right to vote for children?

[Ben Kenobi]

Most ppl 16 are at least as ready to vote as most ppl over 75.

In what sense is one ready to vote? Can we assess this objectively? By this standard is there any basis to justify your statement?

Why do we need a balance in our political system? If the majority of voters are conservative, then we ought to see a conservative elected. We have no right to jury-rig the franchise in order to achieve a result percieved as 'balanced'

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2800496.html

Among white women, Catholics had a much higher birthrate than Protestants, and this difference persisted until the late 1960s. By the 1980s, however, this pattern had ended. Total fertility rates among non-Hispanic whites were now lower for Catholics than for Protestants (1.64 lifetime births per woman versus 1.91 per woman).53

Though the hispanic population will mitigate these results.

Interesting.

[:) Smiley]

Those under 18 who can pass the Citizenship Exam they give to immigrants ought to earn the right to vote and become naturalized adults.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Great, that means your mom will be President.......

ACK!

That's probably how it'd work out.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by St Leo
On a completely unrelated note, I think the voting age should be dropped to 16.

I am 19, so there's no conflict of interest in that statement.

actually, I think the voting age should be raised to 21. Most 18 years old are not well-informed enough to make an educated vote.

[Ming]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Most 18 years old are not well-informed enough to make an educated vote.

Many people over 21 aren't well-informed enough to make an educated vote

[aahz_capone]

Seeing the results of elections nowadays I think that many adults shouldn't even have the vote. Giving some redneck with 12 kids so many votes is reason enough to start rethinking our convictions against despotism. or any ism!

[mrmitchell]

If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?

The argument that youth "should not vote because they lack the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions is valid only if that standard is applied to all citizens."8 But yet this standard is not applied to all citizens, only young people. "We do not deprive a senile person of this right, nor do we deprive any of the millions of alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics and assorted fanatics who live outside hospitals of it. We seldom ever prevent those who are hospitalized for mental illness from voting." 9

Even beyond senile, neurotic, and psychotic adults, regular adults often do not meet the unrealistic standard opponents to youth voting propose. Turn on the Tonight Show one night and see the collection of adult buffoons who can't tell Jay Leno who the vice-president is, or who have forgotten how many states are in this country. Yet these adults are happily given the right to vote. The fact is, intelligence or maturity is not the basis upon which the right to vote is granted, if that were the case all voters would need to pass a test before voting. Though "…under voting rights jurisprudence, literacy tests are highly suspect (and indeed are banned under federal law), and lack of education or information about election issues is not a basis for withholding the franchise."10 Youth shouldn't be held to a stricter standard than adults; lower the voting age.

Youth will vote well

It is silly to fear that huge masses of youth will rush to the voting booth and unwittingly vote for Mickey Mouse and Britney Spears. By and large, those individuals with no interest in politics and no knowledge on the subject will stay home from the polls and not vote. This mechanism works for adult voters as well. Youth will behave no differently.

Besides foolishly throwing a vote away, some worry about youth voting for dangerous radicals. These fears are unfounded as well, "We should remember, too, that many people today vote at first, and often for many years after, exactly as their parents voted. We are all deeply influenced, in politics as everything else, by the words and example of people we love and trust."11 One's political leanings are influenced by their community and their family, and it is likely young voters will vote in much the same way as their parents, not because they are coerced to do so, but because of shared values.

With the voting age at 16 there is the opportunity for new voters have a greater opportunity to be educated voters as most are in high school. When the voting age is lowered schools will most likely schedule a civics class to coincide with 16 that will introduce the issues and prepare new voters. It stands to reason that these young voters will be better prepared to vote than their elders.

There are no wrong votes

Noting that youth will most likely vote well we must wonder, is it at all possible for a voter to vote wrong? Did voters choose poorly when the elected Clinton in 1992? Republicans would say so. Did voters choose poorly when they elected Bush in 2000? Democrats would say so. If youth were able to vote for either of them, or against them would they be voting wrong? I don't think so. All voters have their own reasons for voting, we may disagree with their reasons, but we must respect their right to make a decision. This is what we must do with youth.

http://www.youthrights.org/vote10.html

One thing these good folks didn't touch on is how good your parenting must have been if you can't trust your kids to be equal.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Ming


Many people over 21 aren't well-informed enough to make an educated vote

Yes, but most of them will probably at least care about the issues because they will have a job, bills to pay, kids to send to college etc...

Have you seen those college town hall forums, like the recent "rock the vote"? Every single question is some stupid ass thing like "boxers or briefs?" or "MAC or PC?"

[Guest]

Ben Kenobi, I am not using the words conservatives in the way that ppl use it.
I mean that young people are usually more radicals, that went to things to change, and are usually more ready to make short term sacrifices and ready to try different things, while older people generally want things to keep as they are, not ready to go for the long term goal by making short term sacrifices (which can sort of be understood) etc..
This has been observed historically.
If of side we go too far on one side, bad things happen.
As some studies have shown, having a lower-aged population increases the change of war and such.
It is a very complicated issue overall, but having too many radicals, or too many conservatives is bad.
For the political wealth or maybe I should say ideological wealth of a nation, you need people who are willing to try things, have ideas, be ready to change a lot of things, and you also need people to be able to do a reality check, be a bit more practical and common-sensed.
Of course this can't be done objectively.
But never (and I mean ever) has the average voter age been so high.
No you could say that since we live longer, the average voter age just went up and proportianally is still about the same.
But that is not true, at least in NA, the actual distribution of age in our society has a big bump at an age which is usually more conservative.
You could say that we have no right to rig any of this.
Why is changing the minimal age vote rigging. So the original choice of 18 was rigging? Of course there will always be a certain degree of arbitrariness.
If your point is that I seem to imply that this is done with a particular agenda in mind, I somewhat agree.
You seem to put the bruden of proof on me.
I also somewhat agree.
Why would it be 18 and not 16.
Well since I want to make a change I have more to prove, but I think hisotrically, naotions that have had a good balance of conservatives and radicals have fared better.
Now if you want to argue why lowering to 16 would help the balance go ahead.
On the other hand, using the argument of "readyness to vote" I also think lowering to 16 makes sense.
Im not saying all ppl 16-18 are ready to vote, I believe (I dont have many facts here, but I havnt seen any pointing to the contrary yet) 16-18 are as rdy to vote at least as many other groups who have the right.
In terms of capacity to comprehend whats going on, in terms of how it affects them, and many of them are always paying taxes by working and buying etc...
Note that in all these respect I just compare them to other groups.

[Guest]

Just read mr mitchell quoted article, and it explains very well the second part of my point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why lower it to 16? Why not 15? 14? 8? 5?

The reason it is 18 is because that is when you legally become an adult. That is when you stop legally being a dependant of your parents. If you want to make people adults at 16, then go ahead lower the voting age, but as long as adulthood is 18, so should voting.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why lower it to 16? Why not 15? 14? 8? 5?

The reason it is 18 is because that is when you legally become an adult. That is when you stop legally being a dependant of your parents. If you want to make people adults at 16, then go ahead lower the voting age, but as long as adulthood is 18, so should voting.

Fair 'nough.

[mrmitchell]

Why lower it to 16? Why not 15? 14? 8? 5?

The reason it is 18 is because that is when you legally become an adult. That is when you stop legally being a dependant of your parents. If you want to make people adults at 16, then go ahead lower the voting age, but as long as adulthood is 18, so should voting.

That's a good reason.

The article I linked to said the reason they wanted to lower it was because children are often treated like adults but they can't vote. The case they cited was many states allowing kids to be tried as adults...

Either keep kids as kids at all places or adults at all places, but none of this crap where kids get the responsibilities of an adult and the rights of a child.

[Arrian]

Ludicrous is too kind a word.

-Arrian