Do you think the U.S. should institute a civics exam to be able to vote?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
Yeah, you're correct.
18 is an artificial limit for the citizenship. We have to put the limit somewhere. Or how would you suggest to calculate the right to vote? More complex systems would probably just create much more bureucracy and corruption.

Some people argue that things are corrupt enough as it is. With enough constraints you can make sure things run smoothly. I forget his name, but the minister of the Interior in France a few hundred years ago changed tax income to the government from 20% to 80% by reducing corruption by a significant degree in his lifetime. Sure there would be problems, but with enough money and enough effort, you can get anything done.

'All'? Surely you ment 'most'?

Just a bit of exaggeration, of course.

[Japher]

Setting the voting age at 18 was not an artificial limit. It was set because it was the age at which the US wished to recruit for the army at. It stood for a level of maturity. Has it changed? I think 18 is rather young, IMO, as many 18 y.o. are either still dependent on their parents (the wage earner).

Setting IQ limits or any type system that test the person to see if they are capable of making an intelligent reasonable decision for their vote is in itself undemocratic. Heck, if we only allowed smart, rational ppl to vote we'd all be republican!

Honestly, representation needs to be maintained across the board, even for the less than sane. If there should be any standard for voting it should be that you pay your taxes. People on welfare, unemployment (well, maybe not), or disability, or rely on government funding in anyway for a certain amount of time should not be able to vote since they are more swayed to vote based on biased opinions and not rational thought. Ignorance is not the root of evil in democratic systems, it is coruption.

Ignorant folk generally don't even vote. I, for one, do not vote on issues that I either a) don't care about, or b) know nothing about.

Thus, my overall opinion:
No taxation without representation and No representation without taxation.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are apparently saying one is right and one is wrong. I believe it depends on the individual. After all, you can have a very educated and involved 16 year old, but being less educated and informed directly relates to your value in voting.

This is a much stronger argument, Trip.

The central point of the debate comes down to:

What is the purpose of the franchise?

From your post, the purpose of the franchise is to elect the most qualified people to govern the country.

My position is that the franchise exists to put the power in the hands of the people, ie, whatever the majority votes for, by definition, is the desired outcome.

Personally, you may disagree with the results, but who decides who are the most qualified people? Political pundits? I think that all those who are governed must have some say in their government, especially those who support the government through taxation. The old no taxation without representation.

By implementing this literacy standard, some people who pay taxes would also fall short of your civics standard. For these people, they would pay to support a government that they had no say in electing.

As for the 18 year old standard, it does seem arbitrary. Some 18 year olds, myself included, were quite informed of political issues before we were able to vote. I have since voted in 2 elections.

But we are unusual. How many people who are 18 exercise their right to vote? There is not much pressure from those younger than 18 to vote, hence those in power see no need to extend the franchise.

Of course, this argument falls apart as people in general lose faith in the democratic system. What percentage of people voted in the last election in the US? 50%?

A right unexercised is no different from no right at all.