Votes at 16 has been a project, which - as a youth empowerment activist - I have been involved with for a long time... And finally it's seeing some publicity, at least as a proposition...

I can tell you that Votes at 16 is in favour of candidacy rights to eighteen-year-olds as opposed to twenty-one-year-olds.

Not that voting should be brought down from eighteen to sixteen and candidacy being brought down from twenty-one to eighteen. It needs to be even lower.

It's a step in the right direction. But eleven-year-olds are politically opinionated and everybody aged eleven or over will be paying taxes before the subsequent general election and should therefore have a say in how those taxes are spent.

A sixteen-year-old with no higher or further education should have no less right to run for Member of Parliament or Councillor than a twenty-one-year-old with no higher or further education, as they have just as much right to work full time.

Voting at eleven! Candidacy at sixteen!

Everyone should be allowed to vote. Of all ages. No viable argument can be made against this statement.

Everyone should be allowed to vote. Of all ages. No viable argument can be made against this statement.
Does that include unborn fetuses?
:)

And demi - how about "you can't vote till you finish high school" or even better, "you can't vote until you actually sit down with the full facts and think about what you're voting for and the consequences of it"?

Now that would be a good idea....

Oh my, I am 17 and I don't think 17 year old should drive. If I can't trust the adult population with a vote why would I be wiling to spread the influence of ignorance to even more ppl? If 16 year olds were able to vote, politicians would take important time out to deal with idiotic and wasteful issues to sway the youth vote. I can't even phathom ppl at my school voting, they would vote for the most erroneous reasons I’ll tell u that. "I like his hair; she's hot, blah, blah….and blah." No if anything voting should be done on a interest and intellectual basis on the issues. I don’t even like the fact most ppl vote anyways.

Hey, I agree with Nico!

Okay, so nico's a fascist.

I don't really think that intelligence increases really at all once you get out of High School. I would conjecture that there are more stupid people outside of America's Public School System than inside. And, of course, at least some of them vote.

I dont agree with everythign nico said, but lets put it this way. your experience of the "real" world increases once you leave school, not your intelligence. Without looking closely taht isnt necessarily apparent, but when you have more experience of a variety of situations to back up your native intelligence, you can look more intelligent to a youngster or someone half blind.

If this is the case then I cannot understand how we keep consistently voting bad people into office. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, you're generally dissatisfied with the way our government is running. Women and minorities turned the table on the white men, and I think giving power to traditionally rebellious children would add to creating a better democracy for America and for the world.

Arguments against giving the vote to people of all ages parallel arguments against giving minorities, women, people without property, and furthermore, anyone but the honorable nobility at
all the right to vote. They're stupid, they aren't mature enough, they're influenced by their peers or superiors. It's all the same. And it's all irrelevant. Democracy is supposed to give people the power to govern themselves, and while it has been advanced by leaps and bounds over the centuries the system has not yet come to its true fruition.

Democracy and freedom, one and inseperable, now and forever.

If I say that voting should be restricted to those with a proper political opinion, how do we judge who is properly politically opinionated? How do we measure such a thing?

Certainly not by one's education. I have known people wiser than philosophers - and who could probably run countries - that couldn't even read and never went to school.

I think it's just one of those issues where you can't really have a One True Answer. You can argue that "no, young people should not vote because they lack the knowledge and maturity to do so"...but then what about mental patients who are of age? Do we not let them vote because they lack the knowledge and maturity? Then where does the rights of equality go?
Then we get into another issue...

At sixteen I might of thought differently. Today well, I'm 40 years old, I don't think a sixteen year old can leave his scate board long enough to find out about politics. Boring Man!! Give him a Nintendo, or Play Station, let him vote on what games are best. Not on who should lead a nation, state, or city.

It is not that I'm a fascist, however if a sixteen year old wants to vote, and for a matter of fact after Florida 2000 everyone should under go a test of intelegence before voting!!
Basic principels of reading & writing ENGLISH!!

Godless.

:rolleyes:

posted by Nico
If I can't trust the adult population with a vote why would I be wiling to spread the influence of ignorance to even more ppl?
I know you know the "people's vote" in America has very little to do with who gets elected into the presidency.

Teens have nothing to do and if they feel strongly about politics, don't you think more activism will be created if we let teens vote?

But......In 8th grade (13 years old, the 2000 elections) we spent months researching the positions of the candidates, watched the debates, we discussed the issues and then there was a grade-wide poll before the actuall Nov 4 election. It was about 60% in favor of Bush, 30% for Gore, and 10% for Ralph Nadar.

I remember one thing we discussed was why Gore wore so much make-up during his first debate. I think that's why Bush's more conservative image seemed better than Gore's doll face. Usually younger people are more liberal minded, and this area is more for the democrats than republicans, yet the kids still chose Bush over Gore. This supports Nico's assumption that kids will be influenced by the campaign imagery more than the poltical arguements.

People need time to discover the tricks TV and the government plays. Letting kids vote would theoretically be a good idea, but there's too much trickery and decite used during the campaigns that the kids need to be fully aware of it before they vote.

And who knows....the politicians will target the kids' parents to pressure their kids to "vote the same way dad or mom does."
posted by Godless
At sixteen I might of thought differently. Today well, I'm 40 years old, I don't think a sixteen year old can leave his scate board long enough to find out about politics. Boring Man!! Give him a Nintendo, or Play Station, let him vote on what games are best. Not on who should lead a nation, state, or city.
I think you have forgotten what it was like to be a kid. There are those kids that are suckered into video games and that's all they do...play video games. But a much larger percentage of teens do have political assertions that they feel strongly about. And I'd rather have the 'skater kids' vote than the ones that play "Madden 2004" (a popular video game) all day. Skater kids are not stupid/iggnorant, I actually find the ones in my school to be the some of the most culturally aware/street smartest people. It's the 'ghetto-suburban white kids' that you don't want in charge of choosing a political leader because they have been influenced by marketing tricks and will be easily influenced by political trickery too.

Intelligence doesn't have to do with picking a political candidate.

I see you still havent grasped the stone of thy masters hand!!.

I havent forgotten how it was for me as a kid, we didn't have nintendo, 24/7 news, or better yet propaganda, most kids wouldn't be able to tell the difference, they havent learned enough about issues and instead concentrate on appearance. Bush over Gore because of his looks?.

Common!! give me break!!

Are you happy now how the war monger took care of things?

You claim the great majority of kids are in to politics, and few are concentrated on video games!! tell that to wall-mart, that has sold over 2 million PlayStations games & units.

Intelegence in our diverse culture is a good idea, before voting. Or would you like to spend Tax dollars, on traslation of every document and every issue of representatives?. That's too much.

If a kid is going to vote, there must be some kind of test administered so that he understands the issues, not just the looks of the guy, or because he is cute, or what have you!!.

Intelegence has everything to do with choosing a leader! look what happened last time, people voted for a war monger, who is a recovering alcoholic, religious zealot biggot jack ass!!.

Godless.

I am not a big fan of the system, not because the system itself is flawed, rather the voters are. Surely there are voters out there who are politically active and politically aware of issues. But what really gets to me is the fact is that nothing that has to do with politics (rather ad homs) attracts the majority of ppl's votes. In Canada we don't have this yet, but in the US attack ads are what matters. No one deals with a issue, no rather the issue is the person. Teens aren't the only ones who vote as Grazz said:

This supports Nico's assumption that kids will be influenced by the campaign imagery more than the poltical arguements.


No rather Adults are more swayed by that. Teens are admittedly more swayed by issues (well some of them) percentage wise the teens probably have more interest in politics due to idealism. Meanwhile adults delve more in pragmatist, and selfish reasoning.

Teens have nothing to do and if they feel strongly about politics, don't you think more activism will be created if we let teens vote?

Summed up in one word...angst. Yes I believe that some teens like me and you and a select few deserve to be allowed to vote. But I would forfeit that right if that meant that all teens my age would vote as well. To sum up:

If a kid is going to vote, there must be some kind of test administered so that he understands the issues, not just the looks of the guy, or because he is cute, or what have you!!.

Intelligence has everything to do with choosing a leader! look what happened last time, people voted for a war monger, who is a recovering alcoholic, religious zealot bigot jack ass!!.


Thanks Godless.

I am against minors voting for 1 reason. Almost all indoctrinated at the same place... public school.

It wouldn't be long before vote callers became teachers to 'get the vote out'.

If I say that voting should be restricted to those with a proper political opinion, how do we judge who is properly politically opinionated? How do we measure such a thing?

Yes, exactly. That's why, in a democracy or a republic, it should be everything or nothing when it comes to voting. Everyone or no one at all. At least for the moment voting competence cannot possibly be measured.

It is not that I'm a fascist, however if a sixteen year old wants to vote, and for a matter of fact after Florida 2000 everyone should under go a test of intelegence before voting!!

Yes it'd be interesting to see how well you'd do on such a test, mindless.

People need time to discover the tricks TV and the government plays. Letting kids vote would theoretically be a good idea, but there's too much trickery and decite used during the campaigns that the kids need to be fully aware of it before they vote.

It depends on how benificent the guys running the media show are. Instead of being turned on to Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn we're turned on to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. The first two criticize virtually every candidate while the second give them metaphorical blowjobs on the air--which pair would be healthier for the American people to listen to regarding politics, which pair would be healthier for the rich to pay to tell people about politics? You have your answer. The rich benefit more if they're getting blowjobs from the press, that's all.


I havent forgotten how it was for me as a kid, we didn't have nintendo, 24/7 news, or better yet propaganda

No propaganda huh? That's pretty impressive. Did you live in a tunnel underground by any chance?

I am not a big fan of the system, not because the system itself is flawed, rather the voters are.

No system is perfect. What would you have in place of a representative democracy, or a parliamentary government?

But what really gets to me is the fact is that nothing that has to do with politics (rather ad homs) attracts the majority of ppl's votes.

Sources?
Let me just mention that there are more generalizations on this thread than can be counted on fingers and toes.

That said

Summed up in one word...angst. Yes I believe that some teens like me and you and a select few deserve to be allowed to vote.

I agree. Teen angst at least seems to be universal among the american youth, from my perspective. We'd probably vote for more libertarian candidates.

No system is perfect. What would you have in place of a representative democracy, or a parliamentary government?


Democracy, just not in the way we now it today.

Sources?
Let me just mention that there are more generalizations on this thread than can be counted on fingers and toes.


I can't give u a source on that, no one polls it. It is a generally regarded that ppl vote on irrelevancies. You live in the US, I live near the US and I watch those campaign commercials, I watch Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff...hehe. There is a general consensus that attack ads dominate, and through logical deductions since they influence votes, ppl vote on ad homs.

I agree. Teen angst at least seems to be universal among the american youth, from my perspective. We'd probably vote for more libertarian candidates.

I disagree teens would be more inclined to vote utilitarian candidates.

I'd also like to point out that 'testing' for minors to vote should also be a no-no. It's a test begging for biased results. Do you quiz on all 'the issues' or just the big ones? Who decides what the issues are?

Your other option is too test on something not directly related to the election (aka history). However, this is still biased and doesn't tell anything except that the person knows about history.

Democracy, just not in the way we now it today.

If you've discussed this before feel free to quote yourself. Otherwise, give me more information.

It is a generally regarded that ppl vote on irrelevancies.

But let's acknowledge together, now, that backing such a claim up with even a single fact or statistic would perhaps further your case.

I disagree teens would be more inclined to vote utilitarian candidates.

I'm unfamiliar with the term.

Persol,

I remember Jerrek had a similar idea for 'improving democracy.' He said that people should be tested for their intelligence. In any case, if Jerrek thinks something is a good idea, then it's a safe bet that it probably isn't.

If you've discussed this before feel free to quote yourself. Otherwise, give me more information.


I don't want to get into specifics, let's just say it would a oligarchic democracy.

But let's acknowledge together, now, that backing such a claim up with even a single fact or statistic would perhaps further your case.


*SHOCKED* no lies Pollux! Obviously, but I am almost certain there aren't any, and neither am i wiling to look them up (got the flu).

I'm unfamiliar with the term.


Not wiling to explain now Pollux, look up John Stuart Mill.

Originally posted by nico
and neither am i wiling to look them up (got the flu) You have the flu, it's not like you have anything better to do.

You have the flu, it's not like you have anything better to do.

I feel a musical number coming up...

True, at this current juncture in time I don't anything better to do. Apart from doing my English homework, but since I ain't going to school...google-izing takes time, and stress. Not into that.

Originally posted by Godless


It is not that I'm a fascist, however if a sixteen year old wants to vote, and for a matter of fact after Florida 2000 everyone should under go a test of intelegence before voting!!
Basic principels of reading & writing ENGLISH!!



I couldn't resist that, sorry! :)

No voting should not be left to 16 year olds, fact of the matter is that most people can't handle it. Basically, give them some kind of present if they vote for you, cash, social benefits, etc. It is mainly about vote purchasing in one way or another.

fact of the matter is that most people can't handle it

Excluding white, property holding non-immigrant Americans, correct?

Originally posted by Pollux V
Excluding white, property holding non-immigrant Americans, correct?

Please point to the place in my statement where any kind of qualification was made.

Age restrictions are arbitrary and as such prevent a lot of responsible people from voting, drinking, gambling, smoking, and driving, while allowing a lot of people who aren't ready for those things to do them.
For this reason, they're just not a good idea.
Testing is probably a worse idea, as tests are not objective and will not be able to be constructed in an unbiased manner. Someone could be illiterate, but still have a good grasp of the issues, for example.
I think that the only fair way to do it is to make all of these things legal once one completes the mandatory portion of public education. If their parents don't want them to do these things at that point, thats up to them.Although given the nature of public education in the US, at this point, it may well do more harm then good).
Maybe its best to just set the age as whenever one is capable of going into the voting booth and completing their ballot alone.

Being Amero-centric here, but can the US be called a democracy when I think 47% of the electorate voted in 2000? Also I think that it would be very difficult to weed out the "undesirables" from the voting pool, but if we want a better world...it's up to you.

Originally posted by nico
Being Amero-centric here, but can the US be called a democracy when I think 47% of the electorate voted in 2000?
No, but not because of the low voter turnout in itself, thats just a symptom of the problem.

Please point to the place in my statement where any kind of qualification was made.

Your argument, that most people aren't competent to vote, has been the same argument against giving people without property qualifications the right to vote, giving women the right to vote, giving blacks the right to vote. Somehow from your inherently august perspective they aren't good enough. It's really quite obvious that you and your archaic predecessors are wrong.

Originally posted by Pollux V
Your argument, that most people aren't competent to vote, has been the same argument against giving people without property qualifications the right to vote, giving women the right to vote, giving blacks the right to vote. Somehow from your inherently august perspective they aren't good enough. It's really quite obvious that you and your archaic predecessors are wrong.

Again, I assert the same question. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue. You assume something I never said, nor ever thought. Just admit you made a mistake and we can go on.

fact of the matter is that most people can't handle it [voting]

I assume that you're saying here that most people cannot handle the responsibility of voting.

Hey sob, you like to resort to name calling?

quote: (Yes it'd be interesting to see how well you'd do on such a test, mindless.


This is the reason why!! my statement was made, an adult has enough of a hard time understanding the bs politics of today without resorting to name calling and getting emotional, as you so much oviously have!!.

You don't vote on emotion, but what issues your particular representative suppose to support or reject according to what you believe may be right for everyone else.

Stick to the subject matter, dont resort to name calling, or stay out of issues you don't understand!! Flaming and arguing like a teenager is surely not winning that right to vote, now is it?.



Godless.

stay out of issues you don't understand!!
:rolleyes:

NO!

god please no.