often minority, neighborhoods disenfranchised, leading to a very bad cycle in which the poor get shafted by established government, who marginalize them, cut education, cut facilities, and effectively leave them completely cut off from adequately funded education and then design a poll test which they can't possibly pass, and are therefore unable to elect representatives who would actually fix the problem, effectively causing a viscious cycle in politics where the poor stay poor and their problems don't get fixed because their problems render them unable to vote in anyone who will fix it. Which is what some things like the Civil Rights Act were designed to prevent. Any attempt to try to place "voter requirements' on a vote will result in one thing and one thing only, a total shafting of the poor.In my view, this is exactly what has happened to children. Children are cut off from society, to "protect" them, until they reach a certain age.

In my view, this is exactly what has happened to children. Children are cut off from society, to "protect" them, until they reach a certain age.

My parents did protect me from somethings but not all things but today...life is vastly different than when I was a Kid.

No. The voting age is perilously too low as it is.

The simple fact is that the human brain needs time to mature fully into an adult state. By thirteen or so you're pretty close but you still need many years yet to develop the long-term consequences understanding...stuff. (Bottle could explain this far more eloquently and probably correct whatever mistakes I'm making to boot.) So basically, you still need to mature.

Eighteen was set as a standard age for maturity for a long time due to other factors. It's a general age standard and you have to set a general age standard because otherwise you have a huge mess in trying to figure out when someone becomes mature enough to vote.

Then there's the fact that teenagers are remarkably easy to manipulate via advertising and the like. Walk into your average high school and poll the students. My high school was full of teenagers who supported Bush because they simply did not understand politics, were not interested in understanding politics, and simply went with whatever opinion seemed good based on their minute understanding. They spent far more time caring about the various goodies they could buy.

So if they were given suddenly the right to vote, they'd have tons of advertising spent on getting them to vote one way or another. They'd become an instant manipulated voter block and that is the very last thing we need.

No. The voting age is perilously too low as it is.

The simple fact is that the human brain needs time to mature fully into an adult state. By thirteen or so you're pretty close but you still need many years yet to develop the long-term consequences understanding...stuff. (Bottle could explain this far more eloquently and probably correct whatever mistakes I'm making to boot.) So basically, you still need to mature.

Eighteen was set as a standard age for maturity for a long time due to other factors. It's a general age standard and you have to set a general age standard because otherwise you have a huge mess in trying to figure out when someone becomes mature enough to vote.

Then there's the fact that teenagers are remarkably easy to manipulate via advertising and the like. Walk into your average high school and poll the students. My high school was full of teenagers who supported Bush because they simply did not understand politics, were not interested in understanding politics, and simply went with whatever opinion seemed good based on their minute understanding. They spent far more time caring about the various goodies they could buy.

So if they were given suddenly the right to vote, they'd have tons of advertising spent on getting them to vote one way or another. They'd become an instant manipulated voter block and that is the very last thing we need.People who have no power are always easy to manipulate, because everything is just theoretical to them. Teenagers know it doesn't mean anything if they support Bush or not, so they don't put much thought into it. Before women got the right to vote people considered women irresponsible and uneducated. Once women had power they became educated and laws where passed to protect them.

Teenagers would never get the majority or half of the majority vote like women did, but the point would be to force adults to take minors seriously instead of dismissing them.

People who have no power are always easy to manipulate, because everything is just theoretical to them. Teenagers know it doesn't mean anything if they support Bush or not, so they don't put much thought into it. Before women got the right to vote people considered women irresponsible and uneducated. Once women had power they became educated and laws where passed to protect them.

Teenagers would never get the majority or half of the majority vote like women did, but the point would be to force adults to take minors seriously instead of dismissing them.

What do you mean, 'dismissed'? You're more catered to than ever before. You're a demographic, son, and that carries more power and weight in todays world than a ballot could ever hope for. There's so much of todays world tailored to you, competing for your eyeballs and allowance/McDonald's paycheck that you might forget there's something other than 'the youth market.'

Teenagers would never get the majority or half of the majority vote like women did, but the point would be to force adults to take minors seriously instead of dismissing them.

:confused:

Sure, why not lower the age of consent as well. While we're at it, lower the the age of majority as well.

Old enough to vote, old enough to be drafted/tried as an adult/get drunk/not to receive any benefits of a minor.

You want to vote? Here,... also take the other not so cool stuff that comes with the territory.

I for one, would rather prolong the grace period from having those responsibility.

Yes. Minors should be able to vote. Age is nothing but a number; I know when I was 12 I was mature enough to vote, and I know many people under 18 who, despite their age, have the ability to vote responsibly (whatever that means...).

Look. I'm a "kid" but I'm smart(ish). I know what the issues are and have been following the campaign trails and stuff and try not to listen to my parents (GO OBAMA!!!). But the fact is, most kids just listen to their parents and/or friends and don't really think for themselves, so we stick some idiot in the white house (whoops...too late). I know some adults are also stupid, but we have to draw a line somewhere.

Look. I'm a "kid" but I'm smart(ish). I know what the issues are and have been following the campaign trails and stuff and try not to listen to my parents (GO OBAMA!!!). But the fact is, most kids just listen to their parents and/or friends and don't really think for themselves, so we stick some idiot in the white house (whoops...too late). I know some adults are also stupid, but we have to draw a line somewhere.

Well stated Vendenon.

Youngin's tend to be Republican'ts until they grow a stronger attitude towards politics.

No way am I letting more of them vote.

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Oh God. :rolleyes:

Get a room. sickos

Youngin's tend to be Republican'ts until they grow a stronger attitude towards politics.

No way am I letting more of them vote.

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Oh God. :rolleyes:

which is why if you remember, on the day we turned 18, we were given magical maturity pills that suddenly changed things from one day to the next.

No wait, that never happened, and trying to defend an 18 year old voting age with some blanket "they're not mature enough" statement is ascinine.
Yeah, but you got to draw the line somewhere. Back in the '60s you were old enough to be drafted at 19, but not old enough to vote -- It was a big achievement to see the voting age lowered.

Oh God. :rolleyes:

Amen! :D

I have wondered before if it might not be a decent idea to lower the voting age to 16, for the simple reason that most people would probably then register when they get their driver's licenses. Given the immense effort that is put into getting young adults to register and vote, that might be a good idea.

(I'm honestly not convinced either way - it's simply something I've considered.)

I have wondered before if it might not be a decent idea to lower the voting age to 16, for the simple reason that most people would probably then register when they get their driver's licenses. Given the immense effort that is put into getting young adults to register and vote, that might be a good idea.

(I'm honestly not convinced either way - it's simply something I've considered.)
I'd certainly go the other way. Raise the driver's license age to 21. Then, register to vote at the same time.

I have wondered before if it might not be a decent idea to lower the voting age to 16, for the simple reason that most people would probably then register when they get their driver's licenses. Given the immense effort that is put into getting young adults to register and vote, that might be a good idea.

(I'm honestly not convinced either way - it's simply something I've considered.)

frankly I'm more in favor of increasing the driving age to 18 than I am decreasing the voting age to 16

frankly I'm more in favor of increasing the driving age to 18 than I am decreasing the voting age to 16

Whoa!! I'm overcome by the deja-vu.

frankly I'm more in favor of increasing the driving age to 18 than I am decreasing the voting age to 16

Also a possibility. :)

(At the same time, I still remember being a passionately involved, well-informed seventeen-and-a-half-year-old bitterly watching my classmates get to vote one crucial November, which at least makes me somewhat sympathetic towards the idea of lowering the voting age a little.)

frankly I’m more in favor of increasing the driving age to 18 than I am decreasing the voting age to 16
Well, if 16 year-olds can’t vote, I don’t think they should be taxed either.

“No taxation without representation” and all that.

As to the argument, 'kids don't know who they're voting for', I haven't seen much evidence that a lot of folks over the age of 18 don't share in this predicament.

I am 17 years old and will miss being able to vote by several weeks. I am interested in politics and I am well informed yet I will not be allowed to vote in the upcoming election where millions of misinformed people will vote a new president into office that we steal my income, increase the size of government, and take away my freedoms and rights.

Well, if 16 year-olds can’t vote, I don’t think they should be taxed either.

“No taxation without representation” and all that.

Frankly speaking I don't have much of a problem with this. My one query would be that don't minors require parental permission to work? If so, it would fit under the argument that since minors are the charges of the parent, that the child by being represented by the parent in a legal sense is represented, by proxy, by the representatives of the parent.

But I think children 16+ can work without permission, so it might make that argument moot.

on the same token I think residents of the district of columbia should be exempt from federal taxation.

Also a possibility. :)

(At the same time, I still remember being a passionately involved, well-informed seventeen-and-a-half-year-old bitterly watching my classmates get to vote one crucial November, which at least makes me somewhat sympathetic towards the idea of lowering the voting age a little.)

but are you really representative of the average, or even a significantly large minority?

Frankly speaking I don't have much of a problem with this. My one query would be that don't minors require parental permission to work? If so, it would fit under the argument that since minors are the charges of the parent, that the child by being represented by the parent in a legal sense is represented, by proxy, by the representatives of the parent.

But I think children 16+ can work without permission, so it might make that argument moot.

on the same token I think residents of the district of columbia should be exempt from federal taxation.

If I'm not mistaken, and even then this possibly only applies to workers in the state of New Jersey, but only 14/15 year olds need to get parental permission to work. I believe 16 and older it's at the youngin's discretion.

but are you really representative of the average, or even a significantly large minority?

Probably not, honestly. It still makes me sympathetic to those other teens who actually know their stuff and are nonetheless unable to vote, and makes me at least wonder whether the benefits of allowing those people to vote might not potentially outweigh the disadvantages.

Like I said, I really don't have any answer on this one - just wonderings.

I think that the voting age should be changed to whatever age you become literate enough to fill out your voter registration form without adult supervision. It's wrong how children are owned by the government and they get no say in their own education. Some kids may vote for stupid things like no mandatory education, but as long as adults outnumber kids there will be mandatory education. However, if kids could vote adults would be forced to take their problems seriously. Maybe they would start letting kids go to school at 9 instead of 7, because according to every study done on this subject kids get better grades and are happier if they are allowed to sleep longer. Maybe they would get somebody less stupid to write the textbooks. Maybe they would stop letting the kids who beat everyone up go to school with the normal kids.
It's an interesting idea, but before age 14ish, the mental capacity to understand politics is just not enough. I can offer myself as anecdotal evidence in presidential elections:

When I was 6, 10, and 14 I got to vote in a mock election. At 6, I was well-literate and remembered being shown pictures of the candidates by someone (I don't even remember if it was my teacher). I voted for Bill Clinton I'm pretty sure. I honestly don't remember selecting him, but it almost certainly was him. I voted for him because my parents did or would.

At 10, I remember being able to vote and remember voting for Gore...mainly because my parents would. I didn't really put much thought into it. This time though, I was actively watching what was going on and was really upset when Bush was declared the winner. My dad said we should just support him anyway as president and I didn't want to--the first signs of independent thought.

At 14, I remember not only voting but spamming over 150 fake votes to mess with the online mock election. I again voted with and probably because of my parents for Kerry. I was quite involved and did some door-to-door stuff. I was upset to wake up to Kerry conceding or coming home to that.

Now, at 16 and soon to be 18, I am heavily involved and fully independent of my parents. I've already had a few mini-arguments over the fact that I would vote for McCain instead of Clinton against my dad's wishes. But, finally I have majority independent political thought. In 2006, I was 16 and followed that and wished I could vote and followed it well.

I wholeheartedly agree with starting school later. Especially for older children who have more at stake. A study really should be done comparing the grades of starting one and two hours later. I'm quite certain it will show a marked increase in grades, quality, attendance, and that there will be less "discipline problems".

I went to vote in the primary today, and everyone I saw was way older than I am. I couldn't help but wonder why there are so many more old voters than college aged voters. Part of the reason college aged people don't vote is because they have so many things going on in their lives, but another part of the reason is that they often don't care. Why don't they care?
The problem is that it's on Tuesday. They have class, work, and homework. They just don't have the time. Also, they lose faith in it with controversial results in 2000 and 2004. The fact that there is limited representation of ideas in our winner take all and first past the post systems. Proportional representation would help alleviate these problems and increase voter turnout all across the board. Another, probably the main problem, is none of the candidates ever really speak for the youth. They speak for the elderly and get their vote so they keep their benefits. A candidate who promised stuff young people want and need like more college aid and opportunities would enjoy strong youth turnout. Finally, old people have nothing better to do.

Children start out their intellectual lives caring. Children don't have to be taught to respect authority, like some people think. Children are born with a natural respect for authority and they are interested in being part of the system. Often children lose their respect for authority by being treated unfairly at school or by their parents. In school children are told they should question authority and practice critical thinking, but in practice they are often punished for questioning the teacher out loud. Students learn that their lives are owned by the school and by their parents, and since they have no power over the situation they fall out of the habit of caring about the higher powers. In order for a student to start caring again, they must re-learn that there is nothing wrong with accepting personal power and responsibility. I think it would be easier for young people to accept responsibility if they grew up with their basic human rights, instead of having those rights handed to them after 18 years of being told they're too stupid to have freedom of speech or any other freedom.
I agree that this is a significant problem. You basically do not have any rights before 18, which is an arbitrary age that means little. People younger than that earn college degrees and doctorates, so why can't they vote? There is too much bias against younger people that is unfounded. We are all quite capable of many things that people over 18 are. I think the voting age should definitely be lowered to 16 and politicians work more to engage the youth by:

moving the voting day to a more manageable day like Sunday
Running on youth issues
Working to get more faith in the system by improving it with proportional representation and dumping the electoral college


People are too quick to dismiss people under 18 as uneducated and whatnot. An early replier said even people over 18 don't make good decisions. Then why support democracy? If people aren't capable of making decisions, why support it? Why not support smoking bans, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc.? 16 year olds are just as capable as 18 year olds of making an informed decision. The cutoff age is arbitrary and meaningless. Us "minors" deserve more credit than we get. We shouldn't be minors. We are capable of making good decisions just as much as those older than us. Minors are too dependent and forced to be on their parents, even when they are abused or mistreated and can't get out at all and aren't even given fair review of their problems.

People are too quick to dismiss people under 18 as uneducated and whatnot. An early replier said even people over 18 don't make good decisions. Then why support democracy? If people aren't capable of making decisions, why support it? Why not support smoking bans, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc.? 16 year olds are just as capable as 18 year olds of making an informed decision. The cutoff age is arbitrary and meaningless. Us "minors" deserve more credit than we get. We shouldn't be minors. We are capable of making good decisions just as much as those older than us.

The cut off isn't arbitary, it's just clumsy as a result of our inability to properly operationalise the concept of maturity. If there's little difference between 16-18 then that's true of 14-16 and 12-14... see where I'm going with this?

:(The cut off isn't arbitary, it's just clumsy as a result of our inability to properly operationalise the concept of maturity. If there's little difference between 16-18 then that's true of 14-16 and 12-14... see where I'm going with this?Yet, in order to truly understand politics one must be aware of what is going on, something that fifty percent of people of legal age are not which shows age is not the only factor in politics. Voting should be based solely upon intellgience with people who are unaware of the relevant issues getting a simply boot to to the head.

Voting should be based solely upon intellgience

I can't see any problem with taking yet more power away from the working classes.

I thought this thread said "Should minorities be allowed to vote?"

I would let kids vote if they cleaned up their room, brushed their teeth, took out the trash and turned down the friggin' music. And pants. Pull up your goddam pants.

i propose a compromise. we let kids vote, but don't count their votes for as much. they can be some fraction of an adult vote. like around 6/10ths or so.

we could in fact call it the 6/10ths compromise.

i propose a compromise. we let kids vote, but don't count their votes for as much. they can be some fraction of an adult vote. like around 6/10ths or so.

i propose a compromise. we let kids vote, but don't count their votes for as much. they can be some fraction of an adult vote. like around 6/10ths or so.

That sounds vaguely familiar...

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

I think everyone who wants the right to vote should be literate, intelligent, and know the backround of the party they associate with. If that includes some minors, then yes, those minors should have that right as well.

But those requirements would also disqualify most of the people who already vote. :D

That sounds vaguely familiar...

those bound to Service for a Term of Years

How quaint...

I think everyone who wants the right to vote should be literate, intelligent, and know the backround of the party they associate with. If that includes some minors, then yes, those minors should have that right as well.

The cut off isn't arbitary, it's just clumsy as a result of our inability to properly operationalise the concept of maturity. If there's little difference between 16-18 then that's true of 14-16 and 12-14... see where I'm going with this?

One problem I forsee is that half of these kids will just be tools of their parents, voting as they ask them too. Which is why I said, anyone who wants to vote should be intelligent. Stupid people having the right to vote is what fucks us over.

we could in fact call it the 6/10ths compromise.

that is a pretty snazzy name for it, actually

Stupid people having the right to vote is what fucks us over.

no worse than elite rule does

God no. The last thing we need is another interest group that politicians can whore themselves out to at the expense of everyone else.

There may be a case for lowering the age to 16 but I wouldn't put it any lower than that.

Well, as a typical angsty, nobody-listens-to-me minor who desperately wanted to vote last election here, I can tell you one thing: I do NOT want most people my age voting. So until someone can suggest a way to prove maturity and social responsibility without sounding like a prejudiced twat, I would rather not vote than let even intelligent and literate minors vote.

Tchah, I can't believe I just said that. I feel dirty. Next thing you know I'll be refusing free sex. Oh, wait...

Well, as a typical angsty, nobody-listens-to-me minor who desperately wanted to vote last election here, I can tell you one thing: I do NOT want most people my age voting. So until someone can suggest a way to prove maturity and social responsibility without sounding like a prejudiced twat, I would rather not vote than let even intelligent and literate minors vote.

Tchah, I can't believe I just said that. I feel dirty. Next thing you know I'll be refusing free sex. Oh, wait...

*Offers Svalbardania free sex (with Fass)*

God no. The last thing we need is another interest group that politicians can whore themselves out to at the expense of everyone else.
Elitism much?

*Offers Svalbardania free sex (with Fass)*

Now what makes you think I'd turn down Fass... mmm, Fassilicous... (really, no, please no)

Now what makes you think I'd turn down Fass... mmm, Fassilicous... (really, no, please no)

I just wasn't offering myself and Fass came to mind first :p

I just wasn't offering myself and Fass came to mind first :p

Ahh fair enough.

Anyway, whats with all the elitist attitudes around? Yes, stupid people can vote, but in a system like the US' (which, I assume, most of you are in), you have stupid people on both sides of politics, so it balances out. So whats up with the hate?

it would be interesting to see what, if anything would actually chainge if they were. somehow i kind of doubt very much would. other then, maybe, i don't know, but they might grow up more responsible. just a thought.

there might be a greater percentage of adults behaiving responsibly, more responsibly, if they had been encouraged to vote right when they were first figguring out things instead of being forced to wait untill much later, by which time most have generally given up either hope or interest or both.

in reality its really an open question though, whether or not very many of them actually would, or if their votes would really be all that much different then those being cast by their elders now.

in cameroi the age of majority is 12. but then cameroi's intensive education system tends to accellerate real maturity and responsibility too. and then yet again, cameroi's citizens arn't a very large percentage of them earth humans either.

between 12 and 15 they spend a two year intereducational sabbatical called pujzush, during which they are encouraged to travel, explore life and engauge in migrant labour before settling down to another 5 to 9 years of upper devision hands on learning and skills development. this gives them a couple of years of gaining invaluable experience before committing themselves to the remainder of their lives. to make those best decisions for themselves as individuals, away from any inordinate influence of their childhood dens.

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

Shame it ain't a real place. Sounds clever.

it would be interesting to see what, if anything would actually chainge if they were. somehow i kind of doubt very much would. other then, maybe, i don't know, but they might grow up more responsible. just a thought.

there might be a greater percentage of adults behaiving responsibly, more responsibly, if they had been encouraged to vote right when they were first figguring out things instead of being forced to wait untill much later, by which time most have generally given up either hope or interest or both.

in reality its really an open question though, whether or not very many of them actually would, or if their votes would really be all that much different then those being cast by their elders now.

in cameroi the age of majority is 12. but then cameroi's intensive education system tends to accellerate real maturity and responsibility too. and then yet again, cameroi's citizens arn't a very large percentage of them earth humans either.

between 12 and 15 they spend a two year intereducational sabbatical called pujzush, during which they are encouraged to travel, explore life and engauge in migrant labour before settling down to another 5 to 9 years of upper devision hands on learning and skills development. this gives them a couple of years of gaining invaluable experience before committing themselves to the remainder of their lives. to make those best decisions for themselves as individuals, away from any inordinate influence of their childhood dens.

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

I'm not here to debate the Constitution which gives 18 yos the right to vote. They are not minors under the eyse of the law.

So because a magical piece of paper says they are mature enough, they are?

And in answer to the OP: Why the hell not? If they can prove they're sufficiently mature and knowledgeable of the political process (i.e., by passing some civics and other tests), then why not? Why should an 18+ person who has never heard of the Bill of Rights and can't even locate his state on a map be able to vote, but not, say, a 14 year old who is well versed in how the political system works and has a good knowledge of the issues, etc.?

:mp5: I think that for everyone under the age of 18 there should be a voter eligibility test if they want to vote. also it should not be like my bullshit u.s. history class, it should be about current issues.granted, we need to know history, but a persons knowledge of history and current issues are totally unrelated. in fact it might be smart to test t=all the voters, because a lot of voters vote based on parties alone, which is one of the systems many failures. george washington said parties would divide the nation, look around, it came true. we need to stop having parties and start working together as a nation,not as two rival camps.

I can't see any problem with taking yet more power away from the working classes.

You're saying working class people aren't intelligent?

Elitism much?

Trollism much?

Well, as a typical angsty, nobody-listens-to-me minor who desperately wanted to vote last election here, I can tell you one thing: I do NOT want most people my age voting. So until someone can suggest a way to prove maturity and social responsibility without sounding like a prejudiced twat, I would rather not vote than let even intelligent and literate minors vote.

Tchah, I can't believe I just said that. I feel dirty. Next thing you know I'll be refusing free sex. Oh, wait...
Hey. How are you connected to Svalbard? I've been a couple times to work on antenna systems.

I am 17 years old and will miss being able to vote by several weeks. I am interested in politics and I am well informed yet I will not be allowed to vote in the upcoming election where millions of misinformed people will vote a new president into office that we steal my income, increase the size of government, and take away my freedoms and rights.

You should do what I did... Go volunteer for a candidate that you believe should win. Your help is what's going to attract the voters to this candidate. In fact, you can probably do more good by volunteering than by voting.

which is why if you remember, on the day we turned 18, we were given magical maturity pills that suddenly changed things from one day to the next.

No wait, that never happened, and trying to defend an 18 year old voting age with some blanket "they're not mature enough" statement is ascinine.

Asinine? Hardly. Children are not mature enough to vote is certinaly very true. It is also true that many 18 year olds are also not mature enought to vote, but that does not make the other statment silly in anyway. 18 though is the age in which they are considered adult.*shrug*

So you want to raise the age on voteing then?

Trollism much?

He only said two words. That's not trollism.
Back to topic i think it's reasonable to lower the voting age to 16, and if people had more time they would make better decisions in politics, so it surprises me that my government allows 48Hour work weeks, how can people who work so hard have time for making informed decisions, where the rest of Europe is happier and takes less sick days, the UK has less happy people (due to working monstrous hours) and take more sick days to make up for this.

So my argument is give people less work hours and they can think better and be happier and care for their children more. yes allow voting for 16 and above. I've seen plenty of older people who make arbitary decisions on who should be voted for, and just as easily manipulated as younger people can be.

Humerous EDIT: I also think miners shouldn't be discriminated against, just because they dig big holes doesn't mean they're stupid, i say they should have the right to vote too. I like digging holes, maybe i should become an undertaker, no end of business, and it's getting ridiculously expensive to have funerals, and weddings, lots of money i should get into that sort of work.

Stupid people are allowed to vote and some convicted criminals can vote. Who is to say these people are significantly more responsible, on average, than a child?

[/thread]

Stupid people are allowed to vote and some convicted criminals can vote. Who is to say these people are significantly more responsible, on average, than a child?

Since when are criminals allowed to vote?

I think the idea that people have to prove they are responsible before they can vote is kind of odd. That's not how democracy works. Retarded people can vote, illiterate people can vote, born again christians can vote, ect.

Since when are criminals allowed to vote?

I think the idea that people have to prove they are responsible before they can vote is kind of odd. That's not how democracy works. Retarded people can vote, illiterate people can vote, born again christians can vote, ect.

Yep I totaly agree, cept children can't vote, nor should they be able to.

Since when are criminals allowed to vote?

I think the idea that people have to prove they are responsible before they can vote is kind of odd. That's not how democracy works. Retarded people can vote, illiterate people can vote, born again christians can vote, ect.

Hey do you think if someone died then came back to life, would they be allowed to vote? (i saw the born again christians thing) Are chimps allowed to vote if they have proof of residency in a country and a citizenship?

Well presumably children pay some taxes (ie VAT when they buy something) so should be entitled to some representation. I see not problem with 16 and up being able to vote - but four year olds no way.

Well presumably children pay some taxes (ie VAT when they buy something) so should be entitled to some representation. I see not problem with 16 and up being able to vote - but four year olds no way.

They are, via their guardians.

Well presumably children pay some taxes (ie VAT when they buy something) so should be entitled to some representation. I see not problem with 16 and up being able to vote - but four year olds no way.

Ah but if they voted they'd go for their favourite TV star, and that's either a dinosaur guy i forget his name, or a few years ago Big Bird. That would be cool Big Bird president of the United States of America, declares free grammar for all! And a mandatory happy song everyday:).

So 16yr olds should be allowed to vote, but you're right i don't think any lower is a good idea.

That would be cool Big Bird president of the United States of America, declares free grammar for all! And a mandatory happy song everyday:).


And damn fine policies they are too. Do we know what Big Bird's position on the middle east is?

And damn fine policies they are too. Do we know what Big Bird's position on the middle east is?

Big Bird is happy to trade with the Middle East as long as they have happy songs, and good furry animals to represent their countries. If not then Big Bird will play a sad song which could cause much temper tantrums among the voting public, and spitting of dummies.;)

And damn fine policies they are too. Do we know what Big Bird's position on the middle east is?

Can't be any worse than that of our current politicians. :p

We need to restrict the number of people voting. Make it so that you have to be able to pass a basic High School Government level test, a current event's test, and a basic test on the Constitution to be able to vote.

Thus, we will make sure that idiots are not voting, and that anyone that does has a reasonable idea of what the government is able to do, and thus won't expect unreasonable things from the government. Not to mention that it is easier to gain the vote via a voting test than via age.

We need to restrict the number of people voting. Make it so that you have to be able to pass a basic High School Government level test, a current event's test, and a basic test on the Constitution to be able to vote.

Thus, we will make sure that idiots are not voting, and that anyone that does has a reasonable idea of what the government is able to do, and thus won't expect unreasonable things from the government. Not to mention that it is easier to gain the vote via a voting test than via age.

Noooooooo that is so unsound I don't even know where to start with it.

Elitism much?

Oh no, elitism! Because whoring yourself out to the lowest common denominator fixes everything!

Oh no, elitism! Because whoring yourself out to the lowest common denominator fixes everything!

Remember, "the masses are never wrong!" ;)

If they pass a test. Which I would personally advocate for everyone.

I could see lowering the voting age to 16 or 17 simply because it would actually put some pressure on politicians to do something about education since High school students would make up a substantial voting block.

More than that would be foolish. Because when you start talking younger than that there is to much parental influence and it just becomes a way for one person to get a few extra votes.

snip

Of course we should. Just like we should legally allow children to drink, or smoke as soon as they are physically capable to do it on their own. We should allow children the same right to bear arms, so long as they are old enough to hold a gun by themselves. We should allow children to run for office as soon as they are literate. We should allow children to drive as soon as they can reach the pedals.

No, none of these make sense. The reason that we restrict voting to the age of majority is not because something happens at the age of 18, but rather because by the time one reaches 18, they should (in theory) be mature enough to have an educated opinion. Third-graders do not fit this discription, regardless of how well they can read.

Because when you start talking younger than that there is to much parental influence and it just becomes a way for one person to get a few extra votes.

Or for catholics to get a lot of extra votes :D

Nah, just kidding.

If you are old enough to legally work, then you should be old enough to legally vote. *nod*

I think that this motto should, instead, be used "If you are old enough to legally throw pies, you should be old enough to legally vote!"

If you are old enough to legally work, then you should be old enough to legally vote. *nod*

I had my eighteenth birthday a week before the primary here, so I was able to vote. My friend had her eighteenth birthday three days after the primary and so wasn't able to vote. I hardly think that the extra week and three days I have over her make me any more capable of voting than her...
Plus, she's already eighteen so she'll be able to vote in the general election, but why not let her vote in the primary, since she's going to vote in the election?

I feel that I would have been capable of voting at 13 or 14. I already had strong opinions then about things like war in Iraq and capital punishment, and these opinions often differed from those of my parents.

I remember being interested in political things when I was 6, and I remember supporting somebody but I can't remember who it was. I definitely wouldn't have been capable of voting well then, though.

I know that my brothers have their own opinions on different issues. They're 15 now and seem to be a lot more knowledgeable about politics than some of my 18 year old classmates, and even than some older adults. I think that if they actually were able to vote they would pay even more attention, and I think that my brothers would be just as capable of voting well as most 18 year olds, if not more so.

Maybe it could work to have it more gradual, like with driving? Like let 15 or 16 year olds vote in local or state elections and then keep the 18 year old limit for national elections?

I think that this motto should, instead, be used "If you are old enough to legally throw pies, you should be old enough to legally vote!"

I could get behind such a motto. :)

Of course we should. Just like we should legally allow children to drink, or smoke as soon as they are physically capable to do it on their own. We should allow children the same right to bear arms, so long as they are old enough to hold a gun by themselves.Those are all matters of physical safety. Alcohol damages growing brains. A better example would be to say we don't allow children to use the internet uncensored, see R rated movies, wear whatever they want to school, and choose their own religion.

The majority of fully grown adults aren't intelligent enough to vote on principles, reason, and merit (they just vote because "Someone said so" or because "He said, she said on the TV..."). If adults aren't intelligent enough to vote why the hell would we let kids vote?

Not that voting matters that much, anyway. The corporations, the establishment, and the media control it all.

When you stop thinking it's cute to spell "you" as "u", you should be allowed to vote.

Good one! LOL :D

Hey. How are you connected to Svalbard? I've been a couple times to work on antenna systems.

Sorry, 'fraid I'm not connected at all. in fact, I'm pretty close to being geographically opposite from Svalbard. I just like the name.

I had my eighteenth birthday a week before the primary here, so I was able to vote. My friend had her eighteenth birthday three days after the primary and so wasn't able to vote. I hardly think that the extra week and three days I have over her make me any more capable of voting than her...
And situations like that would still exist wherever the age-limit was set.

Plus, she's already eighteen so she'll be able to vote in the general election, but why not let her vote in the primary, since she's going to vote in the election?That, I admit, seems more reasonable than some of the other suggestions in this thread.

Maybe it could work to have it more gradual, like with driving? Like let 15 or 16 year olds vote in local or state elections and then keep the 18 year old limit for national elections?H'mm, maybe.

I would favor allowing minors at the age of 16 to vote, as they would be allowed to drive, in a manner that makes it cool to vote. Kids look forward to getting their driver's licenses, as it's a point of status in high school. Why not do the same with voting? Kids will want to vote, they will want to be knowledgeable, and though there may be a lot of kids who do crazy things like vote for third-party candidates, it's far less likely to cause negative outcomes as, say, their habit of driving 110 in a 55 zone.

Young children don't need to be voting. High schoolers? Why the hell not.

Much as it might sound like a good idea, having children voting would be a godawful idea. Politics is a dirty, despicable business as it is. We already have politicians shouting to the crowds in soundbites and catchphrases with zero real substance. Just imagine if they knew there were 12 year olds out there to be gotten to as well.

"Vote for me and I'll lower the price of pokémon games!"

Ye gods. Keep your innocence for now, kids. You'll lose it soon enough anyway. No need to have these rat bastards take it from you.

No, it wouldn't. The 18-25 age block has the lowest percentage of voters. Tacking on an extra year (which doesn't contain that many people anyway) of low voters wouldn't solve anything. Not to mention, you assume the high school kids would vote to improve the education, as opposed to voting to do something silly, like outlawing it.

Yeah I agree with you. Its very simple really, when you become leagely reconised as an adult you are able to leagaly do what adults do, including voteing. Children can't vote, nor should they be allowed to.

So if you live in a country where the reconised adult age is 16, then by all means go and vote at 16, otherwise, wait untill you are able.

I could see lowering the voting age to 16 or 17 simply because it would actually put some pressure on politicians to do something about education since High school students would make up a substantial voting block.

No, it wouldn't. The 18-25 age block has the lowest percentage of voters. Tacking on an extra year (which doesn't contain that many people anyway) of low voters wouldn't solve anything. Not to mention, you assume the high school kids would vote to improve the education, as opposed to voting to do something silly, like outlawing it.

...

A better example would be to say we don't allow children to use the internet uncensored

...


..Mommy, what is that man doing with his bumhole and why is it so big?


and choose their own religion.

Har.

Yeah I agree with you. Its very simple really, when you become leagely reconised as an adult you are able to leagaly do what adults do, including voteing. Children can't vote, nor should they be allowed to.

So if you live in a country where the reconised adult age is 16, then by all means go and vote at 16, otherwise, wait untill you are able.

Oh yes. I know that when I was 16, my political beliefs were merely an extension of my parents. I would've been just an extra vote for my dad, assuming I would've voted at all.

Sorry, 'fraid I'm not connected at all. in fact, I'm pretty close to being geographically opposite from Svalbard. I just like the name.
You live near the South Pole?

Gotta agree, though. Those Scandinavian names are catchy.

Those Scandinavian names are catchy.

Well that is a phrase I never thought I would see.

No children should not be allowed to vote. In fact I am for raising the voting age. Sadly there are plenty of adults who really shouldn't be allowed to vote either. I am not a supporter of universal sufferage at all.

If children are allowed to vote they'll just be used as tools.

Brainwashing would be a whole lot easier...

...of course not all minors are like Arthur Scargill.

I've wondered about this. The problem that I see is how the majority of kids would vote the way their parents do. Parents would effectively get extra votes, which would be unfair.

Though I do know that kids who are politically knowledgable can sometimes manipulate their parents' votes. My mom was the Democratic precinct delegate in 2004. I went with her to the district convention, and she normally deferred to me, since I often knew more about politics than she did. I didn't have complete control over our vote, but I was akin to the "power behind the throne".

Chandy, I understand the plight of your friend. Tell her that I have it worse - my birthday is a few days after the general election. I missed voting in 2006 by a few days.

Fortunately, my parents took some mercy on me. They normally coordinate their votes so they don't cancel each other out. In 2006, they included myself and my younger brother in their debate. We examined candidates and issues on the local ballot in turn, then decided how our family would use its two votes.

Well that is a phrase I never thought I would see.
Come on, Tromso, Svalbard, Kiruna, Lillehammer... Don't those names just make you shiver when you hear them?

Sure, minors can vote, but they'll have to be willing to take on other adult responsibilities, like income taxes!

Oh, and also, no more of this 'young offender' bullshit. Children shouldn't be sheltered from the law *nods*

Couldn't hurt. Everyone else has the vote these days.

You live near the South Pole?

Gotta agree, though. Those Scandinavian names are catchy.

As close to the South Pole as I can get without being at the tip of South America... or New Zealand... or Tasmania... ok, so there are a few places closer.

And its precisely that shiver you were talking about which made me choose them. I wish I were a Viking :(

Yes, minors should be allowed to vote.

The worst-case scenario is that they vote as their parents tell them ... a family with two minor children has two extra votes ... and I'm OK with that.

Sure, minors can vote, but they'll have to be willing to take on other adult responsibilities, like income taxes!

they do pay income taxes.

they do pay income taxes.

And are bound by the law in general.

I don't know how this works in the States (or outside Ontario, to be frank :(), but the only politcal education the government provides is in Grade 10 Civics, when you're 15. So the 'not mature enough' excuse seems rather empty, when there's never any large-scale attempt made to bring people to political maturity. And it's hardly going to happen by itself.

they do pay income taxes.

Really? I don't remember having to starting paying income tax until I turned 18.

And are bound by the law in general.

In general, yes, but if they want adult responsibilities, they should take all of them, and children who commit crimes should be tried as adults. If there's no magic age that makes one mature enough to vote then there's no magic age that makes one unable to realize that pushing an old woman down the stairs for her purse is wrong.

In general, yes, but if they want adult responsibilities, they should take all of them, and children who commit crimes should be tried as adults.

I'm not convinced that we need the same standard for all aspects of "adulthood."

In any case, even if we are convinced that every individual who should be afforded a right to vote also should be held accountable like an adult for crimes, it's not clear that we should assign the same age for both on the legal level. Much better to have voters who shouldn't be able to vote than to hold minors accountable as adults when they shouldn't be.

Edit: For what it's worth, I don't think I would support lowering the voting age under, say, sixteen.

In general, yes, but if they want adult responsibilities, they should take all of them, and children who commit crimes should be tried as adults. If there's no magic age that makes one mature enough to vote then there's no magic age that makes one unable to realize that pushing an old woman down the stairs for her purse is wrong.

Voting is a choice between limited options. Criminality is a limitation of essentially unlimited options.

Just for starters on what's so disproportionate about your comparison.

EDIT: You know what I'm saying here? Sure you want an argument, sure you just grab something from one side of the argument and match it up against something from the other side because it makes you feel good how your strong angle (example of criminality) matches up against a weak example from the other side (babe in arms, with mommy's hand wrapped around theirs, voting for the Mothership party). You don't win Shit that way.

Edit: For what it's worth, I don't think I would support lowering the voting age under, say, sixteen.

For what it's worth, I do.

If they can hold the pen by themselves, let them vote.

Oh, I should mention that voting should be as simple and unambiguous as possible (tick a box, or number boxes ... with pen or pencil, no machines) ... and if that slows down counting, or creates disputes for scrutineers then good. The voter has precedence and secrecy, the counters neither.