What should the voting age be?

[rory_20_uk]

Yeah, healed. The South wasn't beaten to sue for peace and aren't at all upset by it.

A "democracy" where the states can't vote to leave even if they want to as if that were to happen habeus corpus would be revoked and the state invaded.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, healed. The South wasn't beaten to sue for peace and aren't at all upset by it.

A "democracy" where the states can't vote to leave even if they want to as if that were to happen habeus corpus would be revoked and the state invaded.

As far as I know, the people living in the states feel quite included in America.

I haven't heard of any recent suggestions(well, any serious ones) by the south to secede, so obviously they can't feel like they did in the 1860's anymore.

[Skullheadhq]

Naw...

Georgia
On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution 43-1 that affirmed the right of states to nullify federal laws. The resolution also included the assertion that if Congress took certain steps, including restricting firearms or ammunition, the United States government would cease to exist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessi..._United_States

[naut]

As soon as possible. Delaying it will mean that it doesn't become part of a person's life early enough for it to form a core life habit. Yeh what if you have more "life experience" by age 25+ (which is purely subjective and variable anyway), if people haven't been made to or been encouraged to vote at a young age they never will and they won't care two bats about the democratic process.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would suggest that one theme here that might have some explanative power is the concept of "identity." One's sense of self has quite a few implications. For a lot of people, "nation" constitutes a significant component of that sense of identity and is, functionally, integral. Simply "being heard" does contribute to the acceptance of a decision, but will NOT suffice if being heard runs counter to one's sense of self as identified nationally or culturally.

For you, Horetore, being Norwegian is very different from the sense of Norwegian-ness that was likely applied to their own identities by, for example, your grandparents. Being part of a nation is, for you, secondary to other factors in defining your sense of self.

As to the USA:

Under the original interpretation of the Constitution, we were THESE United States and not THE United States. So cultural and tax concerns relevant to Bostonians were supposed to be the purview of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and not of the state of Mississippi precisely BECAUSE the founders felt that the best means to address the issue should be the collective decision of those affected thereby. The Federal government was the means to address international interaction and to address only those concerns that impinged upon several of the states at the same time. It was only after the arrogation of authority by the federal government that Lincoln used to win the Civil War that the USA began to emphasize the federal government over the states. The shift in power was, in retrospect, a fundamental alteration of how we did business.

[HoreTore]

I would suggest that one theme here that might have some explanative power is the concept of "identity." One's sense of self has quite a few implications. For a lot of people, "nation" constitutes a significant component of that sense of identity and is, functionally, integral. Simply "being heard" does contribute to the acceptance of a decision, but will NOT suffice if being heard runs counter to one's sense of self as identified nationally or culturally.

For you, Horetore, being Norwegian is very different from the sense of Norwegian-ness that was likely applied to their own identities by, for example, your grandparents. Being part of a nation is, for you, secondary to other factors in defining your sense of self.

Why does people feel a sense national identity? Is it not because those they share that identity with, are people they trust to respect and hear them more than people with another identity?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As soon as possible. Delaying it will mean that it doesn't become part of a person's life early enough for it to form a core life habit. Yeh what if you have more "life experience" by age 25+ (which is purely subjective and variable anyway), if people haven't been made to or been encouraged to vote at a young age they never will and they won't care two bats about the democratic process.

But voting isn't something we want people to "just do". That the maturation between 18 and 25 is variable is irrelevant (true of any age number) and why do you say it is subjective? Are you denying that it happens or are you saying that we can't tell when it happens? But we don't need to do it on a case by case basis.

Why would we want as many people to vote as possible with no eye to how thoughtful and well considered their votes are?

[HoreTore]

But voting isn't something we want people to "just do". That the maturation between 18 and 25 is variable is irrelevant (true of any age number) and why do you say it is subjective? Are you denying that it happens or are you saying that we can't tell when it happens? But we don't need to do it on a case by case basis.

Why would we want as many people to vote as possible with no eye to how thoughtful and well considered their votes are?

Because that will give you, the enlightened one, the incentitive to educate them.

[naut]

But voting isn't something we want people to "just do". That the maturation between 18 and 25 is variable is irrelevant (true of any age number) and why do you say it is subjective? Are you denying that it happens or are you saying that we can't tell when it happens? But we don't need to do it on a case by case basis.

Why would we want as many people to vote as possible with no eye to how thoughtful and well considered their votes are?

Maturation in a person is highly variable. I'm 20. Highly conscious of the political climate, I feel mature, whether I am or not is subjective. You question my parents, my siblings, my friends, my lecturers about how mature I am you'll get 100 different answers. Then, under your suggestion, I shouldn't be allowed to vote simply because I don't meet a "time spent on planet Earth" criteria. Whereas, some window licker aged 26 can vote, regardless of how much life experience they actually have because they've had the good fortune to have been pushed out of their mother screaming and covered in fluids a a wink and skip before I was. Cabbage. Make it simple. When you are considered a legal adult you gain the right to vote. Sure, some people are not going to make conscious decisions, or thoughtful choices, but that is the nature of the beast. Some people either a) do not care about the process, b) aren't intelligent enough to make a diligent choice or c) will vote for the populist choice. Age has nothing to do with any of that. Across any spectrum of ages you will find people who fall into those categories. A lot of it has to do with the culture of the process and the way the process is taught and educated. If you get youth involved and interested then they will be less likely to fall into those three categories, it's a simple human process of developing habits, routines and cultures.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Why would we want as many people to vote as possible with no eye to how thoughtful and well considered their votes are?

Because it is the best option you have. Whether at 25, 26, 57 or 89 that is precisely what many people do. They “just do” that voting thing, or they abstain completely. In (general) absence of well thought out votes the next best thing is to have as many votes as possible because that way you have a much better view of the electorate as a whole including those who do not vote.

[gaelic cowboy]

Because it is the best option you have. Whether at 25, 26, 57 or 89 that is precisely what many people do. They “just do” that voting thing, or they abstain completely. In (general) absence of well thought out votes the next best thing is to have as many votes as possible because that way you have a much better view of the electorate as a whole including those who do not vote.

Agreed

If we dont encourage more people especially more young people to vote we will tend to get policy that protects the wealth of older people, older people generally have wealth and property and they fear it's loss so they vote to protect it and Governments oblige in return.

Look at France with underemployed graduates kept out by labour laws to protect older workers, look at America with BabyBoomer entitlements that are to be paid by the smaller young demographic yet the BabyBoomers Culture War in America prevents sensible immigration law to boost it's young population.

I dont care if you spoil your vote just go and do it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Maturation in a person is highly variable. I'm 20. Highly conscious of the political climate, I feel mature, whether I am or not is subjective. You question my parents, my siblings, my friends, my lecturers about how mature I am you'll get 100 different answers. Then, under your suggestion, I shouldn't be allowed to vote simply because I don't meet a "time spent on planet Earth" criteria. Whereas, some window licker aged 26 can vote, regardless of how much life experience they actually have because they've had the good fortune to have been pushed out of their mother screaming and covered in fluids a a wink and skip before I was. Cabbage. Make it simple.

But variability is irrelevant. I may, at less than 25 years of age, be a good voter. And a certain 26 year old may not. But a cut off age is made because it is too difficult to determine who is ready to vote, so having a cutoff age is "making it simple" as you say.

I don't see where you are getting that it is subjective either. Are you more mature than you were at 12, yes or no? Yes. Where is the subjectivity?

When you are considered a legal adult you gain the right to vote. Sure, some people are not going to make conscious decisions, or thoughtful choices, but that is the nature of the beast. Some people either a) do not care about the process, b) aren't intelligent enough to make a diligent choice or c) will vote for the populist choice. Age has nothing to do with any of that. Across any spectrum of ages you will find people who fall into those categories. A lot of it has to do with the culture of the process and the way the process is taught and educated. If you get youth involved and interested then they will be less likely to fall into those three categories, it's a simple human process of developing habits, routines and cultures.

I agree. And if we develop the habit and the voting culture of "all that's important is that you are involved in the voting process" we get the result of people who think all they need to do is have an opinion on everything. I suggest that the higher age would lend itself towards a voting culture that saw voting as something that requires more thought and self questioning and education than the 18 year old age does.

Because it is the best option you have. Whether at 25, 26, 57 or 89 that is precisely what many people do. They “just do” that voting thing, or they abstain completely. In (general) absence of well thought out votes the next best thing is to have as many votes as possible because that way you have a much better view of the electorate as a whole including those who do not vote.

That's pessimistic, doesn't mean you're wrong though. But don't surveys suffice for a "better view of the electorate"? What is the distinct advantage to having 18-25 year olds represented? gaelic suggests something, but if people are just voting to serve themselves in his theory than so will young people. And if we have a culture of selfish voting, then people should have more time separate from their self voting parents before voting themselves. My argument is based on the idea that it would change people's voting styles, not just that 18 year olds make semi-blind votes.