Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should teens be given more voting rights?

TemperedEmpire
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 8:14:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Every so often, I here the proposition that teens should be given more voting right, and being a student at this point in time, it seems entirely natural for us to receive them. My opinion is that they should; teens often take an interest in politics and government, and the expansion of electoral suffrage into these groups would be an ample opportunity to expand democracy. Plus, the void of non-voting adults would be filled in this case, with teens taking their place. What does everyone else think though?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 8:20:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 8:14:30 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
Every so often, I here the proposition that teens should be given more voting right, and being a student at this point in time, it seems entirely natural for us to receive them. My opinion is that they should; teens often take an interest in politics and government, and the expansion of electoral suffrage into these groups would be an ample opportunity to expand democracy. Plus, the void of non-voting adults would be filled in this case, with teens taking their place. What does everyone else think though?
When are you suggesting voting should start? 13? I agree that under the current political system, there isn't a whole lot to lose by giving younger people a vote (as for the most part we aren't voting on more than very broad policy and perceived personal responsibility of politicians anyway) but that's not really the question is it. At what point do you think children have learnt enough that they could make informed decisions about who they should vote for? Also, you mention the non-voting adults, are you referring to donkey voters (Australian voting is compulsory)? Do you have any particular reason to believe that more votes = better decisions?

I would perhaps support voting for 16 and older, though I think it would be worth considering weighting the votes at different ages, gradually giving them more and more say until the age of majority (currently 18, but I'm no assuming it has to stay there). What do you think about this as a compromise?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 8:37:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 8:14:30 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
Every so often, I here the proposition that teens should be given more voting right, and being a student at this point in time, it seems entirely natural for us to receive them. My opinion is that they should; teens often take an interest in politics and government, and the expansion of electoral suffrage into these groups would be an ample opportunity to expand democracy. Plus, the void of non-voting adults would be filled in this case, with teens taking their place. What does everyone else think though?

No. No one under 35 should be allowed to vote.
TemperedEmpire
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 8:41:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 8:20:22 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 8:14:30 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
Every so often, I here the proposition that teens should be given more voting right, and being a student at this point in time, it seems entirely natural for us to receive them. My opinion is that they should; teens often take an interest in politics and government, and the expansion of electoral suffrage into these groups would be an ample opportunity to expand democracy. Plus, the void of non-voting adults would be filled in this case, with teens taking their place. What does everyone else think though?
When are you suggesting voting should start? 13? I agree that under the current political system, there isn't a whole lot to lose by giving younger people a vote (as for the most part we aren't voting on more than very broad policy and perceived personal responsibility of politicians anyway) but that's not really the question is it. At what point do you think children have learnt enough that they could make informed decisions about who they should vote for?:
Couldn't you also have that argument for adults? Many adults often base their votes on random selections, or political parties, and whilst I'm not saying it would be any different if teenagers could vote, it would be hardly fair to make the assumptions that teens would be the only ones to vote on lack of information.

I would perhaps support voting for 16 and older, though I think it would be worth considering weighting the votes at different ages, gradually giving them more and more say until the age of majority (currently 18, but I'm no assuming it has to stay there). What do you think about this as a compromise?:
I think that is a completely reasonable compromise, however, why would you do it? If you are weighing voting based on their amount of information would be blatant discrimination, because as I said before, adults make votes despite having little to no information on the candidates. Could you explain why you would make voting weighted in this scenario; I simply don't understand why you would do it.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 8:41:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 8:37:43 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/24/2013 8:14:30 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
Every so often, I here the proposition that teens should be given more voting right, and being a student at this point in time, it seems entirely natural for us to receive them. My opinion is that they should; teens often take an interest in politics and government, and the expansion of electoral suffrage into these groups would be an ample opportunity to expand democracy. Plus, the void of non-voting adults would be filled in this case, with teens taking their place. What does everyone else think though?

No. No one under 35 should be allowed to vote.
Thank you for your considered and well reasoned opinion. (Ok there might have been plenty of consideration)
theamazingme
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 8:56:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
i think that 16 is a perfectly reasonable age to vote. most teens by then have a part time job, a phone and internet access. they should be responsible enough to vote.

Besides, they also live where they vote, they should have a heard opinion in their community.

(this is my first post)
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 9:06:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 8:41:22 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
At 7/24/2013 8:20:22 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 8:14:30 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
When are you suggesting voting should start? 13? I agree that under the current political system, there isn't a whole lot to lose by giving younger people a vote (as for the most part we aren't voting on more than very broad policy and perceived personal responsibility of politicians anyway) but that's not really the question is it. At what point do you think children have learnt enough that they could make informed decisions about who they should vote for?
Couldn't you also have that argument for adults? Many adults often base their votes on random selections, or political parties, and whilst I'm not saying it would be any different if teenagers could vote, it would be hardly fair to make the assumptions that teens would be the only ones to vote on lack of information.
I wasn't actually making an argument, I am just asking when you think children have the capacity to make a reasoned vote. Clearly babies are not able to vote, they have not yet developed the ability to even tick a ballot paper. Yes adults often do not base their votes on evidence, but they could if they wanted to. At what point are children capable of doing this? If you don't know, have you got any ideas about how we could find out?
Secondly, and more importantly, voting should be based on knowledge (feel free to argue against this point). Knowledge acquisition takes time, and adults have had more of it. This alone demonstrates that there is a difference. Now, what to do about this difference is also up for debate and I'm willing to have it, but you haven't yet recognised that there is any difference between teenagers and adults at all. Keep in mind, that I also accept that there is a difference between young adults and older adults as well, it just isn't as pronounced. What we do about that is also up for debate (just not technically part of the scope of your OP).

I would perhaps support voting for 16 and older, though I think it would be worth considering weighting the votes at different ages, gradually giving them more and more say until the age of majority (currently 18, but I'm no assuming it has to stay there). What do you think about this as a compromise?:
I think that is a completely reasonable compromise, however, why would you do it? If you are weighing voting based on their amount of information would be blatant discrimination, because as I said before, adults make votes despite having little to no information on the candidates. Could you explain why you would make voting weighted in this scenario; I simply don't understand why you would do it.
Because clearly it is a gradual transition from irrationality and incapability (babies) to rationality (adults, though still imperfect). If there is a gradual transition in competence, then surely there should be a gradual transition in responsibility. Otherwise we can always argue that someone a little younger is still capable. Personally, I would have tests to determine when someone can vote the same way that we have tests to determine when someone can drive. But that is not a very popular viewpoint (and there are plenty of good reasons for that, I just don't think they outweigh the positives).

You still haven't answered my question by the way, what age would you pick and what lead you to this choice?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 9:09:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 8:56:02 PM, theamazingme wrote:
i think that 16 is a perfectly reasonable age to vote. most teens by then have a part time job, a phone and internet access. they should be responsible enough to vote.

Besides, they also live where they vote, they should have a heard opinion in their community.

(this is my first post)
Welcome to the scene.

I'll grant your first point, they certainly have the knowledge available by this stage and are capable of making rational decisions (though experience does count for something, some things can only be learnt this way). I don't think your second point is valid though, accepting popular opinion is detrimental to democracy not supportive of it. Aggregate decision making is at its best when the voting members do not influence each other significantly towards a decision (in the same way that cartels are harmful to free markets).
TemperedEmpire
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 10:32:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 9:06:45 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
You still haven't answered my question by the way, what age would you pick and what lead you to this choice?:
Well, there is a difference between what I believe morally and what I believe would work. What I believe morally is that everyone, literally everyone, regardless of age, should vote. What I believe would work (and is the more intelligent POV) is that the voting age should be 16. At that age, someone would have (about) the accumulated knowledge of an adult.

I am still going over the "test" to vote idea. It sounds very interesting, but I am wondering what the test would entail.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 10:36:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've argued that 16 is a reasonable lowered age, due to the fact that it is then when the first significant "leap" in rights begins (ability to obtain driver's license, ability to drop out of high school, cutoff age for 10-year passports versus 5-year passports, etc.).

However, I will admit that it is still a tenuous argument, so I actually still generally support the standard 18 limit.

Because 18 is the age of majority in the USA, it's the most appropriate age for suffrage. Basically, the age of majority should be the cutoff, I'll stick with (eg, 16 in Scotland).
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 10:47:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 10:32:31 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
At 7/24/2013 9:06:45 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
You still haven't answered my question by the way, what age would you pick and what lead you to this choice?:
Well, there is a difference between what I believe morally and what I believe would work. What I believe morally is that everyone, literally everyone, regardless of age, should vote. What I believe would work (and is the more intelligent POV) is that the voting age should be 16. At that age, someone would have (about) the accumulated knowledge of an adult.

I am still going over the "test" to vote idea. It sounds very interesting, but I am wondering what the test would entail.

Interesting that you make the distinction between what is right and what is practical. It appears you are a moral absolutist then? You might be interested in a couple of the threads in philosophy regarding the subject of moral objectivism. I personally do not make such a distinction. What is right is what I ought to do, if I ought to make it so that everyone should vote then that's what I ought to do, to do something different would be wrong. I also doubt your claim that someone at 16 has roughly the accumulated knowledge of an adult. I know for certain that I have an awful lot more knowledge than I did 6 years ago, however, how much of this knowledge would make a difference to how I vote I'm not sure.

The test I am talking about would be a general knowledge and competency test, the ability to distinguish the possible motivations someone has for saying something, recognising the difference between appeals and reason. Basically making sure you know enough to be able to cut through most of the BS that gets bandied about by both the media and politicians. What is important here is not just knowing what you do know, but also what you don't.

Ideally, there would be different tests to vote on different things. If you are going to vote on economic policy you should at least have a basic idea of how the economy actually works. If you are going to vote on electoral reform, you should have some idea of how the voting system works. Not everybody is interested in every topic and disinterested voters make uninformed choices. If you had to pass a test to be able to vote, you are more likely to be motivated to actually use your vote for something. For those who say that you can simply design the test to weed out the people who you don't like, provided the grading is anonymous, one can learn to pass the test regardless of whether you agree with the theories that it tests. Then you are free to vote however you want afterwards, surely it is a good idea to make sure that people are at least exposed to the mainstream theories of economics, civil rights and such?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 10:49:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, next important question, what would you say when a 15 year old comes to you and says 'why can't I vote?' Will it be stiff bickies? Because that's what society is currently saying to you.
TemperedEmpire
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 11:07:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 10:49:16 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Also, next important question, what would you say when a 15 year old comes to you and says 'why can't I vote?' Will it be stiff bickies? Because that's what society is currently saying to you.

Well, I would tell him "if you're against it, you should fight against it". I have always had the beleif that if you don't like something, you should do all in your power to fight it.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 11:12:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 11:07:53 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:49:16 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Also, next important question, what would you say when a 15 year old comes to you and says 'why can't I vote?' Will it be stiff bickies? Because that's what society is currently saying to you.

Well, I would tell him "if you're against it, you should fight against it". I have always had the beleif that if you don't like something, you should do all in your power to fight it.
Ok, let me rephrase then, what will you say to them when they ask 'Will you vote to allow me to vote?' Because that's the only way it can happen as he can't vote for himself. His fighting can only ever be attempting to convince others to fight for him.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 11:21:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 11:12:36 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:07:53 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:49:16 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Also, next important question, what would you say when a 15 year old comes to you and says 'why can't I vote?' Will it be stiff bickies? Because that's what society is currently saying to you.

Well, I would tell him "if you're against it, you should fight against it". I have always had the beleif that if you don't like something, you should do all in your power to fight it.
Ok, let me rephrase then, what will you say to them when they ask 'Will you vote to allow me to vote?' Because that's the only way it can happen as he can't vote for himself. His fighting can only ever be attempting to convince others to fight for him.

Unless you want to go as far as to say newborns should be permitted to vote, some arbitrary age needs to be settled on. The same reasons why I think an eight-year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote are the same reasons why I think a fifteen-year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote (the degrees of the arguments are different, of course). In this context, it's not healthy to discriminate between people of the same age, so an arbitrary age needs to work for everyone.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 11:26:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 11:21:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:12:36 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:07:53 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:49:16 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Also, next important question, what would you say when a 15 year old comes to you and says 'why can't I vote?' Will it be stiff bickies? Because that's what society is currently saying to you.

Well, I would tell him "if you're against it, you should fight against it". I have always had the beleif that if you don't like something, you should do all in your power to fight it.
Ok, let me rephrase then, what will you say to them when they ask 'Will you vote to allow me to vote?' Because that's the only way it can happen as he can't vote for himself. His fighting can only ever be attempting to convince others to fight for him.

Unless you want to go as far as to say newborns should be permitted to vote, some arbitrary age needs to be settled on. The same reasons why I think an eight-year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote are the same reasons why I think a fifteen-year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote (the degrees of the arguments are different, of course). In this context, it's not healthy to discriminate between people of the same age, so an arbitrary age needs to work for everyone.
And then when he points to his friend who is 16 and asks why you let him vote?
By the way, that's basically the stiff bickies argument. Not saying that any other argument is possible, but we have to recognise it for what it is.
Any thoughts on the progressive voting rights idea? We're getting pretty close to the point where it could be made feasible through technology.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 11:40:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 11:26:00 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:21:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:12:36 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:07:53 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:49:16 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Also, next important question, what would you say when a 15 year old comes to you and says 'why can't I vote?' Will it be stiff bickies? Because that's what society is currently saying to you.

Well, I would tell him "if you're against it, you should fight against it". I have always had the beleif that if you don't like something, you should do all in your power to fight it.
Ok, let me rephrase then, what will you say to them when they ask 'Will you vote to allow me to vote?' Because that's the only way it can happen as he can't vote for himself. His fighting can only ever be attempting to convince others to fight for him.

Unless you want to go as far as to say newborns should be permitted to vote, some arbitrary age needs to be settled on. The same reasons why I think an eight-year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote are the same reasons why I think a fifteen-year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote (the degrees of the arguments are different, of course). In this context, it's not healthy to discriminate between people of the same age, so an arbitrary age needs to work for everyone.
And then when he points to his friend who is 16 and asks why you let him vote?
By the way, that's basically the stiff bickies argument. Not saying that any other argument is possible, but we have to recognise it for what it is.
Any thoughts on the progressive voting rights idea? We're getting pretty close to the point where it could be made feasible through technology.

One age has to work for everyone, as to avoid slippery slopes, so politically astute teens will just need to wait. This age needs to reflect the fact that one's right to vote will necessarily affect others in the society. The right for one to have a voice in one's government needs to be balanced with the right for one not to be harmed or have their rights infringed by misbegotten policies made possible by people who have not yet matured. Also, age limits on voting rights affect an ever changing group, so I don't buy the argument that some 'group' is being disenfranchised, because there's not a group - not really.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 11:55:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 11:40:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:26:00 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:21:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:12:36 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:07:53 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:49:16 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Also, next important question, what would you say when a 15 year old comes to you and says 'why can't I vote?' Will it be stiff bickies? Because that's what society is currently saying to you.

Well, I would tell him "if you're against it, you should fight against it". I have always had the beleif that if you don't like something, you should do all in your power to fight it.
Ok, let me rephrase then, what will you say to them when they ask 'Will you vote to allow me to vote?' Because that's the only way it can happen as he can't vote for himself. His fighting can only ever be attempting to convince others to fight for him.

Unless you want to go as far as to say newborns should be permitted to vote, some arbitrary age needs to be settled on. The same reasons why I think an eight-year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote are the same reasons why I think a fifteen-year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote (the degrees of the arguments are different, of course). In this context, it's not healthy to discriminate between people of the same age, so an arbitrary age needs to work for everyone.
And then when he points to his friend who is 16 and asks why you let him vote?
By the way, that's basically the stiff bickies argument. Not saying that any other argument is possible, but we have to recognise it for what it is.
Any thoughts on the progressive voting rights idea? We're getting pretty close to the point where it could be made feasible through technology.

One age has to work for everyone, as to avoid slippery slopes, so politically astute teens will just need to wait. This age needs to reflect the fact that one's right to vote will necessarily affect others in the society. The right for one to have a voice in one's government needs to be balanced with the right for one not to be harmed or have their rights infringed by misbegotten policies made possible by people who have not yet matured. Also, age limits on voting rights affect an ever changing group, so I don't buy the argument that some 'group' is being disenfranchised, because there's not a group - not really.
The question is not whether there should be an age, but rather what age should it be. If there was going to be a slippery slope it would have happened anyway. If the voting age was 50 would you still argue there is no group that is being disenfranchised? Just because group membership is not permanent doesn't mean the group doesn't exist. University students are not a permanent group but preventing them from voting would still be disenfranchising a group. There is every chance an individual could die before gaining the right to vote and that something they voted on could have prevented their death (admittedly a small chance if the voting age is 16). What you are saying is valid, but it does nothing to comfort a child who wants to make a contribution. Part of my relaxed nature is that for the most part, parents care about their children and will vote in their interests. You still haven't addressed my progressive voting idea.

Another proposal that might have some merit is letting parents hold the child's vote until they deem them responsible enough to use it. Or a responsible individual at the child's school could. That way somebody is still voting (hopefully in the interests of the child) and can accept their input. Much like the idea of regency in the old world.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are people in our society (regardless of whether you want to call them a group or not) who are unable to contribute to the making of decisions which affect their lives. I'm not saying this is avoidable, I just think we should call it like it is.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 12:13:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 11:55:07 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:40:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:26:00 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:21:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:12:36 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/24/2013 11:07:53 PM, TemperedEmpire wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:49:16 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Also, next important question, what would you say when a 15 year old comes to you and says 'why can't I vote?' Will it be stiff bickies? Because that's what society is currently saying to you.

Well, I would tell him "if you're against it, you should fight against it". I have always had the beleif that if you don't like something, you should do all in your power to fight it.
Ok, let me rephrase then, what will you say to them when they ask 'Will you vote to allow me to vote?' Because that's the only way it can happen as he can't vote for himself. His fighting can only ever be attempting to convince others to fight for him.

Unless you want to go as far as to say newborns should be permitted to vote, some arbitrary age needs to be settled on. The same reasons why I think an eight-year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote are the same reasons why I think a fifteen-year-old shouldn't be allowed to vote (the degrees of the arguments are different, of course). In this context, it's not healthy to discriminate between people of the same age, so an arbitrary age needs to work for everyone.
And then when he points to his friend who is 16 and asks why you let him vote?
By the way, that's basically the stiff bickies argument. Not saying that any other argument is possible, but we have to recognise it for what it is.
Any thoughts on the progressive voting rights idea? We're getting pretty close to the point where it could be made feasible through technology.

One age has to work for everyone, as to avoid slippery slopes, so politically astute teens will just need to wait. This age needs to reflect the fact that one's right to vote will necessarily affect others in the society. The right for one to have a voice in one's government needs to be balanced with the right for one not to be harmed or have their rights infringed by misbegotten policies made possible by people who have not yet matured. Also, age limits on voting rights affect an ever changing group, so I don't buy the argument that some 'group' is being disenfranchised, because there's not a group - not really.
The question is not whether there should be an age, but rather what age should it be. If there was going to be a slippery slope it would have happened anyway. If the voting age was 50 would you still argue there is no group that is being disenfranchised? Just because group membership is not permanent doesn't mean the group doesn't exist. University students are not a permanent group but preventing them from voting would still be disenfranchising a group. There is every chance an individual could die before gaining the right to vote and that something they voted on could have prevented their death (admittedly a small chance if the voting age is 16). What you are saying is valid, but it does nothing to comfort a child who wants to make a contribution. Part of my relaxed nature is that for the most part, parents care about their children and will vote in their interests. You still haven't addressed my progressive voting idea.

Another proposal that might have some merit is letting parents hold the child's vote until they deem them responsible enough to use it. Or a responsible individual at the child's school could. That way somebody is still voting (hopefully in the interests of the child) and can accept their input. Much like the idea of regency in the old world.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are people in our society (regardless of whether you want to call them a group or not) who are unable to contribute to the making of decisions which affect their lives. I'm not saying this is avoidable, I just think we should call it like it is.

I don't think people should be allowed to vote for the duration they're legally required to attend indoctrination centers aka schools (I kid, but not really). Also, people under the age of 18 can be under the legal authority of their parents, so it just seems like it would be a bad idea (for instance, they don't have to work to feed themselves, so the reality they'd be voting with just isn't proper for voting privileges). It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if 15, 16, 17 year olds were eligible to vote, but frankly, it's just sacrificing the average political astuteness of our voting populace for the voice of a group that doesn't need to be represented yet, and whose members are in an environment that forced influence upon them.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 12:20:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I suppose you don't have to address alternative proposals if you don't want to. I'll wait for someone else who does.

1. Progressive voting rights, weighting the votes of individuals until they reach the age of majority, progressively increasing with age.
2. Tested voting where someone has to demonstrate comprehension ability for both meaning and intention of political speech.
3. Regency voting where a child is given a vote that is exercised for them by a third party until they satisfy certain requirements (either an age of majority, emancipation or some kind of test).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 12:26:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 12:20:49 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Well, I suppose you don't have to address alternative proposals if you don't want to. I'll wait for someone else who does.

1. Progressive voting rights, weighting the votes of individuals until they reach the age of majority, progressively increasing with age.
2. Tested voting where someone has to demonstrate comprehension ability for both meaning and intention of political speech.
3. Regency voting where a child is given a vote that is exercised for them by a third party until they satisfy certain requirements (either an age of majority, emancipation or some kind of test).

1. This sacrifices the symbol of equality in the political sphere, which is very important. So no.

2. NOOOOOOOO. This is just asking for corruption.

3. Voting for someone else? This makes no sense.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 1:48:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 12:26:28 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/25/2013 12:20:49 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Well, I suppose you don't have to address alternative proposals if you don't want to. I'll wait for someone else who does.

1. Progressive voting rights, weighting the votes of individuals until they reach the age of majority, progressively increasing with age.
2. Tested voting where someone has to demonstrate comprehension ability for both meaning and intention of political speech.
3. Regency voting where a child is given a vote that is exercised for them by a third party until they satisfy certain requirements (either an age of majority, emancipation or some kind of test).

1. This sacrifices the symbol of equality in the political sphere, which is very important. So no.
I don't know what you are saying here, it's already unequal, how does changing what happens below the age of majority alter that? Unless minors aren't people, or you are of the opinion that their thoughts don't matter.

2. NOOOOOOOO. This is just asking for corruption.
Well sure, but then so is democracy. What specific forms of corruption would this enable that do not already occur if you are enfranchised at the age of 18 anyway even if you don't pass the test? This is the general reaction of anyone when testing is mentioned, I don't know why they don't take issue with the BAR or drivers licenses or any other professional accreditation... Of course anti-corruption mechanisms have to be in place, that isn't unique to test based systems, vote buying is a real and ever present problem. You don't get around that by saying 'one man one vote' over and over like a mantra. If you want to vote, learn to pass the test. You have 4 years to do it between elections usually anyway.

3. Voting for someone else? This makes no sense.
Representative democracy anyone?

Of course none of these are my ideal system anyway, but baby steps.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 8:42:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 1:48:20 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/25/2013 12:26:28 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/25/2013 12:20:49 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Well, I suppose you don't have to address alternative proposals if you don't want to. I'll wait for someone else who does.

1. Progressive voting rights, weighting the votes of individuals until they reach the age of majority, progressively increasing with age.
2. Tested voting where someone has to demonstrate comprehension ability for both meaning and intention of political speech.
3. Regency voting where a child is given a vote that is exercised for them by a third party until they satisfy certain requirements (either an age of majority, emancipation or some kind of test).

1. This sacrifices the symbol of equality in the political sphere, which is very important. So no.
I don't know what you are saying here, it's already unequal, how does changing what happens below the age of majority alter that? Unless minors aren't people, or you are of the opinion that their thoughts don't matter.

I'm saying it's an admission that people below 18 years old are mature enough to participate in politics but don't get full representation because it's deemed they won't necessarily make as good decisions as other people. It just feels like an unnecessary slippery slope.

2. NOOOOOOOO. This is just asking for corruption.
Well sure, but then so is democracy. What specific forms of corruption would this enable that do not already occur if you are enfranchised at the age of 18 anyway even if you don't pass the test? This is the general reaction of anyone when testing is mentioned, I don't know why they don't take issue with the BAR or drivers licenses or any other professional accreditation... Of course anti-corruption mechanisms have to be in place, that isn't unique to test based systems, vote buying is a real and ever present problem. You don't get around that by saying 'one man one vote' over and over like a mantra. If you want to vote, learn to pass the test. You have 4 years to do it between elections usually anyway.

Oh, I thought you meant everyone would need to pass the test in order to vote, but it would be open to all ages. I don't really have a strong opinion on it one way or the other.

3. Voting for someone else? This makes no sense.
Representative democracy anyone?

Of course none of these are my ideal system anyway, but baby steps.

But that person is elected by everyone to vote on their behalf. Voting for someone who is too young to have an opinion doesn't reflect any opinion. It's just giving someone who has a child two votes instead of one. Where's the representation?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:07:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 8:42:46 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/25/2013 1:48:20 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
1. This sacrifices the symbol of equality in the political sphere, which is very important. So no.
I don't know what you are saying here, it's already unequal, how does changing what happens below the age of majority alter that? Unless minors aren't people, or you are of the opinion that their thoughts don't matter.

I'm saying it's an admission that people below 18 years old are mature enough to participate in politics but don't get full representation because it's deemed they won't necessarily make as good decisions as other people. It just feels like an unnecessary slippery slope.
So as long as we don't admit it it's ok? I don't understand the slippery slope argument. If we pick an age of majority, we can always ask if we could push it younger, that's a slippery slope. If we instead acknowledge that there is a gradual increase in competence then we should put in place a gradual increase in responsibility. Also, slippery slope is poor reasoning anyway so it basically comes down to a 'people are stupid' argument (though that doesn't make it a bad argument if it's true).

2. NOOOOOOOO. This is just asking for corruption.
Well sure, but then so is democracy. What specific forms of corruption would this enable that do not already occur if you are enfranchised at the age of 18 anyway even if you don't pass the test? This is the general reaction of anyone when testing is mentioned, I don't know why they don't take issue with the BAR or drivers licenses or any other professional accreditation... Of course anti-corruption mechanisms have to be in place, that isn't unique to test based systems, vote buying is a real and ever present problem. You don't get around that by saying 'one man one vote' over and over like a mantra. If you want to vote, learn to pass the test. You have 4 years to do it between elections usually anyway.
Oh, I thought you meant everyone would need to pass the test in order to vote, but it would be open to all ages. I don't really have a strong opinion on it one way or the other.
Fair enough.

3. Voting for someone else? This makes no sense.
Representative democracy anyone?

Of course none of these are my ideal system anyway, but baby steps.

But that person is elected by everyone to vote on their behalf. Voting for someone who is too young to have an opinion doesn't reflect any opinion. It's just giving someone who has a child two votes instead of one. Where's the representation?
Well actually the person is elected to vote in their interests, not on their behalf. An elected person is supposed to vote in the interests of their constituents, not necessarily the way they would vote (though in a lot of cases these two goals are aligned). I guess it comes down to the question of whether you think it likely parents would vote in the interests of their children or not. You can think of it as giving parents (this is who I envisaged as the third party) more votes, but that only obtains if you assert that children shouldn't get a vote. Just because the vote is exercised by someone else doesn't mean that person gets extra votes, the same number of votes are out there (one per person). Children most definitely should get a vote (as they are people and are impacted by the decisions of the law). Their inability to exercise their vote responsibly can either be taken as a reason to remove their vote (effectively forcing them to abstain) or allow someone else to exercise it for them (a proxy vote). I personally would feel more comfortable with my parents exercising my vote. And considering a goodly percentage of the people in each electorate don't get to be represented by the person they voted for anyway, I'm not sure you can say we are all represented by the person we chose (its the one everyone chose).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:15:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
" I personally would feel more comfortable with my parents exercising my vote. "

Either they will vote how you would vote or they won't. The former makes the practice unnecessary, the latter makes it unrepresentative.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:17:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"And considering a goodly percentage of the people in each electorate don't get to be represented by the person they voted for anyway, I'm not sure you can say we are all represented by the person we chose (its the one everyone chose)."

I don't dispute this, but how are you not just (ultimately) attacking your own position here?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 7:54:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:15:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" I personally would feel more comfortable with my parents exercising my vote. "


Either they will vote how you would vote or they won't. The former makes the practice unnecessary, the latter makes it unrepresentative.
Yeah, this argument has been levelled against me before, I still think it's silly. You don't need a vote because someone else votes the way you do already? How on earth are 2 votes equivalent to 1? On the latter, voting how you would vote is not the issue, it is whether they vote in your interests, which parents are assumed to do (of course this is a problem, but that is an issue of encouraging good parenting anyway).