NationStates Jolt Archive

The other day I was debating with several friends about the age that people should be allowed to vote, with both sides making reasonable arguements; for example, a lower age would allow for younger people who understand and care about politics to get involved, where as a higher age would ensure that perhaps wiser people would get to vote.

If this is the case then, I seems logical to me that people should have to take a test, when ever they want to, in order for them to be allowed to vote, rather then simply handing you the 'right' with age.

So; to what degree should voting rights be 'rights' and not based on your understanding of the topic at hand and/or your competence?

I dunno. I like the way it is now. I'll be 18 in time to vote for this election and I shudder to think how I would have been if I had voted in 2004. It's not that I was stupid, but I thought I was smarter than I actually was and it's sort of been a nice long journey to get to the point where I can honestly say that I can reasonably make good judgment calls now.

Even for kids who are ahead of the game, that extra waiting period can let them reflect and mature so that they really are ready for when their 18th birthday rolls around.

Dictatorship FTW.

I dunno. I like the way it is now. I'll be 18 in time to vote for this election and I shudder to think how I would have been if I had voted in 2004. It's not that I was stupid, but I thought I was smarter than I actually was and it's sort of been a nice long journey to get to the point where I can honestly say that I can reasonably make good judgment calls now.

Even for kids who are ahead of the game, that extra waiting period can let them reflect and mature so that they really are ready for when their 18th birthday rolls around.

But maybe that was because you didn't have the right to vote yet. Maybe if you did, you would put more thought into it.

I dunno. I like the way it is now. I'll be 18 in time to vote for this election and I shudder to think how I would have been if I had voted in 2004. It's not that I was stupid, but I thought I was smarter than I actually was and it's sort of been a nice long journey to get to the point where I can honestly say that I can reasonably make good judgment calls now.

Even for kids who are ahead of the game, that extra waiting period can let them reflect and mature so that they really are ready for when their 18th birthday rolls around.

Don't get me wrong, the system we have works 'fine' it's just that I know many people who are below the age of 18 have strong opinions that most adults won't listen to, and a fair number of people over the age of 18 are (IMO) asleep at the wheel, if you will.

Tests like that are too open to abuse.

But maybe that was because you didn't have the right to vote yet. Maybe if you did, you would put more thought into it.

I can honestly tell you that I was a neo-con fundie slave. Er... no, that's not quite right. Even back then I still had inklings of sense beneath the surface. I remember how I gave a speech in my 8th grade speech about how all the Kerry hate (and conversely the Bush hate as well) was counter-productive to the election and the actual platforms should be the focus of evaluation. So I guess even then I was a heretic.

Anyway, the point is that my immaturity was something that only the sweet embrace of time could fix, not just the right to vote. Plus, I think that maybe a person should have some sense of responsibility before being given the right. Kids are intelligent and should be listened to, no doubt about it. But I'd say it may be easier for them to say things without considering what impact it will have on their lives, such as with taxes and the like.

Military State for the Win

Clearly defined Leaders, selected by the people from a group of the most able and qualified to lead
Voters must show clear understanding of issues they wish to vote on
Before campaigning, potential leaders must worjk out what they hope to achieve and how to do it, and only make campaign promises that they can keep

If a Leader fails in their duty, they can face being impeached and replaced by the next most suitable candidate

set all youth to have good old Compulsory Military Training (6 months should do)

No, because most people are stupid, and mob rule is no fun.

The other day I was debating with several friends about the age that people should be allowed to vote, with both sides making reasonable arguements; for example, a lower age would allow for younger people who understand and care about politics to get involved, where as a higher age would ensure that perhaps wiser people would get to vote.

If this is the case then, I seems logical to me that people should have to take a test, when ever they want to, in order for them to be allowed to vote, rather then simply handing you the 'right' with age.

So; to what degree should voting rights be 'rights' and not based on your understanding of the topic at hand and/or your competence?

If you are an American, you will need a change to the Constitution to have that.

Tests like that are too open to abuse.

Exactly. And they have a history of being so abused -- such as literacy tests used to disenfranchise African-Americans.

pfft, Voting...that's just a trivial concept developed by the filthy capitalist bourgeoisie in order to oppress the proletariat working class with their fancy schmancy "elections"



Communist Theocracy FTW

*Worships Lenin, Marx, Mao and Stalin as deities*




I was originally gonna go the way of "Voting is an evil Liberal-Commie-Islamofascist Conspiracy" angle...but this one was funner

Why not allow a test for people to be able to vote, but allow it for anyone who can read?
Test with simple questions on what each party plan is, who their leader is, sure it would take ages to get enough people to vote but at least you'd have a better informed public.
in fact this could be part of a larger scheme to educate people of the main positions of politics, (say a three day course once every 3 years).
This would at least give a bare minimum of knowledge of what they were voting for and what was at stake, maybe then people wouldn't make stupid decisions and get away with them.
I know it would be expensive but i don't see a better future in letting people grow up blind to what politics is without being taught it. (as for who would teach this, it would be a written course to avoid bias accepted by all parties wishing to partake in elections)
This would give a form a base of information on policies which would reduce a population of sheep following every bleet of the media or their friends.
maybe an idea maybe not.

Why not allow a test for people to be able to vote, but allow it for anyone who can read?
Test with simple questions on what each party plan is, who their leader is, sure it would take ages to get enough people to vote but at least you'd have a better informed public.
in fact this could be part of a larger scheme to educate people of the main positions of politics, (say a three day course once every 3 years).
This would at least give a bare minimum of knowledge of what they were voting for and what was at stake, maybe then people wouldn't make stupid decisions and get away with them.
I know it would be expensive but i don't see a better future in letting people grow up blind to what politics is without being taught it. (as for who would teach this, it would be a written course to avoid bias accepted by all parties wishing to partake in elections)
This would give a form a base of information on policies which would reduce a population of sheep following every bleet of the media or their friends.
maybe an idea maybe not.

http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interactive/imm_files/test.html

this is how they kept blacks from voting in the south.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaQJj1BQUiU

http://kpearson.project.tcnj.edu/interactive/imm_files/test.html

this is how they kept blacks from voting in the south.

oh, well maybe the test wouldn't have to be as long as that maybe. I dunno i don't make tests.
What about you can only vote if you have the mental intelligence of 18?
mur tricky this.
Any ideas?

oh, well maybe the test wouldn't have to be as long as that maybe. I dunno i don't make tests.
What about you can only vote if you have the mental intelligence of 18?
mur tricky this.
Any ideas?

im fine with assuming an adult has enough judgement to decide who to vote for. a guy might not know the implications of the magna carta but he can tell who is too much of a crook to elect to parliment.

Exactly. And they have a history of being so abused -- such as literacy tests used to disenfranchise African-Americans.
But then there are all the Florida geriatrics (Grey-Americans?) that can't figure out how to punch a hole in a perforated card... There ought to be some criteria that is more selective than just whether or not you can fog a mirror, to figure out who CAN'T vote.

But then there are all the Florida geriatrics (Grey-Americans?) that can't figure out how to punch a hole in a perforated card... There ought to be some criteria that is more selective than just whether or not you can fog a mirror, to figure out who CAN'T vote.

so people should have to pass a punch test?

so people should have to pass a punch test?
There you go... They punch their name in a perforated card. If they get that right, they get to move on to their ballot.

im fine with assuming an adult has enough judgement to decide who to vote for. a guy might not know the implications of the magna carta but he can tell who is too much of a crook to elect to parliment.

So you're saying that as long as someone can be a good judge of character they can vote?
This begs the question what counts as a good judge of character.

That covers a range of people, and voting campaigns recently have become alot to do with image anyway, i'd like to see people know more about what the parties actual policies are, as well as be able to work out who is dodgy and who isn't.

The "/" around "right" made me think before I opened that this was somehow connected to /b/.

pfft, Voting...that's just a trivial concept developed by the filthy capitalist bourgeoisie in order to oppress the proletariat working class with their fancy schmancy "elections"



Communist Theocracy FTW

*Worships Lenin, Marx, Mao and Stalin as deities*




I was originally gonna go the way of "Voting is an evil Liberal-Commie-Islamofascist Conspiracy" angle...but this one was funner

Hey Mods, AP stole NM's account ;)

The age limit idea is nice because it makes people look forward to voting in their first election, and thus gets them to better educate themselves.

The idea of a test was used in the US for a period of time, but the main goal of the tests were to discriminate against races which were not allowed to learn to read, among other things. This could be abused similarly in modern times.

yeah and im thinking that race wouldnt be the criteria the next time. it would be political leaning so unscrupulous local officials could keep the members of other parties from voting.

The age limit idea is nice because it makes people look forward to voting in their first election, and thus gets them to better educate themselves.

The idea of a test was used in the US for a period of time, but the main goal of the tests were to discriminate against races which were not allowed to learn to read, among other things. This could be abused similarly in modern times.

Even for kids who are ahead of the game, that extra waiting period can let them reflect and mature so that they really are ready for when their 18th birthday rolls around.

You make a very valid point. The major reason why children/youths are not allowed to vote is similar to why felons are not allowed to vote: Both historically make bad decisions.

Definitely keep the age restriction in place....

that you seem to assume that all adult voters 'understand the issues' astonishes me.
Sure, adults know what 'global warming' is, etc. but what you're basically saying is that people should have a certain level of intelligence and life experience before they should be allowed to vote, and people under a certain age- 16, 18 or 21, usually- would need to prove that they have this. Thus you imply by the lack of need for a test, that people over 21 have this. from my experience, this is far from true- the majority of people have exceptionally crude views of the current 'issues' and many people have no knowledge at all of some less obvious issues with regards to 'who do you vote for'.
I can back this up because I can say that issues with the environment are important in the modern worlds elections, and as someone who follows weekly scientific publications and has some knowledge about this kind of stuff, people are so ignorant and have opinions based on complete misconceptions and the most basic understanding.

in other words, i vote for the ages restriction ;p I also disagree that the 'best' choice is that which would be chosen by the 'majority', at least with the current state of education. If people seemed in general better informed and more... well... intelligent, then maybe.
this is clear to see just from looking at the newspapers. Tabloid newspapers have stories which clearly misrepresent or take an entirely one sided or simplisitc view of things, and are as clearly important in forming many peoples opinions.
broadsheet newspapers can be far from perfect as well.

that you seem to assume that all adult voters 'understand the issues' astonishes me.
Sure, adults know what 'global warming' is, etc. but what you're basically saying is that people should have a certain level of intelligence and life experience before they should be allowed to vote, and people under a certain age- 16, 18 or 21, usually- would need to prove that they have this. Thus you imply by the lack of need for a test, that people over 21 have this. from my experience, this is far from true- the majority of people have exceptionally crude views of the current 'issues' and many people have no knowledge at all of some less obvious issues with regards to 'who do you vote for'.
I can back this up because I can say that issues with the environment are important in the modern worlds elections, and as someone who follows weekly scientific publications and has some knowledge about this kind of stuff, people are so ignorant and have opinions based on complete misconceptions and the most basic understanding.

in other words, i vote for the ages restriction ;p I also disagree that the 'best' choice is that which would be chosen by the 'majority', at least with the current state of education. If people seemed in general better informed and more... well... intelligent, then maybe.
this is clear to see just from looking at the newspapers. Tabloid newspapers have stories which clearly misrepresent or take an entirely one sided or simplisitc view of things, and are as clearly important in forming many peoples opinions.
broadsheet newspapers can be far from perfect as well.

in my experience intelligent people are just as likely to have stupid political stances as stupid people are. education and intelligence are no guarantee of political acumen.

On the one hand, a test would certainly be fairer then an arbitrary age limit.
On the other hand, it would either clog the bureaucracy up even more then it is now, or else it would be different at each individual polling place and massively susceptible to abuse.

But I'd like to make a point:
Children (and for that matter felons) are not not allowed to vote just because they make bad decisions. If that was true, fundies would lose the right to vote too. They can't vote because (in the case of children) they do not have the intellectual capacity to make a decision and (in the case of felons) because American law is stupid.

If you want my opinion on Democracy, read Plato.

If you want my opinion on Democracy, read Plato.

If you want my opinion on Plato's view of Democracy, read Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies.

;)

If you want my opinion on Democracy, read Plato.

What did Plato say?

I chose option #3.

What did Plato say?

Basically that is was shit. He advocated a class system of workers, guardians, and philosopher-kings(older, wise, Guradians).

Basically that is was shit. He advocated a class system of workers, guardians, and philosopher-kings(older, wise, Guradians).

Hmmm.

Only the educated should be allowed to vote.


Then maybe we'd stop electing idiots based on criteria like "Who Id rather have a beer at a BBQ with." Yes, Dubya seemed like hed be fun to slam beers with, but hes an awful leader.

Basically that is was shit. He advocated a class system of workers, guardians, and philosopher-kings(older, wise, Guradians).



I like Plato's system quite a bit. Provided I am one of the Philosopher kings.

somebody should have introduced plato to the idea of conflict of interest.

a philosopher thinks that philosophers should be at the top, go figure.


If you understood all the shit the Athenian democracy had been through and all the stupid shit they voted to do to themselves, youd understand why Plato thought democracy was for fools and only the educated should be allowed to rule.

Basically that is was shit. He advocated a class system of workers, guardians, and philosopher-kings(older, wise, Guradians).

somebody should have introduced plato to the idea of conflict of interest.

a philosopher thinks that philosophers should be at the top, go figure.

I like Plato's system quite a bit. Provided I am one of the Philosopher kings.

I think one had to be older than 50. Also, one had to live in poverty. Are you old enough and would you go into voluntary poverty?

If you understood all the shit the Athenian democracy had been through and all the stupid shit they voted to do to themselves, youd understand why Plato thought democracy was for fools and only the educated should be allowed to rule.

The 30 tyrants were so much better?

The 30 tyrants were so much better?

The Athenians voted to create the 30 tyrants, soooooo.


And the situation would not have been necissary had they not started he Peleponisian War and hadnt then invaded Syracuse...and then executed eight of their best generals in an illegal show trial for not picking up a few saliors who went overboard during a heavy storm after a huge victory.


The Athenian assembly were a bunch of morons.

The Athenians voted to create the 30 tyrants, soooooo.

Hmmm.. all that I can find was that they were set up by the Spartans, but I'll take your word for it. Anyway, a lack of democracy, which seemed to have been supported by Plato and Socrates, wasn't any better.

The Athenian assembly were a bunch of morons.

Agreed.

Last year, I wandered down by the local high school, where a group of students had organized a protest (during school hours) against the war in Iraq. A reporter from the local newspaper was there, interviewing the students. As it turned out, only about 1 out of 10 of the students could tell him where Iraq was, what the war was about, or really any pertinent details at all. The rest of the students simply saw the chance to get out of class.

Now, don't get me wrong. This is a problem that extends across all age ranges. But I have noticed teenagers tend to "follow the crowd" more than probably any other age range. While older people sometimes fall into this trap, often they're able to distance their friendship from the issues.

Do I feel younger people should be allowed to have a voice in the issues? Yes, as long as it's informed consent. Then again, I tend to believe older people should be informed before they're allowed to vote, although the elitism that engenders would probably drive me nuts in actual circumstances.

Hmmm.. all that I can find was that they were set up by the Spartans, but I'll take your word for it. Anyway, a lack of democracy, which seemed to have been supported by Plato and Socrates, wasn't any better.



Well, both are true actually. After they lost, one of the conditions for surrender was that they needed to set up the 30, but the Athenian assembly had to approve of it. And they voted to approve it.

So, thats also partially true.

Ironically, the democracy was also reset up by a revolt after a few years with the aid of a Spartan king (who was trying to undermine another Spartan of course;))

I should have included in my original post that, after I said this a woman came up to me with a printed copy of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms,

Now, according to the Charter, Canadian Citizens, etc, are allowed to vote (etc) but the problem I have with such an aseration is that, yes, it's true that we allow Canadian citizens vote in our elections, but in order to become Canadian, you have to take a citizen test, and believe me it's not a walk in the park; many Canadians would probably fail the test if they'd had to take it.

So why should being merely born into a nation give you the right to vote, when we make immigrates prove their intelligence before allowing them to Vote?

A minimum voting age is definitely good to have but it shouldn't be restricted to those who meet the age. No sense limiting who can and can't vote even though it really would be nice to have a minimum IQ as well but that would just defeat its purpose in a democratic system.

The other day I was debating with several friends about the age that people should be allowed to vote, with both sides making reasonable arguements; for example, a lower age would allow for younger people who understand and care about politics to get involved, where as a higher age would ensure that perhaps wiser people would get to vote.

If this is the case then, I seems logical to me that people should have to take a test, when ever they want to, in order for them to be allowed to vote, rather then simply handing you the 'right' with age.

So; to what degree should voting rights be 'rights' and not based on your understanding of the topic at hand and/or your competence?

Most people do not think or research and should not vote. However, I am not silly enough to think I (or anyone else) could devise a proper criteria, so voting should not be regulated.

I chose option 3, because I do not believe in legislative law in any form, most especially of the democratic kind. However, if I had to have some kind of electoral politics I would choose to have as few people have the right to vote as possible so as to limit their legitimacy, that would reduce their expropriations for fear of being overthrown, and due to fewer people having access to the common pool of the nation's wealth there will be less pressure to expropriate now over allowing growth to expropriate a greater sum later.

Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

I chose option 3, because I do not believe in legislative law in any form, most especially of the democratic kind. However, if I had to have some kind of electoral politics I would choose to have as few people have the right to vote as possible so as to limit their legitimacy, that would reduce their expropriations for fear of being overthrown, and due to fewer people having access to the common pool of the nation's wealth there will be less pressure to expropriate now over allowing growth to expropriate a greater sum later.

Edit: Yes, I would be willing to give up my right to vote in such a system. I already have, de facto, by abstaining from elections, and I think that I would have far more to gain from having no power of voting than suffering the ill-effects of a greater burden on the common pool and more legitimacy for expropriation.

Most people do not think or research and should not vote. However, I am not silly enough to think I (or anyone else) could devise a proper criteria, so voting should not be regulated.

That is part of the problem, which means the test is fictional in nature, and we can pretend that if such a test existed, that it would be fair and balanced (but not in the fox news way)

the relations ship between age and understanding of issues is an arbitrary and unfounded assumption.

so setting a minimum age solves nothing, nor is raising or lowering it likely to chainge all that much, even if kindergardners were given it.

popular emotional trends know no age factor either, though every age group seems to think every other age group is more succeptable to them then their own.

it is true that humans are born gullable. what is not true is that there is any age at which the cease to be.

everyone aquires knowledge, good sense, and experience, each at their own rate.
some at a seemingly precotious age. some never doing so at all.

so age isn't really THE, or even any kind at all, of an answer.

metrics for good sense could perhapse be developed, but the problem then is that they could never be proven to everyone's satisfaction to be unbiased.

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

well I think 18 years, like it is now, is pretty good. Theoretically this could be improved but I think that in reality this would lead to more bureaucracy and more problems.
Also I think that the concept of democracy kind of requires everyone to have the right to vote. Discriminating on basis of IQ etc is random. Stupid people have the right to be represented too (even though I dislike most of the parties most stupid people vote for).
You could make voting not-compulsory to allow people who aren't interested in politics to not vote. But this brings other problems with it.

You could make voting not-compulsory to allow people who aren't interested in politics to not vote. But this brings other problems with it.

I'd hate compulsory voting, and I know some countries have this rule for some reason or another. If I'm voting for a party or person it's because I want to have an effect (however minimal) on the election. If forced to vote? Even if I didn't just sit back and enjoy the fine for not taking part in the charade, I'd probably end up just ticking some random box because I have to, which I'm sure is what a lot of people who would otherwise not vote, do already. That and spoiling ballot papers.

How does that help democracy?

How does that help democracy?

Actually you aren't forced to vote but you are forced to go to the place where you can vote, you can also give a vote without anything filled in, or filled in wrong. You just have to show your ID there and then you're free to go. Voting happens anonymous so they can't check if you actually voted or not. It's complicated to explain what happens with your vote if you choose not to vote.

It helps democracy by making the vote more representative. Also if you're not forced to go voting an employer could more easily force you to not go voting but go working that day. There is also the danger that only extremists go voting or that a minority gains much power. etc.

Both compulsory and non-compulsory voting have their good and bad effects.