I'll be on Fox News Tomorrow

[David Floyd]

Hmmm...I'm not sure more people voting is a good thing. I'd rather discourage voter turnout than increase it, on the rationale that increasing voter turnout disproportionately increases the number of morons who vote.

[Agathon]

Will some bastard please tell these guys how to convert DVR to mpeg!!

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by The diplomat
This is more a problem with our judicial system than a problem of not voting.

Prosecutors are elected.
Local judges are elected.
Legislatures are elected.


Only the power of the vote can hope to reform the system.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
diplomat, how about you follow that link I posted. You asked for reasons, I gave you reasons. If you want more in depth explinations, follow that link.

I read your link. But, you are ignoring the fact that your 10 reasons given in the link do not hold up. First, 16 years old don't lose anything by waiting 2 years to vote. 16 years old are not going to vote more or better than any other age group. You'll still have smart voters and stupid voters. You'll still have youth not voting just as you have adults that don't bother to vote. Giving 16 years the right to vote will not improve the election process.

Secondly, 16 years old are simply not in a place in their lives where they can make an informed decision. They have limited life experience. They have little knowledge of the issues. The issues that affect 16 years old like education are already important election issues so their interests are already being addressed.

The real reason you want youth to vote is because you think they will vote democrat. You think they will support more government spending in education, more social spending and more "liberal" stances on social issues (pro-abortion, pro gay marriage). So you want them to vote so that they counter the votes of the "closed minded" old people that you think are stuck in the past and are voting conservative. That is what you insinuated when you said "Old people are also terribly set in their ways. They don't have a fresh mind and perspective to judge things impartially. They vote based on prejudices and preconseptions that go back decades".

[Jaguar]

Erm, Ozzy isn't even voting Democrat.


BTW, at my school the student body is 60% conservative, and the faculty is 95% liberal.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The diplomat
So it is just to get more democrat votes. You figure 16 year old will probably support gay marriage and abortion and the likes, since they have a "fresh mind".

Frankly, that's a good thing. Think - would you rather people who attack thing with a fresh perspective, or people who won't be convinced by any argument, vote?

That's not entirely true. Politicians still pay attention to youth issues because they know the youth care about these issues and will vote on them when they reach 18.

Besides, if you give 16 years the right to vote, politicians will pander to get those votes. You'll weaken important issues like national security because politicians will have to pay more attention to silly youth issues.

That's your problem, you assume 16 year olds are complete idiots. Personally, I know a good number of people my age who would make much more intelligent posts than yours and politicians already pander very much to senior citizen votes.

[David Floyd]

Secondly, 16 years old are simply not in a place in their lives where they can make an informed decision. They have limited life experience. They have little knowledge of the issues. The issues that affect 16 years old like education are already important election issues so their interests are already being addressed.

Well, that's a poor argument - there are plenty of unqualified adult voters. Look how they all ****ed up in Florida in 2000, for example. Bunch of '*****, you ask me.

[Kuciwalker]

Here's an idea: limit the number of times you can vote

Say you can vote for President only once in your life. That would probably result in much better thought-out votes.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


* Kuciwalker is 16

Explains why you still have problems with philosophy.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well, that's a poor argument - there are plenty of unqualified adult voters. Look how they all ****ed up in Florida in 2000, for example. Bunch of '*****, you ask me.

[MrFun]

I will never understand the argument: "Because stupid adults are entitled to the right of vote, we should make a bigger pile of sh*t by allowing teenagers the right to vote."

[David Floyd]

I say, put an age UPPER limit on voting - say, whatever retirement age is - and combine it with an IQ test. That way, only reasonably intelligent people who won't tend to **** up can vote

Note: Voting is obviously not very important in my concept of individual rights

[Jaguar]

I would argue that adults and teenagers are on roughly the same level of idiocy overall, but mostly the smart teenagers would vote.

[MrFun]

Here is what I think: All adults age 18 or older have the right to vote, regardless how "stupid" or "lazy" some of them are.


This, IMO, does not necessarily mean that this justifies extending the vote to teenagers.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I say, put an age UPPER limit on voting - say, whatever retirement age is - and combine it with an IQ test. That way, only reasonably intelligent people who won't tend to **** up can vote

Note: Voting is obviously not very important in my concept of individual rights

The trouble with IQ tests is that Democrats would insist that it's a way to disenfranchise Black people.

Of course, literacy tests have been used that way, so maybe it's not much of a stretch.