The creeping influence of OzzyKP continues to spread...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wycoff


It's a bad argument because they drill voting and participation into us from the time we enter into Kindergarten. It's not like 18 year olds suddenly discover that we have a representative process and are overwhelmed by that concept. Besides, how much of a hassle is it for an 18 year old to vote?

And you've missed the argument.

They can drill it into you all you want, but by the time they let you do it, you have developed other priorities.

The argument goes that at 14 or 16 you will still be paying attention and might develop the habit of voting before your life explodes into the chaos of early adulthood.

[notyoueither]

And how much do you think 15 year olds who can't vote give a damn about what is being 'drilled into their heads'?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither

The argument goes that at 14 or 16 you will still be paying attention and might develop the habit of voting before your life explodes into the chaos of early adulthood.

You might then continue to pay attention.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Imagnine what'll happen if we give women the vote.

Oh, wait...

That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son.[/Foghorn Leghorn]

Still, everybody needs to run out, right now, and rent the movie Wild in the Streets! The plot:

Max Frost, a 22-year old rock star millionaire, joins causes with a California politician to get the vote for 14-year old. (Hence the song "14 or fight!") He continues his master plan by helping elect one of his groupies to the senate. Max and his cohorts resort to trickery to get congress to lower the minimum age requirements for higher office, and he's on his way to the Oval Office with his youth-controlled police state agenda.

Eventually, everyone over 60 is rounded up, put in concentration camps, and force-fed LSD.

Best. Movie. Ever.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And you've missed the argument.

They can drill it into you all you want, but by the time they let you do it, you have developed other priorities.

The argument goes that at 14 or 16 you will still be paying attention and might develop the habit of voting before your life explodes into the chaos of early adulthood.

No, I didn't miss the argument. I just think that argument is stupid. We've lived through that chaos that is early adulthood. I was an 18 year old college freshman in 2000. I knew all about the American political system and the merits of voting at the time, as it's drilled into your head from the beginning (like I said before). I was at a college 300 miles away and in another state, yet I still managed to somehow find the time to cast an absentee ballot. It's a miracle that I was able to find the time to do so in my hectic life, I know...

My point is that if you're an 18 year old in this system and you don't understand the value of voting, or you don't feel like taking the time to go and vote, then you shouldn't vote anyway. You're fooling yourself if you think these people would care anymore if they were given the opportunity at a younger age.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And how much do you think 15 year olds who can't vote give a damn about what is being 'drilled into their heads'?

You're making my point for me.

I cared, because I was interested in learning. If people don't care about learning about the process, then they're not going to bother participating either.

[notyoueither]

A lot of people don't go to college, and a lot more of them are not as dilligent as you. A lot of them have tuned out the American political system, and all the others, by the time they can vote.

I find the idea of engaging youngsters by giving them the vote while we 'drill it into them' to be interesting.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wycoff


You're making my point for me.

I cared, because I was interested in learning. If people don't care about learning about the process, then they're not going to bother participating either.

Again, you entirely miss the point.

How many years do you think you can hold the attention of the average adolescent? You start to drill it in when they are 12 or 13. You keep drilling, but they can't do anything with it. You start to bore them to tears, by and large.

I don't see a problem with an ninth grade lesson... 'You're first election, next month!'

Now, they'll pay attention. Now, you'll instill in them the care and the duty that might stick when they are 18 and 22.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by notyoueither
A lot of people don't go to college, and a lot more of them are not as dilligent as you.

This is our basic disagreement then. If they're not interested at 18, then I doubt that they were interested at 16. I am still young enough to clearly remember high school. The same people who were interested at 18 were the same ones interested at 16 (or 14, for that matter). Those who didn't care at 18 certainly didn't care before they were 18...

A lot of them have tuned out the American political system, and all the others, by the time they can vote.

This seems like a counterintuitive argument. I would think that people would care more about the world around them after they're out on their own and no longer dependent on their parents. Many of the disinterested 18 year olds haven't "tuned out" by 18, they've yet to "tune in" because they haven't had any independent life experience. Allowing those types to vote at 16 would chaange nothing, because they haven't had the stimuli needed to get them interested in politics... wait until they start having to pay income tax.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
My complaint is that there are already too many stupid people.... why expand the process to include kids, who are even more ignorant and stupid?

More ignorant, yes. Stupider, no.

I'm not sure what that means in the context of this debate, but I thought that should be pointed out.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wycoff

This seems like a counterintuitive argument. I would think that people would care more about the world around them after they're out on their own and no longer dependent on their parents. Many of the disinterested 18 year olds haven't "tuned out" by 18, they've yet to "tune in" because they haven't had any independent life experience. Allowing those types to vote at 16 would chaange nothing, because they haven't had the stimuli needed to get them interested in politics... wait until they start having to pay income tax.

Don't you think they would be more interested in something they have participated in?

[notyoueither]

Oh, and many have already paid income tax, but had no say over it.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't see a problem with an ninth grade lesson... 'You're first election, next month!'

Now, they'll pay attention. Now, you'll instill in them the care and the duty that might stick when they are 18 and 22.

We're just going to have to disagree on this. I'm trying, but I just can't see any merit to this point of view.

One of two things will happen:

1. The same kids who won't vote at 18 won't vote at 14, because they haven't had the life experience to make it really sink in that politics and participation matters. The only people voting will be those mature enough to learn their lessons from a typical civics class, and those people would vote at 18 anyway.

OR

2. We'd have a bunch of 14 year olds casting binding votes without having an adequate background in things like U.S. history, philosophy, or econmics (stuff that's covered in greater detail in 10th through 12th grade). A few will make responsible votes, many will vote as their parents tell them to do, some will cast joke votes, and some will do what the t.v. tells them to do. From experience, I don't think that 14 year olds are mature enough to cast votes, and I don't want them being significantly involved in choosing our government.

Result one is pointless, result two is undesirable.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Jaguar

More ignorant, yes. Stupider, no.

I'm not sure what that means in the context of this debate, but I thought that should be pointed out.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Wanna know what my solution is to the Social Security problem? Tell the folks of my generation:

"Look, you know there's a temporary bulge in the demographics, and not enuf money is coming in to pay you guys what other generations have gotten in the past or will get in the future. So, each of you baby boomers can have your choice, either (a) retire at 70 with full benefits or (b) retire at 65 with 80% benefits. Either choice lets us balance the SS budget."

"Oh, and to make it up to you instead of figuratively screwing a whole generation of young people you can literally screw one of your choice."