What should the voting age be?

And why?

I was prompted to make this topic by seeing it suggested that the voting age be raised, but interestingly when I googled it all I got was suggestions that it be lowered to 16!?

The only things I recall being said about it were along the lines of "if you can drink...if you can drive...join the army...at 18, then you can vote" which seems to miss the point (there's no draft right now...and draft age could be changed as well).

How about 25, since the brain doesn't finish maturing until the mid twenties (though I don't know the age exactly)? Isn't it better for voters to have more education and life experience, to be full adults in other words? And today we don't expect people to be grown up at 18 or even 21.

I would keep it as it is. It could be said that age has nothing to do with making informed decisions. Some cant do such at all, no matter what their age. Voting is basic right and people should qualify by being citizens, not because of their age,IQ or size of their wallet. Once individual is seen as adult and independent citizen, he should be able to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

And why?

I was prompted to make this topic by seeing it suggested that the voting age be raised, but interestingly when I googled it all I got was suggestions that it be lowered to 16!?

The only things I recall being said about it were along the lines of "if you can drink...if you can drive...join the army...at 18, then you can vote" which seems to miss the point (there's no draft right now...and draft age could be changed as well).

How about 25, since the brain doesn't finish maturing until the mid twenties (though I don't know the age exactly)? Isn't it better for voters to have more education and life experience, to be full adults in other words? And today we don't expect people to be grown up at 18 or even 21.

---

It's all very imprecise on what makes you "ready" to vote. Honestly, it really is all a bunch of **** on how people "determine" their views on what makes someone ready to be a voter. To start with, if you can't vote, then you don't have the same rights as everyone else even though you live in the same society as them. Children are an exception because they do not interact within society to the extent that is required for them to need the rights that they don't have. It's all school, home and friends houses, with a few hangout spots. College is when you need to give the vote to them because they are now out and about fully interacting in society getting jobs and driving around and such. The fact that many kids have jobs and drivers licenses at 16 is why people suggest lowering it to 16 because those people are fully interacting with society.

Secondly, to raise it to 25 for "life experience" or because "the brain is finished developing" is completely moronic. Life experience is dependent on how you live your life and completely subjective, just because you have lived to 25 doesn't mean you know any more then when you were 18. Not every elder is wise and I can prove that. On the subject of using science to further a political goal, I say if we don't allow people under 25 to vote because their brains arn't ready yet, then let's just cut off voting to everyone 80 and above as well since if we are so eager to generalize all young people below 25 as under developed mentally we need to continue this to its logical conclusion and generalize that everyone 80 and above is probably suffering from some form of dementia or decline in brain activity/function. So no vote to grandma because she can't remember when was the last time she went to the store.

Thirdly, the statement "today we don't expect people to be grown up at 18 or even 21" is not relevant because society's "views" should not be determining who gets rights and who doesn't, that's a tyranny of the majority, otherwise all the old people might as well vote to have anyone under 50 to be cut off from voting rights. Or maybe it was ok for southern society in the 1950s to segregate because it was their social consensus that blacks were inferior.

My brother has been working at the polling place at my hometown's library every election he can for the past 4 years now and after hearing about the people he has dealt with I am convinced that the voting age should be as low as possible because the only thing more backward then seeing a college aged person walk in a vote straight democrat because "obama is cool and he will change things" is seeing a 65 year old man with more then 30 elections under his belt (lol "life experience") walk in and vote straight republican because there is obviously no nuance to the world, obama is socialist and this country is going to collapse into the soviet union in 5 years tops if WE DONT TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!

So with that said it becomes obvious that age is just a number and your ability to function as a rational and beneficial citizen depends on whether or not you are a rational human being not on how many years you have been on this Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

It's all very imprecise on what makes you "ready" to vote. Honestly, it really is all a bunch of **** on how people "determine" their views on what makes someone ready to be a voter. To start with, if you can't vote, then you don't have the same rights as everyone else even though you live in the same society as them. Children are an exception because they do not interact within society to the extent that is required for them to need the rights that they don't have. It's all school, home and friends houses, with a few hangout spots. College is when you need to give the vote to them because they are now out and about fully interacting in society getting jobs and driving around and such. The fact that many kids have jobs and drivers licenses at 16 is why people suggest lowering it to 16 because those people are fully interacting with society.

---

Everyone has the right to vote at X age. So they do all have the same rights. Why is "fully interacting with society" the point at which we give people the vote? Don't we want people to vote well, with good reasons?

Quote:

---

Secondly, to raise it to 25 for "life experience" or because "the brain is finished developing" is completely moronic. Life experience is dependent on how you live your life and completely subjective, just because you have lived to 25 doesn't mean you know any more then when you were 18. Not every elder is wise and I can prove that. On the subject of using science to further a political goal, I say if we don't allow people under 25 to vote because their brains arn't ready yet, then let's just cut off voting to everyone 80 and above as well since if we are so eager to generalize all young people below 25 as under developed mentally we need to continue this to its logical conclusion and generalize that everyone 80 and above is probably suffering from some form of dementia or decline in brain activity/function. So no vote to grandma because she can't remember when was the last time she went to the store.

---

I think this is beside the point. Counterexamples are not really relevant. Any standard voting age will be subject to that criticism, no? Sure not all 25 year olds have improved but most of them have.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, the statement "today we don't expect people to be grown up at 18 or even 21" is not relevant because society's "views" should not be determining who gets rights and who doesn't, that's a tyranny of the majority, otherwise all the old people might as well vote to have anyone under 50 to be cut off from voting rights. Or maybe it was ok for southern society in the 1950s to segregate because it was their social consensus that blacks were inferior.

---

It's simply that 200 years ago people rushed through the early years faster than they do today. That's a fairly standard idea. It may be that 25 is the equivalent of 21 back when it was first set at 21.

Quote:

---

My brother has been working at the polling place at my hometown's library every election he can for the past 4 years now and after hearing about the people he has dealt with I am convinced that the voting age should be as low as possible because the only thing more backward then seeing a college aged person walk in a vote straight democrat because "obama is cool and he will change things" is seeing a 65 year old man with more then 30 elections under his belt (lol "life experience") walk in and vote straight republican because there is obviously no nuance to the world, obama is socialist and this country is going to collapse into the soviet union in 5 years tops if WE DONT TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!

---

Maybe the 65 year old votes that way because he started out at 18 voting because "x is cool", and the habit stuck?

Quote:

---

So with that said it becomes obvious that age is just a number and your ability to function as a rational and beneficial citizen depends on whether or not you are a rational human being not on how many years you have been on this Earth.

---

But this doesn't disagree with me. We set the age limit at the point where most people are as rational and beneficial citizens as they are likely to become, right? Do you think that's when they are in high school? With the voting age at 18, aren't we saying to these people "that crappy us history and government class you slept through is all the preparation you need to vote"?

There is more than Chronological age. I think that a switched-on 16 year old can have far more to offer than an 80 year old "Churchill sent the army against the miners" (my grandmother).

So, personally I think that at 16 there should be a test that people can undertake to be allowed to vote for a few elections. Some will choose to get involved early, some won't bother. Some will also loose the right should their mental faculties drop below the standard required.

To merely exist for a certain length of time somehow grants you "rights" to decide how the country is run is... moronic.

~:smoking:

Keep age as is, strip women of their vote upon marriage. One vote per household should suffice.

30...
Simply because you have more life experiences that can assist your decision when it comes to government issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Everyone has the right to vote at X age. So they do all have the same rights. Why is "fully interacting with society" the point at which we give people the vote? Don't we want people to vote well, with good reasons?

---

No they don't, the wording itself contradicts you. The Constitutional amendment itself says that this is a right only to be protected to those above a certain age, hence those below the age do not have such right because it is not protected. It's like saying the right to free speech to anyone above 25. Are you really going to say that the 23 year old socialist protester who gets arrested for "improper ideas" still has the same rights as the 50 year old spouting the same thing who has a free pass, since all that young kid had to do was wait 2 before before opening his mouth against the government?

Fully interacting with society is the point we give people the vote because it is the point where they are given the opportunity to truly understand the effects of laws and bills and ideologies in terms of how it will effect themselves and everyone around them. A 14 year old has little understanding of the extent that government plays in his life. "Don't we want people to vote well, with good reasons?" Sure, but like I said that is subjective. What determines voting well? Being informed? Knowing broadly what party suits your ideology? Voting based on a single issue that you hold dear to your personality/ideology? There is no real answer to any of those questions unless you start getting into totalitarian territory.

Quote:

---

I think this is beside the point. Counterexamples are not really relevant. Any standard voting age will be subject to that criticism, no? Sure not all 25 year olds have improved but most of them have.

---

Exactly, which is why I ask for the voting age to as low as possible without having become extremely absurd like having 5 year olds vote. It's for the most part very arbitrary. Again, you use terms like "most of them have improved" how so? How do you define improve? They switched their opinion once during this period? Their reasoning has become more defined? No ones reasoning is perfect and some people gain a greater understanding of the world without having their opinion change one bit. Using that argument you would have to say, well then lets give it to them at 30 then because they will have learned more then. No wait, 45 because they will be even more learned by then. No wait, lets just have the oldest person decide for us since he should have learned more then anyone else. The idea that more time=better results on an individual level is just completely flawed and cannot be used without having drastic logical consequences. That is unless you put some arbitrary limit where people beyond a certain age should be "knowledgeable" enough from their years to be able to vote, but we are back to my original statement which is that such an arbitrary limit is useless and should be suppressed as much as possible to allow as many people as possible without going over board.

Quote:

---

It's simply that 200 years ago people rushed through the early years faster than they do today. That's a fairly standard idea. It may be that 25 is the equivalent of 21 back when it was first set at 21.

---

Well that maybe all true, but it doesn't have any bearing on what we should do in terms of letting people vote. Like I said, what society thinks doesn't matter. Society is full of people who are not competent enough to vote properly so why are these people deciding on who else should be able to vote?

Quote:

---

Maybe the 65 year old votes that way because he started out at 18 voting because "x is cool", and the habit stuck?

---

Supposition. Perhaps they started watching the Fox News 5 years earlier and didn't have the common sense to have any skepticism when people on TV start telling them that a certain group of people are ruining the country.

Quote:

---

But this doesn't disagree with me. We set the age limit at the point where most people are as rational and beneficial citizens as they are likely to become, right? Do you think that's when they are in high school? With the voting age at 18, aren't we saying to these people "that crappy us history and government class you slept through is all the preparation you need to vote"?

---

No, we set the limit where we think people should be able to have rights due to society having a high involvement in their lives already. We moved the limit from 21 to 18 because of the Vietnam War. 18 years olds were deemed sufficiently involved in society to be able to be drafted and thrown off into a war for the country, so the country decided that therefore they should have all the rights bestowed upon them within this society, including voting. Like I said, I think it is when they have become integrated into society to the point that laws, government and decisions begin to have a clear impact on their lives. We can measure this more objectively by the average or usual number of legal contracts on an individual such age bracket has in society. If we were to take a look at that we would probably see a huge spike on the number of contracts per person on average around 15 or 16 which is when kids usually start to drive and get jobs. Therefore, this seems to me to be the most logical point to have their voting rights bestowed upon them. We are not saying anything to them other then that you have this responsibility on your shoulders, this is the extent we will prepare you for this responsibility, the rest is all on your own personal responsibility.

from the age that you start contributing to the society you live in you are allowed to have a vote. that may be 16 years old for some, it may be never for others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

There is more than Chronological age. I think that a switched-on 16 year old can have far more to offer than an 80 year old "Churchill sent the army against the miners" (my grandmother).

So, personally I think that at 16 there should be a test that people can undertake to be allowed to vote for a few elections. Some will choose to get involved early, some won't bother. Some will also loose the right should their mental faculties drop below the standard required.

To merely exist for a certain length of time somehow grants you "rights" to decide how the country is run is... moronic.

~:smoking:

---

I might argue about the contents of the test, but I like the underlying point. Chronological age is, at best, a rough measure of things like maturity and wisdom. The only reason I am happy with 18 as the current choice is that 18 is the age at which one may own property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Keep age as is, strip women of their vote upon marriage. One vote per household should suffice.

---

Strip women upon marriage? Isn't that part of the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

from the age that you start contributing to the society you live in you are allowed to have a vote. that may be 16 years old for some, it may be never for others.

---

Define contribute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Define contribute.

---

now that is the question!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

No they don't, the wording itself contradicts you. The Constitutional amendment itself says that this is a right only to be protected to those above a certain age, hence those below the age do not have such right because it is not protected. It's like saying the right to free speech to anyone above 25. Are you really going to say that the 23 year old socialist protester who gets arrested for "improper ideas" still has the same rights as the 50 year old spouting the same thing who has a free pass, since all that young kid had to do was wait 2 before before opening his mouth against the government?

---

But the right to vote requires you being a certain age, level of citizenship etc while the right to free speech does not. There's no unjust inequality in having an age limit for voting and I don't think you think there is, so this is kind of a digression...

Quote:

---

Fully interacting with society is the point we give people the vote because it is the point where they are given the opportunity to truly understand the effects of laws and bills and ideologies in terms of how it will effect themselves and everyone around them. A 14 year old has little understanding of the extent that government plays in his life. "Don't we want people to vote well, with good reasons?" Sure, but like I said that is subjective. What determines voting well? Being informed? Knowing broadly what party suits your ideology? Voting based on a single issue that you hold dear to your personality/ideology? There is no real answer to any of those questions unless you start getting into totalitarian territory.

---

How is it subjective? Do you mean hard to pin down? The age limit issue doesn't try and pin it down. It's very broad-it's not like they are being tested. This is a key point--the voting age is a "this is better" not a "this is calculated optimal".

Also I don't know why you complain that "being informed" is subjective but not that "truly understanding the effects of laws and bills" is not.

Quote:

---

Exactly, which is why I ask for the voting age to as low as possible without having become extremely absurd like having 5 year olds vote. It's for the most part very arbitrary. Again, you use terms like "most of them have improved" how so? How do you define improve? They switched their opinion once during this period? Their reasoning has become more defined? No ones reasoning is perfect and some people gain a greater understanding of the world without having their opinion change one bit. Using that argument you would have to say, well then lets give it to them at 30 then because they will have learned more then. No wait, 45 because they will be even more learned by then. No wait, lets just have the oldest person decide for us since he should have learned more then anyone else. The idea that more time=better results on an individual level is just completely flawed and cannot be used without having drastic logical consequences. That is unless you put some arbitrary limit where people beyond a certain age should be "knowledgeable" enough from their years to be able to vote, but we are back to my original statement which is that such an arbitrary limit is useless and should be suppressed as much as possible to allow as many people as possible without going over board.

---

Ok, you said 5 year olds voting would be absurd. Now point all of your rhetoric back at yourself :laugh4:

25 year olds as a whole are more mature and educated than 18 year olds, agree or disagree? They are more likely to have lived on their own, had a full time job, paid serious taxes, thought about or started a career, and have 7 more years of exposure to the world and to political events. I mean, why have college at all if it doesn't improve anything?

You try to keep extending the age upwards in your bizarre argument, but your basically denying that people mature from adolescence into adulthood when you do that.

Quote:

---

Well that maybe all true, but it doesn't have any bearing on what we should do in terms of letting people vote. Like I said, what society thinks doesn't matter. Society is full of people who are not competent enough to vote properly so why are these people deciding on who else should be able to vote?

---

Who said what society thinks is what matters? Whether it's true or not is what matters. Do you think it isn't?

Quote:

---

Supposition. Perhaps they started watching the Fox News 5 years earlier and didn't have the common sense to have any skepticism when people on TV start telling them that a certain group of people are ruining the country.

---

Why don't you think habits started at an early age have a tendency to last?

Quote:

---

No, we set the limit where we think people should be able to have rights due to society having a high involvement in their lives already. We moved the limit from 21 to 18 because of the Vietnam War. 18 years olds were deemed sufficiently involved in society to be able to be drafted and thrown off into a war for the country, so the country decided that therefore they should have all the rights bestowed upon them within this society, including voting.

---

And you chewed me out over "what society thinks doesn't matter" when I never even relied on it...

18 year olds being drafted is not an argument for the voting age, because one could just as well say that 18 year olds shouldn't be drafted.

Quote:

---

Like I said, I think it is when they have become integrated into society to the point that laws, government and decisions begin to have a clear impact on their lives. We can measure this more objectively by the average or usual number of legal contracts on an individual such age bracket has in society. If we were to take a look at that we would probably see a huge spike on the number of contracts per person on average around 15 or 16 which is when kids usually start to drive and get jobs. Therefore, this seems to me to be the most logical point to have their voting rights bestowed upon them. We are not saying anything to them other then that you have this responsibility on your shoulders, this is the extent we will prepare you for this responsibility, the rest is all on your own personal responsibility.

---

Voting is where you make thoughtful reasoned educated decision about what's best for the country and the people. Why are you eager to make voting a bare minimum kind of thing? The point where the government has an effect on their lives actually starts with mandatory schooling and various other things, but that's beside the point. It having an effect on their lives is the point where they will presumably want to vote. But why give them the right to vote just because they want to?

I'll make a comparison to jury duty. Would you want a 16 year old voting on whether to convict you of murder in a complex trial if you were innocent? Then why do you want him voting in the election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But the right to vote requires you being a certain age, level of citizenship etc while the right to free speech does not. There's no unjust inequality in having an age limit for voting and I don't think you think there is, so this is kind of a digression...

---

I actually do think there is a slight inequality in having an age limit for voting. Because like I said, the limit is arbitrary and based on false premises of what it takes for someone to be "ready" to vote. The only reason there is an age limit imo is because throughout history older people have always looked down upon the youth and falsely thought that this coming generation will be the worst ever seen on this Earth ever. ("kids these days.") Even wise men like Socrates looked down upon the youth as if they were a plague upon civilization and yet I seem to recall that Greek civilization continued after Socrates's generation died out.

Quote:

---

How is it subjective? Do you mean hard to pin down? The age limit issue doesn't try and pin it down. It's very broad-it's not like they are being tested. This is a key point--the voting age is a "this is better" not a "this is calculated optimal".

Also I don't know why you complain that "being informed" is subjective but not that "truly understanding the effects of laws and bills" is not.

---

I disagree that it is hard to pin down. Unless you can give me an objective measure on what it means for an opinion to be "well" and have "good reasons". If there is no standard on what makes a reason good and what makes a reason bad, then it is subjective. The part I bold contradicts your statement you just made no? It's not subjective and yet when it comes down to it, the limit is all based on what we "think" is better according to our prejudices and feelings. So again, this is why I want this "limit" to be as inconsequential to the citizens life as much as possible by lowering it to the point where they begin to fully enter society and not because "we think it is best" that it is 18 and not 19 or 17 or whatever.

As for your last sentence there, read what I said again, "the point where they are given the opportunity to truly understand the effects of laws and bills and ideologies" the bold part is the part you must have skipped over. I'm not saying when they actually understand, I'm saying when they enter society and have the chance to either understand or go about their merry way ignorant of the world around them (which many people do). When is this opportunity given? Well now we have a discussion that can have at least some objectivity in it. Is it when the 16 year old has to actually interact with the government by getting a drivers license or is it when like Seamus said the person has the ability to own private property starting at age 18? Let's see like I said, how often the average person deals with the government and society on a day to day basis for each age group (using a measure such as the number of typical contracts one can sign themselves to [and usually do]). I have a feeling that could shed some light on the subject and give a more reasonable conclusion then the masses thinking (aka feeling) what they feel the limit should be. That in itself is what I said before a tyranny of the majority.

Quote:

---

Ok, you said 5 year olds voting would be absurd. Now point all of your rhetoric back at yourself :laugh4:

25 year olds as a whole are more mature and educated than 18 year olds, agree or disagree? They are more likely to have lived on their own, had a full time job, paid serious taxes, thought about or started a career, and have 7 more years of exposure to the world and to political events. I mean, why have college at all if it doesn't improve anything?

You try to keep extending the age upwards in your bizarre argument, but your basically denying that people mature from adolescence into adulthood when you do that.

---

I tried not to make definitive statements about the limit that it should completely scrapped. I said it was arbitrary for the most part not that it has no potential. I have been suggesting how to make the limit better not to throw it out. Here is me quoting me with the important part highlighted, "but we are back to my original statement which is that such an arbitrary limit is useless and should be suppressed as much as possible to allow as many people as possible without going over board." The way we use the limit today is practically pointless because it doesn't take into account anything but what we "think" the limit should be which is essentially today's generation determining for future generations when they can vote which in my mind is tyranny. If we can make a more objective approach on when a person is involved in society to the point that he/she should make decisions about it, then the limit has some backing to it. Otherwise its just people giving their opinions on whether or not they want their neighbors children the right to vote.

EDIT: Forgot this:
As for 25 years as a whole being more mature...what makes one more mature? We are talking about political responsibility not day to day behavior. Are they paying house and car payments and not acting like ******** as much? Probably, but what does that have to do with how they vote or think when it comes to politics? 18 year old: "I want Obama because he will make everything better and help me with my life with benefits and such for poor students!" 25 year old: "I now have a house and car so I don't want to pay any more money to government for others to be helped out! I have mine and I want government out of my life now!" I really don't see the "difference" in maturity between those two statements.

My bizarre argument is me taking the logic that higher age=more wisdom to its extreme. I'm not trying to deny that people don't mature in that they function more properly within society as a person, but I certainly am denying the idea that they are maturing in their ideological and political views. Many learn that the world is not what they expect it to be and change their views accordingly, many more it seems begin to react to the reality in front of them by only adhering to what they feel it "should" be more vehemently. I can give examples, but I am really getting sick of seeing my walls of text.

Quote:

---

Who said what society thinks is what matters? Whether it's true or not is what matters. Do you think it isn't?

---

I apologize, I thought you were making an argument that since today people don't enter the work force generally until later in life then 200 years ago we should factor that in. Also, I misused a word. I said doesn't when I really wanted to say "shouldn't".

Quote:

---

Why don't you think habits started at an early age have a tendency to last?

---

Why don't you think that maybe their is some nuance to the world and that some smart people start becoming dumb and some dumb people start becoming smarter? From what you are saying, its as if we have the ability to separate the ignorant and dumb from the educated and responsible.

Quote:

---

And you chewed me out over "what society thinks doesn't matter" when I never even relied on it...

18 year olds being drafted is not an argument for the voting age, because one could just as well say that 18 year olds shouldn't be drafted.

---

Like I said before, I made a mistake, take my earlier statement and swap out "doesn't" with shouldn't. Right now the limit is arbitrary because it's just what society "thinks" is right, when the limit shouldn't be based on what they "think" but a more objective manner. That is my sentiment here.

Quote:

---

Voting is where you make thoughtful reasoned educated decision about what's best for the country and the people. Why are you eager to make voting a bare minimum kind of thing? The point where the government has an effect on their lives actually starts with mandatory schooling and various other things, but that's beside the point. It having an effect on their lives is the point where they will presumably want to vote. But why give them the right to vote just because they want to?

I'll make a comparison to jury duty. Would you want a 16 year old voting on whether to convict you of murder in a complex trial if you were innocent? Then why do you want him voting in the election?

---

I am making it a bare minimum kind of thing because your statement of what voting is and the reality of what voting is are completely different from each other. Most people probably don't make thoughtful or reasoned or educated decisions. Unless somehow the 65 year old calling Obama is a socialist has reeeeeeally good evidence that he is a socialist, his whole point of voting Republican is less then thoughtful or educated. Technically government has a role in their lives from the beginning, schooling is passive involvement like food and drug laws and stuff it's always there in the background anyway. I believe I said for when the government involvement spikes to an active (not passive) level comparative to the average citizen, usually a person has little active government involvement until 15-18. This is when instead of being a background force, a person has to actively interact with government to get a drivers license, or pay their taxes or to own land. I apologize if I didn't make that clear the first time. But yes, that is beside the point for now.

Why give them the right just because they want to? Precisely because they want to. This is a democratic republic, but more important this is a participatory democratic republic where you are not mandated to vote. If someone wants to contribute, it should be their right to do so. The only thing holding back those under 18 that want to speak out and contribute to the political process by voting is the idea that being older=being wiser and that statement is just completely false. Would I want a 16 year old voting on whether to convict me of murder if I was innocent? Probably not, but then again I'm sure an African-American would not want a bigot voting on whether to convict him for murder either. And yet, we don't let the African-American get to decide when the bigots should have voting rights.

Our replies are growing exponentially :beam:

It has reaaally been my experience that people get a lot smarter between 18 and mid twenties. You can say it's just completely false if you want. But then I ask why you think college education is important outside of a resume and why you don't want a 16 year old on your jury :shrug:

Whether there are bad voters who are over 25 is just not the point. It's about whether having a better voting pool is better for everyone, and whether raising the age limit would increase the quality of the voting pool. I think the argument that 25 is better than 18 in the same way that 18 is better than 14 is pretty straightforward when it's accepted that we want good, knowledgeable voters (because they are more likely to elect a good government). I think your sort of undefined moral imperative that as many people should vote as possible is a lot vaguer. If it did lead to a worse government how would you justify that? I'm aware you're arguing that it wouldn't.

Essentially, why do we tell people that they are qualified to understand complicated moral, legal, economic and foreign policy questions 3 years before we tell them they are qualified to drink without killing themselves? Why not the reverse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Our replies are growing exponentially :beam:

It has reaaally been my experience that people get a lot smarter between 18 and mid twenties. You can say it's just completely false if you want. But then I ask why you think college education is important outside of a resume and why you don't want a 16 year old on your jury :shrug:

Whether there are bad voters who are over 25 is just not the point. It's about whether having a better voting pool is better for everyone, and whether raising the age limit would increase the quality of the voting pool. I think the argument that 25 is better than 18 in the same way that 18 is better than 14 is pretty straightforward when it's accepted that we want good, knowledgeable voters (because they are more likely to elect a good government). I think your sort of undefined moral imperative that as many people should vote as possible is a lot vaguer. If it did lead to a worse government how would you justify that? I'm aware you're arguing that it wouldn't.

Essentially, why do we tell people that they are qualified to understand complicated moral, legal, economic and foreign policy questions 3 years before we tell them they are qualified to drink without killing themselves? Why not the reverse?

---

Well like I said, earlier what you perceive as them being smarter doesn't translate necessarily into a higher political function capability. I think that people probably are better at recognizing what is in their best interests and vote accordingly, but that is only half the battle and imo only progressing to that point and not the second half of voting for the benefit of all of us is just as self destructive if not more so then a completely ignorant person. Which is why I am saying that in terms of actual political functioning in terms of being better for the country, the benefit of the group is not large enough to justify cutting off other people who havent even gotten to the point of knowing who supports their own goals. College is important for the fact that it is a constant application and absorption of scientific, cultural and social facts and concepts and patterns of thinking for 3-4 years which helps many break the stigma of prejudices, bigotry and falsely based assumptions. For many it does not. For the most part, college is successful in specializing people to increasingly complex roles which are needed for the country to keep up technologically and financially with the rest of the world. The true connection of the facts and the break down your own preconceived notions can only happen on an individual level and for many it never happens sadly.

Well what is stopping you from going one step further and simply saying I think 30 is better for the cut off for the voting pool then 25 like DDave said or even saying you dont really know what life is all about until you hit the half way mark and wanting the limit be at 50. I understand where you are coming from, I'm just uncomfortable with the premise behind it that the longer you live, the better the voter you are. I have explained already why I think it is a false premise and why it is "slippery" so to speak when used imo. If it did lead to a worse government, well then my justification is that we get the government we voted for. One made on stupid decisions. We need to have our society have a sense of government being important, if not one of the most important things in our lives but as it stands right now we have lots of apathy not just in epidemic proportions among the youth but in large sections of all but the most elderly. Our Federal elections don't nearly get the voter turnout they should, when was the last time even 4 out of 5 people who could vote even vote? It seems...sloppy as a society to not better instill a cultural reverence for voting and making political decisions among the youth and instead we just cut them off until they old enough to learn for themselves. That's my feeling on the situation. Personally, since there is such a really low voter turnout from youth, do you think that lowering the voting age would really flood the booth with ignorant voters? Or realistically would those few young politically motivated be the ones voting?

I think that last question is a bit unsatisfactory in this case, simply because the only reason that the drinking age is 21 is due to the federal government bribing the state governments with extra highway funds in exchange for raising their age limit. If the federal government wasn't paying these highways funds a lot of states would probably have an 18 drinking age still. I get your point though and all I can say is what is to stop me from saying if we trust them with complicated questions why not let them drink?

A persons cognitive development is such that it makes just as much sense to allow voting at 16 as at 18, so obviously I support voting at 16.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Well like I said, earlier what you perceive as them being smarter doesn't translate necessarily into a higher political function capability. I think that people probably are better at recognizing what is in their best interests and vote accordingly, but that is only half the battle and imo only progressing to that point and not the second half of voting for the benefit of all of us is just as self destructive if not more so then a completely ignorant person. Which is why I am saying that in terms of actual political functioning in terms of being better for the country, the benefit of the group is not large enough to justify cutting off other people who havent even gotten to the point of knowing who supports their own goals. College is important for the fact that it is a constant application and absorption of scientific, cultural and social facts and concepts and patterns of thinking for 3-4 years which helps many break the stigma of prejudices, bigotry and falsely based assumptions. For many it does not. For the most part, college is successful in specializing people to increasingly complex roles which are needed for the country to keep up technologically and financially with the rest of the world. The true connection of the facts and the break down your own preconceived notions can only happen on an individual level and for many it never happens sadly.

---

But I think you nailed a big part of it here. The 3-4 years in which people move beyond their upbringing and their parents unfounded beliefs. Having a better conception of the limitations of their knowledge rather than the brash confidence of mirroring their parents politics.

Quote:

---

Well what is stopping you from going one step further and simply saying I think 30 is better for the cut off for the voting pool then 25 like DDave said or even saying you dont really know what life is all about until you hit the half way mark and wanting the limit be at 50. I understand where you are coming from, I'm just uncomfortable with the premise behind it that the longer you live, the better the voter you are. I have explained already why I think it is a false premise and why it is "slippery" so to speak when used imo.

---

But for the slope to be slippery there has to be reason to think that there is a significant difference between 25 and 30. But what is it? I don't see one.

Quote:

---

If it did lead to a worse government, well then my justification is that we get the government we voted for. One made on stupid decisions. We need to have our society have a sense of government being important, if not one of the most important things in our lives but as it stands right now we have lots of apathy not just in epidemic proportions among the youth but in large sections of all but the most elderly. Our Federal elections don't nearly get the voter turnout they should, when was the last time even 4 out of 5 people who could vote even vote? It seems...sloppy as a society to not better instill a cultural reverence for voting and making political decisions among the youth and instead we just cut them off until they old enough to learn for themselves. That's my feeling on the situation. Personally, since there is such a really low voter turnout from youth, do you think that lowering the voting age would really flood the booth with ignorant voters? Or realistically would those few young politically motivated be the ones voting?

---

We should not have a cultural reverence for voting and making political decisions. We should have a cultural reverence for being educated.

Quote:

---

I think that last question is a bit unsatisfactory in this case, simply because the only reason that the drinking age is 21 is due to the federal government bribing the state governments with extra highway funds in exchange for raising their age limit. If the federal government wasn't paying these highways funds a lot of states would probably have an 18 drinking age still. I get your point though and all I can say is what is to stop me from saying if we trust them with complicated questions why not let them drink?

---

Well, I was thinking about the message sent. It seems kind of pervasive...all those "just get out there and vote!" campaigns, those "quick summaries of the issues" pamphlets, the "list of who to vote for" sent by the party. That's all there is to it, they are trying to say. I feel like people are better off if they have the tools to analyze stuff before they dive in and affiliate themselves with a party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But I think you nailed a big part of it here. The 3-4 years in which people move beyond their upbringing and their parents unfounded beliefs. Having a better conception of the limitations of their knowledge rather than the brash confidence of mirroring their parents politics.

---

It's a mixed bag on what exactly the majority walk away with from college. Many do not have their ideas changed, they simply continue to believe their parents religious doctrine and go into business and bypass any science altogether for example. Many walk away meeting lots of people and gaining a better understanding of people from different backgrounds but many do not. Those that even do have that interaction continue to be ignorant when it comes to non social issues like the economy or "moral" issues like stem cell research where any knowledge of the actual science clears up a lot of the "controversy" automatically. Many people simply don't process but instead regurgitate onto the test which does nothing. A lot of people simply don't go to college either. College does make a noticeable improvement but if you are basing that the age limit should be right where people come out of college I fear that you are banking too much on an institution to be the savior of the country, turning out educated voters when in reality it all comes down to an individual level.

Quote:

---

But for the slope to be slippery there has to be reason to think that there is a significant difference between 25 and 30. But what is it? I don't see one.

---

You could argue that between 25 and 30 is when a lot of people start having kids. Having kids can greatly change your view on a great many things. Would you agree that a 30 (or 35) year old father has a lot more experience and wisdom to bring then a 25 year old spouse or single person since he has children and the experiences that they bring? A lot of preconceptions can be challenged when it conflicts with your desire to make your child safe or entertained or etc...

Quote:

---

We should not have a cultural reverence for voting and making political decisions. We should have a cultural reverence for being educated.

---

I absolutely agree. I should have made that clear in my earlier post. But try breaking America's anti-intellectualism that's been here since the beginning.

Quote:

---

Well, I was thinking about the message sent. It seems kind of pervasive...all those "just get out there and vote!" campaigns, those "quick summaries of the issues" pamphlets, the "list of who to vote for" sent by the party. That's all there is to it, they are trying to say. I feel like people are better off if they have the tools to analyze stuff before they dive in and affiliate themselves with a party.

---

Oh I absolutely agree with this as well. I dislike these college people coming to my dorm getting people to blindly register to vote when they have no clue about any issues. However, to use an overused expression, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Give the tools to an apathetic college kid and those tools will gather dust.

whatever the age is it should always be the same age as the minimum age to volunter or be draffed into the military forces of each country.
if you are expected to put your ass on the line for the policies a government creates then you should have a word in them.

As Louis hinted at, the household, as opposed to the individual, is the basis of our society, and the classical economic unit. It is ridiculous to think that one extended family may be able to promote its interests over another through having more inhabitants with the vote, simply on the grounds that it is larger! To relate this to the OP, 'one household one vote' would also solve the issue of voting at a certain age, since we could remove age boundaries entirely, since a person will only become a householder once they reach a relatively mature age, and have some life experience. Age cutoffs are arbitrary, this system would create a voting base with the values discussed earlier that make for a healthy electorate.

Furthermore, I propose a class-based voting system, similar to that of the old three-estates. An excellent real life examples is the Prussian three-class franchise.

While some lefties may at first complain, if they think about it, this is precisely the sort of system they should support if they honestly combine their socialist ideals with support for democracy. If society is fundamentally divided along class lines, and a person's class is what determines their political concerns, then it seems that all people can only be fairly represented if their class is given a voice in parliament.

Since there are far more working-class than middle-class people and nobility combined, then a system of 'one person one vote' in a single chamber would lead to a tyranny of the majority by the working classes, leaving the other two without democratic representation.

Only a greedy capitalist that denies the existence of class struggle would want a Parliament where every person gets one equal vote.

All good socialists should support the above system. :knight:

To try to link all these ideas together, the common theme is that it is silly idealism to think that the individual is the basis of society, and completely ignores the reality of the social/economic/political nature of society today, which is far too complex for such a simple system.

In the US, 18 is the general age of majority. It does not make any sense to have the voting age different from the age of majority.

I vote for a voting age measured in political knowledge and IQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

In the US, 18 is the general age of majority. It does not make any sense to have the voting age different from the age of majority.

---

That's an interesting argument; if I understand you correctly it boils down to: at age 18 you come of age, therefore you should have all the rights of other able adults.
But maybe look at some other age landmarks:

At age 13 a person is considered able to commit to agreements. One may now officially troll forums and get banned for it, post copyrighted or lewd content and get called to court over it. One may now chat up FBI investigators posing as other 13 year olds, too; one may now start to build up a lifetime's worth of debt.
At age 16 a person is considered able to operate a vehicle such as a car. One can now attempt to set official speed records and drive over passers by.
At age 18 a person is considered adult. One may now elect a series of disasters to strike the USA for the coming years. One may now build up debt faster than ever before, as well as demand state funds accelerate the combined debt of all your fellow citizens. One may now become the FBI agent and pretend to be 13 years old again.
At age 21 in the USA a person is considered responsible enough to spend money to buy a drink.

I think you can make a fair case that if at age 13 or 16 you are already trusted with certain liberties which enable you to inflict a lot of harm on society you might as well be allowed to vote at that age too. Also that the restriction on alcohol is kind of weird given you are considered adult at age 18, though admittedly it's obviously a relic of the past your stuck with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

It's a mixed bag on what exactly the majority walk away with from college. Many do not have their ideas changed, they simply continue to believe their parents religious doctrine and go into business and bypass any science altogether for example. Many walk away meeting lots of people and gaining a better understanding of people from different backgrounds but many do not. Those that even do have that interaction continue to be ignorant when it comes to non social issues like the economy or "moral" issues like stem cell research where any knowledge of the actual science clears up a lot of the "controversy" automatically. Many people simply don't process but instead regurgitate onto the test which does nothing. A lot of people simply don't go to college either. College does make a noticeable improvement but if you are basing that the age limit should be right where people come out of college I fear that you are banking too much on an institution to be the savior of the country, turning out educated voters when in reality it all comes down to an individual level.

---

Well, not everyone gets smarter, but I still don't see why you don't think it's a giant improvement. With voting you have a combination of two powerful forces: personal identity and moral issues. So if you take someone in adolescence who is probably either mirroring or over-rejecting his parents views, do you think that after he's voted for a party three times he is likely to up and switch? People say things to themselves like "I'm a democrat/republican" and stick with it. Are they going to just admit that they were wrong about moral issues and who they were? I just can't see anything but an advantage in saying "this is something you have to think about through college/over the next 7 years" vs "voting is sexy, go do it!".

Quote:

---

You could argue that between 25 and 30 is when a lot of people start having kids. Having kids can greatly change your view on a great many things. Would you agree that a 30 (or 35) year old father has a lot more experience and wisdom to bring then a 25 year old spouse or single person since he has children and the experiences that they bring? A lot of preconceptions can be challenged when it conflicts with your desire to make your child safe or entertained or etc...

---

Those seem to be more in the personal realm though...and my divide from 18 to 25 is about what I described above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I think you can make a fair case that if at age 13 or 16 you are already trusted with certain liberties which enable you to inflict a lot of harm on society you might as well be allowed to vote at that age too.

---

That's a strange argument when you think about it :beam:

Meh, Considering learning is frowned upon in America I don't think it matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

At age 18 a person is considered adult. One may now elect a series of disasters to strike the USA for the coming years. One may now build up debt faster than ever before, as well as demand state funds accelerate the combined debt of all your fellow citizens. One may now become the FBI agent and pretend to be 13 years old again.

---

Technically incorrect. You need a college degree to become an FBI agent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

I vote for a voting age measured in political knowledge and IQ.

---

I don't. If we don't allow those without political knowledge to vote, then there will be no incentitive for those with political knowledge to share it, in fact it will be good for those with knowledge to keep others from knowing. In effect, you will create a system similar in nature to the feudal system or the communist nomenclatura.

Voters without knowledge is democracy's greatest strength, it's not a weakness in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

As Louis hinted at, the household, as opposed to the individual, is the basis of our society, and the classical economic unit. It is ridiculous to think that one extended family may be able to promote its interests over another through having more inhabitants with the vote, simply on the grounds that it is larger! To relate this to the OP, 'one household one vote' would also solve the issue of voting at a certain age, since we could remove age boundaries entirely, since a person will only become a householder once they reach a relatively mature age, and have some life experience. Age cutoffs are arbitrary, this system would create a voting base with the values discussed earlier that make for a healthy electorate.

Furthermore, I propose a class-based voting system, similar to that of the old three-estates. An excellent real life examples is the Prussian three-class franchise.

While some lefties may at first complain, if they think about it, this is precisely the sort of system they should support if they honestly combine their socialist ideals with support for democracy. If society is fundamentally divided along class lines, and a person's class is what determines their political concerns, then it seems that all people can only be fairly represented if their class is given a voice in parliament.

Since there are far more working-class than middle-class people and nobility combined, then a system of 'one person one vote' in a single chamber would lead to a tyranny of the majority by the working classes, leaving the other two without democratic representation.

Only a greedy capitalist that denies the existence of class struggle would want a Parliament where every person gets one equal vote.

All good socialists should support the above system. :knight:

To try to link all these ideas together, the common theme is that it is silly idealism to think that the individual is the basis of society, and completely ignores the reality of the social/economic/political nature of society today, which is far too complex for such a simple system.

---

Nonsense; I have always voted differently to both my girlfriends and the rest of my family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Technically incorrect. You need a college degree to become an FBI agent.

---

Technically... you could get admitted to college to attain the degree before that age so you have a head start in impersonating 13 year olds.
It's more about what kind of liberties/trust the age entails, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Furthermore, I propose a class-based voting system, similar to that of the old three-estates. An excellent real life examples is the Prussian three-class franchise.

---

That is gonna give us some mighty good comedy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0DUsGSMwZY

As in (18). There is people in their 20's in my classes who don't even vote, so that doesn't mean squart Sasaki that being 21 or 25 will make you 'more mature' when it comes down to vote. The students aren't even sign up to vote. Pathetic.


18 is fine with me. 21-30 is to long away and 16 is to young.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

All good socialists should support the above system. :knight:

---

No, I do not want fries with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

I vote for a voting age measured in political knowledge and IQ.

---

this could work especially well if I could create the notion that disagreeing with me politically is a sign of imbecility.

you may be on to something sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

That's an interesting argument; if I understand you correctly it boils down to: at age 18 you come of age, therefore you should have all the rights of other able adults.
But maybe look at some other age landmarks:

At age 13 a person is considered able to commit to agreements. One may now officially troll forums and get banned for it, post copyrighted or lewd content and get called to court over it. One may now chat up FBI investigators posing as other 13 year olds, too; one may now start to build up a lifetime's worth of debt.
At age 16 a person is considered able to operate a vehicle such as a car. One can now attempt to set official speed records and drive over passers by.
At age 18 a person is considered adult. One may now elect a series of disasters to strike the USA for the coming years. One may now build up debt faster than ever before, as well as demand state funds accelerate the combined debt of all your fellow citizens. One may now become the FBI agent and pretend to be 13 years old again.
At age 21 in the USA a person is considered responsible enough to spend money to buy a drink.

I think you can make a fair case that if at age 13 or 16 you are already trusted with certain liberties which enable you to inflict a lot of harm on society you might as well be allowed to vote at that age too. Also that the restriction on alcohol is kind of weird given you are considered adult at age 18, though admittedly it's obviously a relic of the past your stuck with.

---

The age of majority is the age at which the law recognizes you as a full, independent member of society. This means you are no longer treated differently if you commit crimes and your parents no longer have any legal authority to regulate your actions. This last one is particularly important, as minors (those under the age of majority) are usually not held to the same standards as adults when it comes to legal responsibilities. If the voting age is lower than the age of majority, then the nation is allowing individuals to vote even though they are not legally considered mature enough to handle all decisions in their own lives. If the voting age is higher than the age of majority, then the nation is preventing an individual from voting even though they are legally responsible for all of their actions. Neither of those situations seems just.

While some rights may vest in an individual prior to age 18 (and some after age 18), in nearly all places in the US (some state laws may vary) 18 is the age of majority with respect all rights of any significance, particularly guardianship and criminal law. So, 18 seems like the proper age to me in the US. If other nations have higher or lower ages of majority, the voting age should be adjusted in those nations to match the age of majority.

Isn't there a difference between personal decisions like committing a crime or signing a contract, and a decision like voting?

What people seem to forget, is what voting actually represents in our society.

Voting is the non-violent way to express your opinion on society. If people don't have that option, they will resort to violence. Do I need to remind people of the burning Renaults of Paris?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Isn't there a difference between personal decisions like committing a crime or signing a contract, and a decision like voting?

---

Yes, but from a legal perspective the difference is that minors are usually not considered to have enough knowledge to be able to make properly informed decisions about these things. While there are exceptions in the case of some severe crimes, minors are generally treated different when they commit crimes because they are not considered old enough to truly understand the consequences of their actions. As far as contracts go, it's a consent issue. Minors generally cannot give such legal consent, because consent requires a full understanding of the situation, which minors are (again, with exceptions) considered incapable of having. It's the same basic premise behind statutory rape; a minor cannot consent to sexual intercourse with someone much older than them (in most US states) regardless of their desire to commit the act because, as far as the law is concerned, they do not have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions.

Voting, like signing a contract, opening a bank account, getting a credit card, or undergoing a surgical procedure, is a serious action with significant real world repercussions. For this reason, in my opinion, it is reasonable to restrict the right to vote to those that have reached the age of majority. I am certainly open to the idea that the age of majority itself is perhaps not best pegged at 18, but that's a separate issue. As far as I am concerned, the two need to be the same, regardless of what the actual number is. Since it is currently 18 in the US, that makes me support 18 as the proper voting age.

Well, my point with bringing up personal is that it seems like we would have a different standard for decisions which effect primarily the person who makes them and decisions which effect society as a whole. It's like we say "well, your 18, if you want to smoke they are your lungs". But I would think we would automatically have higher expectations for someone who would be making that decision for everyone.

I guess a good example is the age limit for president (35). Interestingly, the minimum age for House of Reps is 25. Do you think those should be set at the age of majority?

Then change the military enlistment age to 25 or 35 then and you'll see how many people will join then.

No,why? You think a 35 year old can be anymore mature then a 18 year old? I can beg to differ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Well, my point with bringing up personal is that it seems like we would have a different standard for decisions which effect primarily the person who makes them and decisions which effect society as a whole. It's like we say "well, your 18, if you want to smoke they are your lungs". But I would think we would automatically have higher expectations for someone who would be making that decision for everyone.

I guess a good example is the age limit for president (35). Interestingly, the minimum age for House of Reps is 25. Do you think those should be set at the age of majority?

---

Financial and legal decisions, such as signing contracts, etc., certainly impact other people, namely the people you are contracting with or dealing with. Take a look at the current mortgage crisis for evidence. While each individual mortgage default hurts the homeowner the most, the cumulative effect of all of them together has thrown the entire country into a major recession. That's just as serious a decision as casting a single vote for an elected official who may also turn out to be a disaster for the country as a whole. If someone has the legal capacity to get a mortgage (or hold a credit card, etc.) then they are also being entrusted with a responsibility that potentially has repercussions for others.

I think part of this question is difficult because, despite the general age of majority being set at 18, there are many other responsibilities that are given to people at other ages. Driving poorly can kill other people, yet most States allow minors to drive at 16 or thereabouts. Drinking alcohol is also a personal choice, but the public consequences of intoxication are felt to be sufficiently severe as to warrant a drinking age of 21, three years over the age of majority. For me though, the one legal aspect that I really have difficulty overcoming is the draft. If the law considers someone to be mature enough to make a decision to kill another person and die in service of their country, I think that same person must also be considered mature enough to vote for the politicians who decide when and how those wars are conducted.

The age limit for President and Congress are far less clear-cut issues for me. I understand the desire to have someone be 'mature' prior to holding those offices, but 35/25 seem pretty randomly chosen. Given the nature of the election process itself, I think it would be perfectly fine to change the age requirement for those positions to the age of majority. I think it's highly unlikely that anyone under those ages would ever be elected to those posts anyway, so the laws seem unnecessary.

I think the wide variety of ages is a good indicator that setting things at the age of majority is not sufficient...

16: drive
18: smoke, sign contracts
21: drink
25: house of reps
30: senator
35: president

There's a clear scaling up. I know that driving can effect other people, but the idea is that there is nothing about being 16 that makes you worse at driving than any other new. Which may be wrong. But at least in terms of skill it's a fairly simple matter of coordination and a few dozen hours of experience. For smoking we say 18 is the age at which you understand the health risks. For drinking, you have to understand the health risks and then the risks to others that come along with being drunk. House-->senate-->president is a clear scaling up of difficulty. So, don't we specifically tailor the age to whatever it is that's at stake and what qualifications are required? I think taking out a mortgage is clearly a simpler thing to understand than an entire economic policy (also there was more going on than just a failure of personal responsibilities...).

It seems fairly evident that the drafting age would have to be raised if the voting age was raised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It seems fairly evident that the drafting age would have to be raised if the voting age was raised.

---

That's a problem though. The draft age is set due to the requirements of the military. The older people get, the less adaptable they are to military discipline and the harder it is to get them to obey orders without question. At the same time (IIRC), overall physical ability begins to deteriorate in humans in the early 20s, and the 18-22 age range (4 years is the basic period of service for an enlistment) pretty much represents a person's peak in physical fitness. Shifting the lower level of the draft age upwards would decrease the effectiveness of the military during a time of severe need (which is the only period when a draft is used anyway).

It's also worth noting that young people are already less influential, per capita, than every other age group during elections , simply because far fewer of them vote:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

Percentage of citizens who voted in November 2008, by age:

Quote:

---

18 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . 48.5
25 to 34 years . . . . . . . . . . . 57.0
35 to 44 years . . . . . . . . . . . 62.8
45 to 54 years . . . . . . . . . . . 67.4
55 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . 71.5
65 to 74 years . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4
75 and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.6

---

That's a pretty steep curve there, and that was during the Obama election, when the youth vote was unusually highly motivated. Even if you look at it in terms of absolute numbers, younger still loses out overall, as fewer 18-24yos voted than any other age group, except 75+.

I'm not very convinced about the physical deterioration...I think that's more of a description of how it is than a biological thing. People will be less likely to be peak performers but that doesn't seem to be required. And there are a bunch of issues with the draft in the first place. Besides, if I'm 17 and can't vote for president, and then I turn 18 and the president who I couldn't vote for institutes the draft...??? How about the fact that the vast majority of the people voting aren't eligible for the draft? When in our future will we need one? Couldn't we readjust the age if something like that occurred? Would it make a difference in the vote?


re: influence of young people, that is really only part of my concern. Mainly I dislike the idea of having people commit to a personal identity and set of moral beliefs when they are in high school. That's just a powerful bias we're instilling, and it's the worst kind too, because people who haven't arrived at their beliefs through thinking about it have much less respect for people who disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Voters without knowledge is democracy's greatest strength, it's not a weakness in any way.

---

Please explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

re: influence of young people, that is really only part of my concern. Mainly I dislike the idea of having people commit to a personal identity and set of moral beliefs when they are in high school. That's just a powerful bias we're instilling, and it's the worst kind too, because people who haven't arrived at their beliefs through thinking about it have much less respect for people who disagree.

---

There is an upside to that. If you arrive at a believe at an early age, odds are good that at some point in your life you will change your mind, or at least become more nuanced in your convictions.

This creates respect for different ideas.* If you disagree with yourself, or your former self, you realise that people are not born with ideas which they must seek to spread or defend against those with different beliefs, like orcs and elves in Lord of the Rings. Convictions are a personal journey, to be refined, discarde, picked up again. You were not Stalin when you were the young socialist with a heart, and you are not Hitler when you're the forty year old with a brain.


*At least those with some intellectual honesty, and a memory. Not those apply beliefs backwards: 'I have always said that...'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

No, I do not want fries with that.

---

Trust such a middle-class snobby capitalist to poke fun at my form of employment. Away, bourgeois!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nonsense; I have always voted differently to both my girlfriends and the rest of my family.

---

I hope you have not married outside your class, I find such a prospect quite ghastly! :drama2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

That is gonna give us some mighty good comedy

---

Heh, well if you think about it it makes perfect sense. Socialists say that society is dictated by economic/materialist factors, and deny that the individual is free to pursue happiness by himself, since he is subject to class structures. Therefore it is meaningless to give the vote on an individual basis, since interests exist purely along class lines.

And if such socialists are really committed to democracy, they will see that allowing for one person one vote in a single chamber will mean that only the most populous class, the working-class, will be represented, since they will be able to form a tyranny of a majority with their voting block. The middle-class and nobility would have no voice, which is undemocratic. So the seats in Parliament must be divided 33% to each class. That way everybody has their interests heard, and they can work together for the good of the nation as a whole.

Also, democracy is not about making the best decisions. Suffrage is not about IQ or political insight.

Democracy is about granting a voice to all, about granting rights and dignity to the convictions of all citizens, smart or dumb, rich or poor. Not because all people all have smart convictions, but because everybody has convictions that are their own.


Democracy is not about installing a sane, or even workable form of government,. It is about human rights, about dignity, about equality, about giving everybody a stake in society. The origin of democracy is not the laboratory of the political scientist devising the perfect state. The origins are the loftiest enlightenment, humanist ideals about freedom and the nature of man. Universal suffrage is the final product of the ideals of liberty, equality and (pick one) A) fraternity, or B) hedonistic pursuit of individual happiness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Please explain.

---

I do believe I already have. Nevertheless, I'll happily do it again:

In a world where uninformed people haave power over you, it is in your best interest to educate and enlighten them.

In a world where they have no power, it is in your best interest to keep them from gaining knowledge, as that will lessen your own power. Ref/ what happen to the power of organized religion once the common man learned to read the holy books.

And having more educated people around is good for you, since that will make it easier to come up with the brilliant ideas we need for society to progress. Therefore, giving power to the "uninformed masses" is a strength, not a wisdom.



Plato was a short-sighted and arrogant arsehole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Also, democracy is not about making the best decisions. Suffrage is not about IQ or political insight.

Democracy is about granting a voice to all, about granting rights and dignity to the convictions of all citizens, smart or dumb, rich or poor. Not because all people all have smart convictions, but because everybody has convictions that are their own.


Democracy is not about installing a sane, or even workable form of government,. It is about human rights, about dignity, about equality, about giving everybody a stake in society. The origin of democracy is not the laboratory of the political scientist devising the perfect state. The origins are the loftiest enlightenment, humanist ideals about freedom and the nature of man. Universal suffrage is the final product of the ideals of liberty, equality and (pick one) A) fraternity, or B) hedonistic pursuit of individual happiness.

---

Naaaaaahhh :beam:

What about justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, general welfare, and the secure blessings of liberty?

Anyway, your all citizens...etc is already "all adult citizens...etc". And so it is with the age at 25 compared to 18. Your argument is more directed at having a qualification test that must be passed.

Quote:

---

There is an upside to that. If you arrive at a believe at an early age, odds are good that at some point in your life you will change your mind, or at least become more nuanced in your convictions.

---

Are the odds good? Anyway, people at 18 will still have beliefs. They will just not have committed to them in the same way. They won't have the "well, I voted X last three elections..." in the back of their mind the whole time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Besides, if I'm 17 and can't vote for president, and then I turn 18 and the president who I couldn't vote for institutes the draft...??? How about the fact that the vast majority of the people voting aren't eligible for the draft? When in our future will we need one? Couldn't we readjust the age if something like that occurred? Would it make a difference in the vote?

---

Yes, I suppose that would be an option. Interestingly, Wikipedia shows that the age of the draft has shifted wildly over the years. The very first Selective Service Act (1917) set the age of the draft as 21 to 30, with the age shifted to 21 to 45 in 1918. In 1940, the new draft age was set at 18 to 65 (!!!), and it's wavered up and down on the lower end of the scale since 1948.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

re: influence of young people, that is really only part of my concern. Mainly I dislike the idea of having people commit to a personal identity and set of moral beliefs when they are in high school. That's just a powerful bias we're instilling, and it's the worst kind too, because people who haven't arrived at their beliefs through thinking about it have much less respect for people who disagree.

---

I understand what you're saying, but I'd need to see evidence that people are more willing to change their minds as they get older. My instinct makes me think that it's the other way around. Personally, I've only voted Republican once in my entire life, and that was when I was exactly 18 years old. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Yes, I suppose that would be an option. Interestingly, Wikipedia shows that the age of the draft has shifted wildly over the years. The very first Selective Service Act (1917) set the age of the draft as 21 to 30, with the age shifted to 21 to 45 in 1918. In 1940, the new draft age was set at 18 to 65 (!!!), and it's wavered up and down on the lower end of the scale since 1948.

---

The 65 year olds must not have been for active duty...

Quote:

---

I understand what you're saying, but I'd need to see evidence that people are more willing to change their minds as they get older. My instinct makes me think that it's the other way around. Personally, I've only voted Republican once in my entire life, and that was when I was exactly 18 years old. :laugh4:

---

Yes, the evidence part is the weak point, though it works both ways. I do recall studies showing that when people were instructed to write a short paper arguing a random point, follow up studies showed that something like 90% of them believed in the point they had defended. So it's less about minds changing as it is minds not being set. I think when people vote at 18 they have to justify that decision to themselves, and even though it is often based solely on their upbringing they will invent something and stick with that.

To expand, I think the psychological research (which is common sense really) on our reasoning ability shows that it evolved to produce arguments and to evaluate arguments of others. But often when we produce arguments we fit them to a conclusion we already have or want (confirmation bias) and when evaluating the arguments of others we refute them anyway we can. Unless we have an additional motivation for truthfulness or honesty, which is pretty scarce and weak. So fundamentally when you have people saying "I'm a republican/I'm a democrat" they will filter everything through that. And we should delay their identifying with a party until they have a better filter.

A 12-year old, who has reached the formal operational stage, is perfectly capable of finding out what society he wishes to live in, the difference between good and bad, just and unjust, etc through logical reasoning. He is perfectly capable of pointing out what is wrong, and also to explain why he thinks it's wrong and what one can do to improve the situation. They understand fairness, that even though something does not directly improve your situation it can still be good.

Thus, the voting age should be 12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

To expand, I think the psychological research (which is common sense really) on our reasoning ability shows that it evolved to produce arguments and to evaluate arguments of others. But often when we produce arguments we fit them to a conclusion we already have or want (confirmation bias) and when evaluating the arguments of others we refute them anyway we can. Unless we have an additional motivation for truthfulness or honesty, which is pretty scarce and weak. So fundamentally when you have people saying "I'm a republican/I'm a democrat" they will filter everything through that. And we should delay their identifying with a party until they have a better filter.

---

If the filter is your problem, playing with voting age isn't going to do anything about it. People still tend have an opinion on dilemma's regardless of whether or not they are actually allowed to affect it; age doesn't really mean that much there.

So if you are lacking in the filters department there is only one freemarket approach possible: throw as many types of them at the wall and see which ones stick. I.e. have more political parties to accelerate political debate and provide people with new insights/reasoning.

If you're old enough to die for your country, then you're old enough to vote, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, have sex with a consenting adult preferably of the same species.

What I find ironic is that you are required to pass a driving test to drive a car, but as long as you're at least 18 and have a pulse you can vote.

Give children, and those who think like them, the right to vote and they'll choose double portions of cake, candy, and ice cream for every meal.

That's why American politics are especially in a mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

That's an interesting argument; if I understand you correctly it boils down to: at age 18 you come of age, therefore you should have all the rights of other able adults.
But maybe look at some other age landmarks:

At age 13 a person is considered able to commit to agreements. One may now officially troll forums and get banned for it, post copyrighted or lewd content and get called to court over it. One may now chat up FBI investigators posing as other 13 year olds, too; one may now start to build up a lifetime's worth of debt.
At age 16 a person is considered able to operate a vehicle such as a car. One can now attempt to set official speed records and drive over passers by.
At age 18 a person is considered adult. One may now elect a series of disasters to strike the USA for the coming years. One may now build up debt faster than ever before, as well as demand state funds accelerate the combined debt of all your fellow citizens. One may now become the FBI agent and pretend to be 13 years old again.
At age 21 in the USA a person is considered responsible enough to spend money to buy a drink.

I think you can make a fair case that if at age 13 or 16 you are already trusted with certain liberties which enable you to inflict a lot of harm on society you might as well be allowed to vote at that age too. Also that the restriction on alcohol is kind of weird given you are considered adult at age 18, though admittedly it's obviously a relic of the past your stuck with.

---

And at 25, car companies will rent you a vehicle that you may drive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

If you're old enough to die for your country, then you're old enough to vote, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, have sex with a consenting adult preferably of the same species.

What I find ironic is that you are required to pass a driving test to drive a car, but as long as you're at least 18 and have a pulse you can vote.

Give children, and those who think like them, the right to vote and they'll choose double portions of cake, candy, and ice cream for every meal.

---

California is probably the best example of this: both cuts to taxes as well as increase of servicess are wanted, but it's nigh on impossible to get funding for these measures passed.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

California is probably the best example of this: both cuts to taxes as well as increase of servicess are wanted, but it's nigh on impossible to get funding for these measures passed.

---

Actually the situation in California is that up until this past election, Dems want to increase services and Repubs want to cut taxes and they cant decide on the budget because it takes 2/3 majority. What would always happen is that they would eventually cut taxes and increase services which is why the state is in debt, but not until government would have to give out IOU's for several months and people got sufficiently pissed to get the legislature to "compromise" AKA do both.

However we just passed two propositions changing the CA Constitution making the budget only require a simple majority and new taxes now need a 2/3 majority to pass. We shall see how that plays out.

EDIT: Also propositions for new spending always seems to pass but propositions for new taxes always seem to fail. Example: Prop 1A for mandated funding for a high speed rail system across the state was passed in 2008. In 2010 we just denied a Prop (20?) that would make an 18 dollar surcharge on vehicles for something to upkeep our state parks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Also, democracy is not about making the best decisions. Suffrage is not about IQ or political insight.

Democracy is about granting a voice to all, about granting rights and dignity to the convictions of all citizens, smart or dumb, rich or poor. Not because all people all have smart convictions, but because everybody has convictions that are their own.


Democracy is not about installing a sane, or even workable form of government,. It is about human rights, about dignity, about equality, about giving everybody a stake in society. The origin of democracy is not the laboratory of the political scientist devising the perfect state. The origins are the loftiest enlightenment, humanist ideals about freedom and the nature of man. Universal suffrage is the final product of the ideals of liberty, equality and (pick one) A) fraternity, or B) hedonistic pursuit of individual happiness.

---

Then democracy is worthless, the state is not a tool to make dumb people feel good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Then democracy is worthless, the state is not a tool to make dumb people feel good.

---

The state is the means to get people to work together.

And if one group feels left out, they will rebel, and we will stop working together. Democracy includes everyone, nobody feels left out and everyone works together.

Yes, I am aware of ETA etc, but that is exactly my point, the ETA are militant exactly because they do not feel that their voice is heard, they do not feel included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The state is the means to get people to work together.

---

No, the state is the means to rule the country as good as possible, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, I am aware of ETA etc, but that is exactly my point, the ETA are militant exactly because they do not feel that their voice is heard, they do not feel included.

---

Spain is a democracy, your argument is invalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

No, the state is the means to rule the country as good as possible, nothing more nothing less.

---

How can you rule something that isn't working?

And wouldn't you define "the country" to mean "the people"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Spain is a democracy, your argument is invalid.

---

No, it proves my point perfectly. Spain is a democracy, yes, but not at a good enough level that the Basques feel included and heard. When they feel included and heard, they will lay down their weapons instantly. And the way to achieve that is through more democracy, not less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No, it proves my point perfectly. Spain is a democracy, yes, but not at a good enough level that the Basques feel included and heard. When they feel included and heard, they will lay down their weapons instantly. And the way to achieve that is through more democracy, not less.

---

Rubbish. The Basques are over such a small area they'd be subsumed in democracy as part of Spain. They want a democracy of their little area.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How can you rule something that isn't working?

---

Are you implying people didn't work before democracy? People don't work for the government but for food, mortgage etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And wouldn't you define "the country" to mean "the people"?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Rubbish. The Basques are over such a small area they'd be subsumed in democracy as part of Spain. They want a democracy of their little area.

~:smoking:

---

Their problem is that they don't feel that their voice is heard. How to make that voice heard, in their own democracy or within a spanish democracy is a secondary logistical problem. They say they want their own country, sure, but if they feel their voice is being heard as part of a spanish democracy, they will accept that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Are you implying people didn't work before democracy? People don't work for the government but for food, mortgage etc. etc.

No.

---

No, you've misunderstood me completely.....And I'm not sure how to explain it any better, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Their problem is that they don't feel that their voice is heard. How to make that voice heard, in their own democracy or within a spanish democracy is a secondary logistical problem. They say they want their own country, sure, but if they feel their voice is being heard as part of a spanish democracy, they will accept that.

---

It's not that they're not being heard, they already have a great deal of autonomy but their only goal is independence from Spain, how much autonomy or democracy you'll give them doesn't really matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

It's not that they're not being heard, they already have a great deal of autonomy but their only goal is independence from Spain, how much autonomy or democracy you'll give them doesn't really matter.

---

....And why do they want independence from Spain?

Because they feel they're not being heard. Why else would they want indepedence? Because they're really big on new flags?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....And why do they want independence from Spain?

Because they feel they're not being heard. Why else would they want indepedence? Because they're really big on new flags?

---

You're so funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

You're so funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatism

---

Uhm, yes? Seperatism is what happens when a group doesn't feel like it's heard and seen, which is what I've been saying all along....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....And why do they want independence from Spain?

Because they feel they're not being heard. Why else would they want indepedence? Because they're really big on new flags?

---

You seem determined to stamp your views on everyone else. They want independence to be... independent.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

You seem determined to stamp your views on everyone else. They want independence to be... independent.

~:smoking:

---

......because......?

Let's try again.

I don't want to be part of the EU. This has nothing to do with "being heard". I want nothing to do with the EU.

I don't want to be the 51st state. This has nothing to do with "being heard".

Are you now going to tell me that in fact I do want to be part of the EU, I am just worried about not being heard?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Let's try again.

I don't want to be part of the EU. This has nothing to do with "being heard". I want nothing to do with the EU.

I don't want to be the 51st state. This has nothing to do with "being heard".

Are you now going to tell me that in fact I do want to be part of the EU, I am just worried about not being heard?

~:smoking:

---

Why don't you want to?

Because I see myself as English and I do not want to join in any greater gestalt.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Because I see myself as English and I do not want to join in any greater gestalt.

---

And why is it important for you to identify yourself as English?

Because it is. It is a belief.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Because it is. It is a belief.

---

Everything can be explained, my good rory ~;)

Basque separatism has nothing to do with democracy. As with Catalonia, as the wealthier and more industrialised parts of Spain, they are unhappy at seeing their funds pouring into Andalusia and such places. As always, economic realities determine how things work. Come one HoreTore, a leftie should accept that!

Democracy only really works with a nation state. For proof, see Belgium...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Basque separatism has nothing to do with democracy. As with Catalonia, as the wealthier and more industrialised parts of Spain, they are unhappy at seeing their funds pouring into Andalusia and such places. As always, economic realities determine how things work.

---

.....But when people see "their funds pouring into Andalucia and other places", can we say that they have been heard and seen?

And yet there are more examples I can think of where people accept seeing their funds pour into other parts of the country, like western Norway, yet we see no seperatism there, do we?