NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I'd like to know. I think some 12 year olds are fully capable of voting, whereas some 40 year olds aren't. Poll to come.

whereas some 40 year olds aren't.

Im sorry, anyone who thinks you shouldnt be allowed to vote at 40 should be euthanized.


I personally voted 18.

I think the UK has it right, 18 is a good age.

Im sorry, anyone who thinks you shouldnt be allowed to vote at 40 should be euthanized.

I didn't say that.

I didn't say that.

I know you dont think that, but there are people who do. They tend to be people in their 60s.

I think the UK has it right, 18 is a good age.

But then National Insurance starts at 16. Surely if you're being taxed you should at least be able to choose who's taxing you?

I think some 12 year olds are fully capable of voting, whereas some 40 year olds aren't. Poll to come.

translation 12 yr olds agree with me 40 yr olds do not.

But then National Insurance starts at 16. Surely if you're being taxed you should at least be able to choose who's taxing you?

Well indeed, but the solution to this i think is to simply stop 16 year olds paying national insurance.

25 and up. Younger people than that don´t really know what they want. At least in Spain, that is.

translation 12 yr olds agree with me 40 yr olds do not.

Or that some 40 year olds are complete idiots, and that some 12 year olds are worthy of the vote. I don't think the voting age should be 12 anyway, most won't be capable of making a decent informed decision, and their parents would be too large a factor.

25 and up. Younger people than that don´t really know what they want. At least in Spain, that is.

Really?

25 and up. Younger people than that don´t really know what they want. At least in Spain, that is.
Im sorry, it doesnt strike you as a little absurd to tax someone working a full time job and allow them in the military, but not let them vote?

Really?

Yup. Young adults here tend to be preoccupied by other things, not really by politics. The interest starts to grow when they reach their mid to late 20s.

Im sorry, it doesnt strike you as a little absurd to tax someone working a full time job and allow them in the military, but not let them vote?

It is absurd. An 18 year old is still too young to shoot a gun, go to war and vote. An 18 year old is just a grown child, but not mature enough. It´s a pity, really.

Surely if you're being taxed you should at least be able to choose who's taxing you?

Agreed.

No Taxation without Representation!!! :salute:

Agreed.

No Taxation without Representation!!! :salute:

Just out of interest, how old are you?

I selected other on the poll

Option A Name them

when they can name eveyone who was voted in their electorate in the last term. If a person can not write down who their elected representatives are they have no idea who they are voting for let alone their policies

Option B

When 23 because that is the closest age to complete brain developement

16. Simply so as to give me the vote. I deserve it.

I'm fine with 18.

If you can be drafted, taxed, and liscenced to drive, you'd damn well better be able to vote. I say 16. (I'm well past that mark)

Just out of interest, how old are you?

20, and voting in my first election 4 days from now.

haaaah, age limits on voting are a bit, bureaucratic as other's have pointed out there are some smart 12yr olds however there are also alot of ignorant (as in not aware of politics) 12yr olds.
Then when the ones who don't know much about politics take an interest as they grow up, more often than not they remain ignorant.

I'm not sure age really is a good divide for those who can vote and those who can't, and some other divides are questionable.
that's why i picked "other". does that answer your question?

I say when you start getting taxed:
So thopse 14 year olds that work for shit pay in supermarkets get a chance to have their say
whilst the 32 year old dole bludgers are without one.

In fact, let's make it that for the more tax you pay the more votes you get (ie, for every 2% of your income you pay, you get one vote)

NOTE: this means that a person on $200,000 per year who pays $20,000 will get as many votes as a person who earns $2,000 and pays $200.

In fact, let's make it that for the more tax you pay the more votes you get (ie, for every 2% of your income you pay, you get one vote)
Actually, that's a pretty nice idea. It would stop the gimme welfare leechers from voting for whoever promises more welfare, and reward good work by more voice, while keeping rich from grabbing all votes either.
However, I'd make an exception for college students, seeing as their education is sort of work too - give them a basic vote.

:)12

But then National Insurance starts at 16. Surely if you're being taxed you should at least be able to choose who's taxing you?

You're being taxed, indirectly albeit, from the day you're born/conceived (depending on one's interpretation of "when life begins", whatever the hell that means)...why not let infants vote under that logic?

Actually, that's a pretty nice idea. It would stop the gimme welfare leechers from voting for whoever promises more welfare, and reward good work by more voice, while keeping rich from grabbing all votes either.
However, I'd make an exception for college students, seeing as their education is sort of work too - give them a basic vote.

Um? A rich person can afford to pay 50% of their salary if they have too right? A poor person cannot yes? therefore this is just another way to let the Rich buy more votes . . .only now, its direct!

eg: you make 200 000 dollars per year you can live on 100 000 no problem. If, on the other hand, you make 40 000 per year living on 20 000 is not reasonable. Also, what about univ and or college students? This is just a poor idea all round

Um? A rich person can afford to pay 50% of their salary if they have too right? A poor person cannot yes? therefore this is just another way to let the Rich buy more votes . . .only now, its direct!
Well, sort of. But not buy, just are assigned more votes.

eg: you make 200 000 dollars per year you can live on 100 000 no problem. If, on the other hand, you make 40 000 per year living on 20 000 is not reasonable.
Well, why would you pay more tax than you have to? It's just a way to indicate that the opinions are not equal. If I have to pay 28%, barely missing 33%, surely my vote counts a bit more than that of a person waiting the tables for me, and a lot more than that of a welfare leech which simply takes the money from both of us.

I say when you start getting taxed:
So thopse 14 year olds that work for shit pay in supermarkets get a chance to have their say
whilst the 32 year old dole bludgers are without one.

In fact, let's make it that for the more tax you pay the more votes you get (ie, for every 2% of your income you pay, you get one vote)

NOTE: this means that a person on $200,000 per year who pays $20,000 will get as many votes as a person who earns $2,000 and pays $200.A person that earns $200,000 per year might be able to afford spending $20,000 every four or so years. A person that has to live off $2,000 a year will not have $200 to spare. This is not acceptable.

A person that earns $200,000 per year might be able to afford spending $20,000 every four or so years. A person that has to live off $2,000 a year will not have $200 to spare. This is not acceptable.

what if this was done proportionally to the direct income of the person taxed?

Therefore the more % of a person's income they are willing to give to government the more votes they can have.
This allows people on very low incomes to have up to and even more votes than the rich, if they are willing to pay for it and equally if the rich are feeling generous they can have more say.

But i think the main problem is for those people who don't get an income or are on some form of benefit support.

Still i think proportional taxation should be equal to the amount of "say" a person has.
So if someone doesn't want to vote they can simply not pay any taxes.
I'm aware there could be fraudulent use of money given to people to "buy" votes, but there's always fraud at election times anyway.
Because frankly the current voting system does not work as well as it could do (speaking from a UK perspective).

I think a good system could be that anyone can vote as long as they're: home owners or business owners/in full time employment or attending university and perhaps some other measures that indicate that you have direct involvement in society.

I think a good system could be that anyone can vote as long as they're: home owners or business owners/in full time employment or attending university and perhaps some other measures that indicate that you have direct involvement in society.

okay fair enough. But what about prisoners and people who are judged not to be capable of rational thought (ie in a psychiatric ward)?
They might go on a rehabilitation programme and put alot of effort into a community then they have to be taken back to incarceration on a technicality. Should they be allowed to vote?

But what about prisoners

I think those that show true disregard for their criminal past should (but that might be hard to measure), since they have a direct involvement in a very integral part of society.


and people who are judged not to be capable of rational thought (ie in a psychiatric ward)?

Probably not.


They might go on a rehabilitation programme and put alot of effort into a community then they have to be taken back to incarceration on a technicality. Should they be allowed to vote?

Well, they should if they now are capable of rational thought.

Hydesland
I think those that show true disregard for their criminal past should (but that might be hard to measure), since they have a direct involvement in a very integral part of society.
So how do you find out if a person really shows disregard for their criminal past, and those that are lieing?

Probably not.
why?

Well, they should if they now are capable of rational thought.
and what is rational thought exactly? as far as i'm aware very few people think rationally all the time, it's just not possible.
And who is justified to say what is rational and what is not?

I'd go with 18.

In my roleplays, the age of everything is 18: Vote, serve in the military, drink, sexual consent. That's how I think it should be, provided of course, that would-be adults in a country's culture are mature enough to handle all the responsibilities that come with legal adulthood.

So how do you find out if a person really shows disregard for their criminal past, and those that are lieing?


Again, this is a problem, I don't really have an answer for it yet.


why?


Well this is a very complex issue. It really depends on your perspective on the function of democracy, what function do you think democracy has?


and what is rational thought exactly?

Well you used the term first, what do you define it as?

Many people should not be allowed to vote; they are the ones running for office.

Hydesland
Again, this is a problem, I don't really have an answer for it yet.
okay


Well this is a very complex issue. It really depends on your perspective on the function of democracy, what function do you think democracy has?
ahhhh i'm sorry i don't have the time to discuss that.


Well you used the term first, what do you define it as?
well typically society determines what is rational and what is not, what is normal is often specific to that society.
I'll give you an example from an interesting book i've read.
"in Malaya some men have a morbid fear that their penis is shrinking and that this is in relation to shrinking nipples. A similar genital fear is found in India, called the dhat syndrome. This is the belief that serious illness will be created by excessive loss of sperm (from nocturnal emission or masturbation). In another example, in China there is a morbid fear of catching colds (frigophobia;pa-len;wei-han). This is in the context of the Chinese belief system about the balance between yin and yang. Thosewith a fear of colds predominating will over-dress in warm weather and avoid cold-inducing foods.
In Japan, with it's particular sensitivity to the views of others, some adolescents develop taijinkyfushio. This entails the young person being excessively anxious about how they are viewed by others, especially classmates and others they must encounter, who are not family members. A final example is Nigerian brain fag syndrome. This is the anxious belief on the part of the patient that their intellectual and sensory capacities are impaired, accompanied by a burning sensation in the head and neck."

The reason i quoted this is because some of it is quite interesting, i apologise if it's not relevant to our discussion.

I think age is unimportant, I agree that there are many people who vote who have no Idea of the issues, that to me is more important then age or property ownership. I take time every election to find out what the people I vote for believe on the issues, and between elections I keep track of what they actually do, only to have my vote diluted or invalidated by all the idiots who vote for someone who votes because of party or race, or because they like the way someone dresses.

I wish there was a way to test if someone really knows what and who they are voting for, but Alas I know of no way to really find that out efficiently.

well typically society determines what is rational and what is not, what is normal is often specific to that society.
I'll give you an example from an interesting book i've read.


The reason i quoted this is because some of it is quite interesting, i apologise if it's not relevant to our discussion.

Well what I define as irrational, in the context of being in a psych ward, is being unable to distinguish from reality and illusion, and being biased by paranoid or other baseless thoughts. I think it would be improper to allow these people to vote. This is however, not a normal definition of irrational, but one used in the context of the mentally ill.

Well what I define as irrational, in the context of being in a psych ward, is being unable to distinguish from reality and illusion, and being biased by paranoid or other baseless thoughts. I think it would be improper to allow these people to vote. This is however, not a normal definition of irrational, but one used in the context of the mentally ill.

There are people who suffer from paranoia and various types of illusions and they can make perfectly logical decisions.
So what is a normal definition of irrational? while we are on the topic what is normality?

23 because that is the closest age to complete brain developement

Yup, adult brain development is the key. I prefer to do it on a case by case basis, rather than picking an age. Why should people who mature earlier have to wait for their slower peers?

Same for driving, drinking/drugs, and a bunch of other issues...

Well, I'd like to know. I think some 12 year olds are fully capable of voting, whereas some 40 year olds aren't. Poll to come.


As you suggest, it comes down to a case-by-case basis

Personally I say prevent Drug Users and the Mentally Disabled from voting, trust me, ive met enough of them to know that Druggies will almost specifically vote for the candidates/parties that tilt towards relaxing drug laws, and alot of the Mentally Disabled are easier for politicians to talk bull**** to


one odd possibility, do you here in NS think that instead of basic votes, that all registered voters should undergo IQ tests prior to an election, and that they submit their IQ scores towards the candidate/party they want to vote for, and the power that gets the highest IQ total wins the election

As you suggest, it comes down to a case-by-case basis

Personally I say prevent Drug Users and the Mentally Disabled from voting, trust me, ive met enough of them to know that Druggies will almost specifically vote for the candidates/parties that tilt towards relaxing drug laws, and alot of the Mentally Disabled are easier for politicians to talk bull**** to


one odd possibility, do you here in NS think that instead of basic votes, that all registered voters should undergo IQ tests prior to an election, and that they submit their IQ scores towards the candidate/party they want to vote for, and the power that gets the highest IQ total wins the election

IQ tests alone are a poor indication of intelligence and the logistical nightmare created by categorising people by IQ would be in astronomical proportions.

There are people who suffer from paranoia and various types of illusions and they can make perfectly logical decisions.

Then they are capable of making a rational decision, I'm talking about people who are medically incapable of such.


So what is a normal definition of irrational?

Contrary to logic or reasoning.


while we are on the topic what is normality?

How is that on the topic?

But then National Insurance starts at 16. Surely if you're being taxed you should at least be able to choose who's taxing you?

Tell that to immigrants (legal). We pay tax but have no political representation at all.

But on topic - 16 seems a good age to me, some will be immature but the majority are not, and unless voting is compulsory the immature ones will be too busy posting on NSG or playing with their PS3 to bother voting.

Hydesland
Then they are capable of making a rational decision, I'm talking about people who are medically incapable of such.
ah i see. what do you mean by medically incapable?

Contrary to logic or reasoning.
Logic and reason are defined by society, which isn't always right.


How is that on the topic?
how is it not on topic?

ah i see. what do you mean by medically incapable?


As in, directly due to a mental problem.


Logic and reason are defined by society, which isn't always right.


I disagree with this, but is that a can of worms you really want to open?


how is it not on topic?

What does normality have to with anything? I never said normal people can't vote.

Hydesland
As in, directly due to a mental problem.
So you're saying that people who have a diagnosed mental condition cannot vote?


I disagree with this, but is that a can of worms you really want to open?
hmmm perhaps another time, i'll probably have to work on my essay soon.

What does normality have to with anything? I never said normal people can't vote.
well that's the problem, there is no such thing as normal people, rational people, or logical people. These are just different ways of saying that if you're with a big enough group of people and you fit in you are an acceptable human, if you don't have a big group of people you fit in with then you are abnormal and must be isolated.
what i'm saying is, where do you draw this line when the very definition of what human is can be refuted because the person in question is not like other people.

So you're saying that people who have a diagnosed mental condition cannot vote?


IF it's impairing their ability to make a rational judgement.


well that's the problem, there is no such thing as normal people, rational people, or logical people. These are just different ways of saying that if you're with a big enough group of people and you fit in you are an acceptable human, if you don't have a big group of people you fit in with then you are abnormal

Statistically speaking, this is almost correct, if not a very crude definition.


and must be isolated.


Not tied to the definition.


what i'm saying is, where do you draw this line when the very definition of what human is can be refuted because the person in question is not like other people.

I still don't see what this has to do with who can vote. Btw, I meant to say, "I never said abnormal people can't vote".

At the age in which they can enlist in the military and/or are eligable to work full time. Which in an ideal world would be at age 17.

nevermind. just carry on being wrong about this without me.

Universal suffrage at eighteen seems okay to me. Looking back a couple of years, I don't think I was really ready back then, even if I was technically capable of paying National Insurance.

I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote until they have proven they are capable of making a rational decision and passed some basic tests to show cognitive ability. I think once we get about 3-4% of the population voting that should be enough.

I'm also all in favour of raising a child from birth to be the leader, not only does it mean that the leader will be in power long enough to make changes, they also won't have to pander to idiots trying to get votes, so they might actually do something decent, especially if they are raised from birth to be moral and rational.

I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote until they have proven they are capable of making a rational decision and passed some basic tests to show cognitive ability. I think once we get about 3-4% of the population voting that should be enough.
We have 3-4% of population in the government.

Um? A rich person can afford to pay 50% of their salary if they have too right? A poor person cannot yes? therefore this is just another way to let the Rich buy more votes . . .only now, its direct!The money does not go to the party however, the money goes into the public pocket. Ie, to buy everyone infrastructure!

eg: you make 200 000 dollars per year you can live on 100 000 no problem. If, on the other hand, you make 40 000 per year living on 20 000 is not reasonable. Also, what about univ and or college students? This is just a poor idea all round

uni students have minimal income. I am a uni student, I work 15-20 hours per week. I pay about 15% tax which comes out to about $3000 a year. I still manage to survive!

The good thing about this system is that it encourages people to pay taxes! plus those that pay more, get more back (as opposed to the real world where the rich get taxed 50%, but get alot less back in terms of government services)

We shall call it... Lapsism!

After the first trimester. Women should be required to shove ballots up thier vagina. And a #2 pencil.

Option A Name them

when they can name eveyone who was voted in their electorate in the last term. If a person can not write down who their elected representatives are they have no idea who they are voting for let alone their policies
So under this system, one could only vote for McCain of Obama if one knows who the current president is(Protip: It's Bush). That doesn't really make sense. What I know or don't know about Bush has no bearing on what I know or don't know about McCain or Obama.
Actually, that's a pretty nice idea. It would stop the gimme welfare leechers from voting for whoever promises more welfare, and reward good work by more voice, while keeping rich from grabbing all votes either.
However, I'd make an exception for college students, seeing as their education is sort of work too - give them a basic vote.
It might create the odd situation of the rich voting for the people who promise to tax them more. What a strange world that would be.
Personally I say prevent Drug Users......from voting
The following are drugs:
Alcohol
Tobacco
Caffeine

one odd possibility, do you here in NS think that instead of basic votes, that all registered voters should undergo IQ tests prior to an election, and that they submit their IQ scores towards the candidate/party they want to vote for, and the power that gets the highest IQ total wins the election
Time consuming and expensive. And IQ tests are far from perfect.
After the first trimester. Women should be required to shove ballots up thier vagina. And a #2 pencil.

Or in the case of electronic voting, a remote control.

The following are drugs:
Alcohol
Tobacco
Caffeine

As are antibiotics...

I still don't see what this has to do with who can vote. Btw, I meant to say, "I never said abnormal people can't vote".

I think because from his POV, irrationality can only be discerned from a cultural, "normal" viewpoint. Therefore, anyone sufficiently outside of the norm (abnormal) would be labeled as irrational. I disagree with this assessment, because I think theres definitely ways in which the crazies can be diagnosed without using a culturally biased method.

17 (or already married) in Indonesia :)

Sixteen. If you're old enough to pretend to be eighteen in order to join the army and die for your country, you're old enough to vote.

Sixteen. If you're old enough to pretend to be eighteen in order to join the army and die for your country, you're old enough to vote.

so voting age should be based on an age of general physical ability?
The army wants bodies to fire weapons. Intelligence or good judgement is not required. if you have them you command the bodies.

so voting age should be based on an age of general physical ability?
The army wants bodies to fire weapons. Intelligence or good judgement is not required. if you have them you command the bodies.That's an incorrect assumption. Just because you're smart doesn't automatically mean you become an officer.

true it normally occurs after general training. The smarter and more valuable you are the less likely you will be in the front line of conventional combat.

Voting will never, ever be based on requisite IQ scores. Neither party could afford the sudden drop in their constituency.

It is absurd. An 18 year old is still too young to shoot a gun, go to war and vote. An 18 year old is just a grown child, but not mature enough. It´s a pity, really.Nope, it has been shown that if you have children develop a strong phobia of guns when they are younger, by taking them out hunting with red necks, then they are far less likely to handle a gun.

Voting will never, ever be based on requisite IQ scores. Neither party could afford the sudden drop in their constituency.All you should have to be is literate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssek
Voting will never, ever be based on requisite IQ scores. Neither party could afford the sudden drop in their constituency.

All you should have to be is literate.

Thats why I think filling in the voting paper will be a good test. Just leave all the names blank of the elected officials. If people cant name whos in office for what party they cant vote for them

Other. I don't believe in voting for several reasons.

1) No one can assess any politician, unless you're a nearby colague that worked next to him or her.

2) The one with the most money will win in general.

3) A significant share of voters are too stupid to generate a good vote.

Get rid of this and replace it by a system where politicians are randomly appointed. Some countries (Canada on local area) are doing this and are achieving very nice results.

Other. I don't believe in voting for several reasons.

1) No one can assess any politician, unless you're a nearby colague that worked next to him or her.

2) The one with the most money will win in general.

3) A significant share of voters are too stupid to generate a good vote.

Get rid of this and replace it by a system where politicians are randomly appointed. Some countries (Canada on local area) are doing this and are achieving very nice results.

You dont like voting? Do you prefer a dictator instead? I looked into your "volunteer" politicians and you are completly misrepresenting their function.


http://www.worldchanging.com/local/canada/archives/008500.html

They are a simple committee just like one of a billion other committees in a government. A committee of informed individuals making a recommendation is not an earth shattering new form of government. And i take offence at their assertion that 6 weekends of study gives you a Masters level understanding of issues. If thats the case then why are people who have actual Masters wasting thier time with 2 years of extra schooling if it can all be done in a few easy weekends? Randomly picking people and educating them on issues is a good thing dont get me wrong, but it certainly isnt a workable form of government. Name one country that is led by a committee?

translation 12 yr olds agree with me 40 yr olds do not.

Well, 12 year olds don't know any better compared to an 18 year old. You wouldn't ask a twelve year old what kind of medicine he thinks he should use when he's got a cold or headache would you? Ibuprofin, or Extenze, little Timmy?

You dont like voting? Do you prefer a dictator instead? I looked into your "volunteer" politicians and you are completly misrepresenting their function.


http://www.worldchanging.com/local/canada/archives/008500.html

They are a simple committee just like one of a billion other committees in a government. A committee of informed individuals making a recommendation is not an earth shattering new form of government. And i take offence at their assertion that 6 weekends of study gives you a Masters level understanding of issues. If thats the case then why are people who have actual Masters wasting thier time with 2 years of extra schooling if it can all be done in a few easy weekends? Randomly picking people and educating them on issues is a good thing dont get me wrong, but it certainly isnt a workable form of government. Name one country that is led by a committee?

Not all professional politicians have a master and I doubt if you need one to care about people. A master isn't a certification that one will do good in the political arena.

The Citizens' Assembly in Ontario and British Colombia aren't doing it worse than classic elected politicians.

Besides local governments, the same system is working very well for juridical systems. Several studies show that public juries are not making better or worse decisions as professional judges. IMHO, most people know nothing about law, but still can judge about law.

In Europe, most politicians do have a lawyer background. Do I need to say more?

But then National Insurance starts at 16. Surely if you're being taxed you should at least be able to choose who's taxing you?

Don't you only pay VAT until 18. I mean I was never taxed for NI. I know you don't have to pay tax if you earn under £5,400 a year I think. Not many 16 year olds earn that. Most as still in full time Education. Even with EMA and a part time job I don't break that 5 grands landmark. Even my interest was tax free.

If voting made a difference the government would of banned it.

Something my Uncle told me on my 18th. ^^

In the UK, either the voting age should be lowered to 16, or the age for getting married, paying tax, and joining the armed forces should be raised to 18. Why, for example, can a 17-year old die for his (or her) country in war, but not vote for or against the politicians who started that war?

Don't you only pay VAT until 18. I mean I was never taxed for NI. I know you don't have to pay tax if you earn under £5,400 a year I think. Not many 16 year olds earn that. Most as still in full time Education. Even with EMA and a part time job I don't break that 5 grands landmark. Even my interest was tax free.

I'm not sure what you think VAT is... Essentially it's a tax on the price of most things you buy in the shops (excluding food, children's clothes, books and some other categories) which adds 17.5% on to the price.

I think National Insurance is charged to anyone working more than a certain number of hours per week - the £5,400 threshold you're thinking of is for income tax. Any income you earn above that threshold is taxed at 20%.

Not all professional politicians have a master and I doubt if you need one to care about people. A master isn't a certification that one will do good in the political arena.

I wasnt the one making a value claim about Masters level education, the article was. They seem to think it a big deal that their committee has Master level education on the issue. (The kind of Masters degree one can get in 6 weekends i guess)

The Citizens' Assembly in Ontario and British Colombia aren't doing it worse than classic elected politicians.

How are you measuring this? And doing what exactly? All they do is make recommendations that the elected reps either choose to follow or ignore just like every committee ever made.

Besides local governments, the same system is working very well for juridical systems. Several studies show that public juries are not making better or worse decisions as professional judges. IMHO, most people know nothing about law, but still can judge about law.

I call bullshit, could you please cite these studies?

Don't you only pay VAT until 18. I mean I was never taxed for NI. I know you don't have to pay tax if you earn under £5,400 a year I think. Not many 16 year olds earn that. Most as still in full time Education. Even with EMA and a part time job I don't break that 5 grands landmark. Even my interest was tax free.
National Insurance is worked out on a weekly basis, even if you earn less than £5000 you still have to pay. On the other hand, prisoners have to pay NI and income tax and they don't get the vote.

I have always supported the alternate solution to the voting age stupidity.

People of all ages should be allowed to vote. But.






Voting age "should be replaced with a driving license verification"

Campaigners for lower voting age have united with the motorists movement, which says the voting age should be abolished, and instead replaced with a requirement to own a car with a manual transmission.

As the motorists leader H. Richardson said, "How can you be trusted to choose who should rule our country, if you can't even choose your own gear?"

But the Electoral Commission has recommended seeking alternatives for non-motorists, and only introduce an extensive background check for the prospective MPs. The motorists were promised it will take gearbox type into consideration, among other evaluation factors.

Commission chairman M. Jameson mentioned that even among automatic gearbox drivers there was not a clear majority against the proposed requirement.

"The evidence from the polls suggests that while both manual and automatic gearbox drivers can be found voting, the turnout rate among automatic users is appalling in comparison. While many people think everyone should vote, there are just as many who feel that potential voters should first prove their ability to handle choices in smaller matters", he said.

The review was prompted by only 9% turnout among automatic gearbox drivers - the lowest of any statistically valid group.

Despite that, Mr. Yates said, "Introducing the legislation could reduce the overall turnout because of non-motorists' disengagement with the political process".
Young people were more interested in ensuring the voters proved their judgement ability first, however, and didn't consider age a valid proof of judgement.

Campaigners who want change say it is wrong that older people not even qualified to do such simple things as gear changes themselves, which improves fuel economy as much as 25%, providing greater environmental impact reduction than hybrid cars, can vote, yet 16-year-olds, who can join the armed forces, pay taxes, and drive manual transmission cars, can't.

College student Andrew Stevens, 17, a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII RS driver and a successful juniors rally racer, told News Online: "They should drop the age limit."
"We are almost adults and we're not little kids. Many of us make difficult choices every day. This is the time where we choose whether to go to college and to which, where we make the most important decisions. Age is the silliest thing to base discrimination on."

Tony Blair has hinted his opposition to replacing passport-based voting with driving license based might be weakening, while the Public Transportation Minister Lord Adonis has publicly backed the move.

Alex Folkes, from the Votes At 16 campaign group, condemned the ambiguous report as "The political establishment telling young people that their votes did not count".

H.Richardson from the Motorists Rights Movement responded harsher, "They tie our rights to arbitrary limits, instead of the proof of actually being able to handle responsibility."

Published: 2008/03/19 18:39:11 GMT

-snip-
Bullshit. Why the fuck should I have to pay several hundred pounds that I don't have, for a driving licence I don't need, in order to vote?

In the UK, either the voting age should be lowered to 16, or the age for getting married, paying tax, and joining the armed forces should be raised to 18. Why, for example, can a 17-year old die for his (or her) country in war, but not vote for or against the politicians who started that war?



I'm not sure what you think VAT is... Essentially it's a tax on the price of most things you buy in the shops (excluding food, children's clothes, books and some other categories) which adds 17.5% on to the price.

I think National Insurance is charged to anyone working more than a certain number of hours per week - the £5,400 threshold you're thinking of is for income tax. Any income you earn above that threshold is taxed at 20%.

You can only be sent to war at 18. You can join at 16, but you cannot fight until 18. I know what VAT is. My point was that it is the only tax that I, as a student pays.

Nope, it has been shown that if you have children develop a strong phobia of guns when they are younger, by taking them out hunting with red necks, then they are far less likely to handle a gun.

Em... what? I'm terribly sorry Scandinvans but I don't understand how this post relates to mine?:confused:

6 years old so we get campaign ads like this
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/9-25-08/Rykan.jpg

18, just like they should be in every country in the world.

My vote was Other. I believe some form of conditions need to be met before voting can be participated in. What those conditions are is obviously a subject for discussion.

I liked the following ideas:
Yup. Young adults here tend to be preoccupied by other things, not really by politics. The interest starts to grow when they reach their mid to late 20s.
Option A Name them

when they can name everyone who was voted in in their electorate in the last term. If a person can not write down who their elected representatives are they have no idea who they are voting for let alone their policies

Option B

When 23 because that is the closest age to complete brain development
Although I’d like to note that there needs to be some form of voting available to children as well. Learning to do anything is a process and experience counts. I’m learning how to play Nation States and have very little experience of similar gaming scenarios. As such, my value as a member is often and legitimately regarded as lesser. I do have the potential to come up with some new and potentially positive contributions though. The same applies to children and the vote.

There is a sub-thread on the issue of tax and voting. Voting does not only determine tax spend although that is a significant portion of what your vote is intended to influence.
Aside: I personally believe in a more involved democracy – I understand that Switzerland has a democracy in which issues in your canton (region) that cost over a certain amount or that would change the law are put to citizens Referenda (by mail or online). If that is true it sounds like a good idea to me. I remember a lovely little pamphlet that went out to all voters with equal numbers of pages for each of the sides of the issue filled however each side wished to fill the page.
I am considering this idea put forward that one might choose to contribute a percentage of one’s assets/income to the government and have a vote proportional to that (irrespective of the dollar amount) on the government budget allocation. I haven’t had the chance to think about this one much so I’m neutral on it but it’s worth mentioning.
Small aside: The idea that someone who earns more is intrinsically better than someone who does not is an idea that forgets too many incidental issues (scientists, concept developers, inventors and academics are patently valuable and educated members of society but are almost without exception paid less than those in similarly successful careers in marketing or management. Many people choose paths and occupations that do not pay well because they love them or because of the attendant benefits (more spare time, making the world a better place etc); this is obviously not a good reason to give them less of a vote. If you still feel that way, rest assured: the money itself is compensation enough in this world as it is.
I think a good system could be that anyone can vote as long as they're: home owners or business owners/in full time employment or attending university and perhaps some other measures that indicate that you have direct involvement in society.
This appears to be classical greek democracy. Still active in things like the house of lords etc. I believe Franklin was a supporter of keeping the vote amongst the propertied classes etc too. The world has moved away from that for some reason. Perhaps it is simply that by defining a type of person as one who can vote will always exclude a perfectly valid group of people. Men used to be the only ones to vote – largely as the representative of the family. Now we consider women able to have a separate opinion. I would hesitate to define a group of people who should be able to vote as there are always exceptions.

The best is some sort of test of competency – we have these for so many other aspects of life it seems sensible to have it for a citizen’s right to vote.

Don't you only pay VAT until 18. I mean I was never taxed for NI. I know you don't have to pay tax if you earn under £5,400 a year I think. Not many 16 year olds earn that. Most as still in full time Education. Even with EMA and a part time job I don't break that 5 grands landmark. Even my interest was tax free.
Erm.

VAT is paid onto anything which isn't sustainance or children's clothes and shoes IIRC. Was a problem for me as a 14-year old as I have pretty big feet :(