The creeping influence of OzzyKP continues to spread...

[Propaganda]

OzzyKP is correct.

Why argue?

[aneeshm]

Isaac Asimov had said that any robot who was capable of understanding the concept of freedom , and capable of wanting it , should be granted it . I'm with Asimov on this one - any child capable of understanding the concept of voting , and wanting the vote , should be given the vote .

[joncha]

Originally posted by Bill3000
A great amount of teenagers online are more willing to think that Intelligent Design has merit be cause they are ignorant of the scientific method and tend to believe in a form of nihilism.

That population isn't worth allowing the right to vote.

We believe in nothing, Bill3000. Nothing. And tomorrow we come back and cut off your Johnson.

[Propaganda]

LONG LIVE OZZYKP!

[Az]

I have been persuaded. Lowering the voting age to 16

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by GePap
So the evidence are a few limited case sutdies of foreign cities from years ago, and in some of the cases the turnout difference being at best minimal? (1% more, wow...)? And the most revelant example you have, the one from Baltimore, has turnout the same as general turnout, equally pathetic. Lords.

If that is the best reasoning you present to defend yourself then its clear that you lack the intellectual rigor worthy of being granted the sacred right of voting. I say we disenfranchise GePap.

Voter turnout increases with age. The lowest age group currently is 18-20 and the highest age group is 65+. Look it up if you like, but I assume this fact is obvious.

Now what the people in this thread were saying is that that trend would continue down and 16 & 17 year olds would vote LESS than the already dismal 18-20 yr old age group. Yet evidence points to the fact that 16 & 17 year olds would vote MORE than 18-20, indeed MORE than 18-30. And not only that but equal to the ENTIRE POPULATION, including those compulsive voting seniors.

So not only does it overturn the notion that teens would vote less than young adults, it totally destroys it by placing teens as equal to the entire agrigate population. If you don't see how that is significant than there is no hope for you. Just leave this thread, logic can't penetrate your thick skull.

But that all being said, I don't see why the ratio of turnout is such a big deal. If people choose not to vote, why would we punish their peers who DO vote? Shouldn't our goals be to have the most people voting overall in absolute numbers? What do ratios have to do with anything? If we wanted the highest ratio we'd only let white men making over $100k a year who were over 60 vote. But that doesn't make any sense.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Isaac Asimov had said that any robot who was capable of understanding the concept of freedom , and capable of wanting it , should be granted it . I'm with Asimov on this one - any child capable of understanding the concept of voting , and wanting the vote , should be given the vote .

Thanks

Get things moving in India.

btw, UR, you said the footnotes don't work, go to the link I provided to read the footnotes.

http://www.youthrights.org/votetalkingpoints.shtml

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP




If that is the best reasoning you present to defend yourself then its clear that you lack the intellectual rigor worthy of being granted the sacred right of voting. I say we disenfranchise GePap.

"sacred voting rights"? And as for "intellectual rigor"...if you think that exist in your "evidence", that is sad.

Voter turnout increases with age. The lowest age group currently is 18-20 and the highest age group is 65+. Look it up if you like, but I assume this fact is obvious.

Now what the people in this thread were saying is that that trend would continue down and 16 & 17 year olds would vote LESS than the already dismal 18-20 yr old age group. Yet evidence points to the fact that 16 & 17 year olds would vote MORE than 18-20, indeed MORE than 18-30. And not only that but equal to the ENTIRE POPULATION, including those compulsive voting seniors.

This is the "intellectual rigor" you speak off??

The evideence you pointed to hardly backs this claim, especially the example form Baltimore, which seems the most relevant, as it was an actual election.

Oh, and as for "intelelctual rigor", do we need to rimnd you what an average is? Because the average for the whole population takes into account the percentage of voters form all ages, so the high turnout amongst older voters is dampened by the weak turnout amongst younger voters, hence, THE AVERAGE.

yeah, intelelctual rigor my ass.

So not only does it overturn the notion that teens would vote less than young adults, it totally destroys it by placing teens as equal to the entire agrigate population. If you don't see how that is significant than there is no hope for you. Just leave this thread, logic can't penetrate your thick skull.

I guess my skull has been thickened by actually knowing, or understanding, how to consider data.

What it tells me is that the turnout amongst youths was "average" at best. NOt as bad as the lowest gorup, not as good as the highest. At the same time, your data does not consider the differences for why this different turnout occured. Nor does it even tell you which group had the lowest turnout. Maybe it wasn't the 18-21 year olds, but the 24-28 year olds. You initial statement, that there is some linear correlation between age and voting regularity might very well be false when it comes to people in their late 20's.

But that all being said, I don't see why the ratio of turnout is such a big deal. If people choose not to vote, why would we punish their peers who DO vote? Shouldn't our goals be to have the most people voting overall in absolute numbers? What do ratios have to do with anything? If we wanted the highest ratio we'd only let white men making over $100k a year who were over 60 vote. But that doesn't make any sense.

Maybe your "intellectual rigor" makes you forget that YOU are the one to introduce turnout as some "proof" for your cause. Take it as people humoring you to discuss the issue.

I would agree, turnout is not the main reason against a lower voting age, nor is it an excuse for a lower voting age. What is silly is saying that a lower voting age is some "right" and then comparing the "travails" of disenfranchised youths to the previous sufferings of disenfranchised groups like Blacks or women, which sometimes goes form silly to outrageous.

Voting is a right, but society decides who gets what rights. At this point the concensus has become that you deserve voting righst as a citizen when you become an adult, and the date for that is 18. Works just fine. I see no reason to change it,. You can keep trying to convince people to move it down, but cut down on the histronics and hyperbole. Its silly.

[GePap]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Isaac Asimov had said that any robot who was capable of understanding the concept of freedom , and capable of wanting it , should be granted it . I'm with Asimov on this one - any child capable of understanding the concept of voting , and wanting the vote , should be given the vote .

BY this standard, so should any adult living in a country the first day they arrive.

The notion of voting is not that simplistic.

[aneeshm]

Citizenship is a totally different issue - what I have said applies only when you are a citizen of a given state . This is a standard applying on top of others , not to their exculsion .

[GePap]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Citizenship is a totally different issue - what I have said applies only when you are a citizen of a given state . This is a standard applying on top of others , not to their exculsion .

Voting is a right of citizenship. Therefore it is the same issue. As a society, we have decided that one must be 18 before the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship kick in. Voting is not some fundamental human right as Ozzy would make it sound, anymore than citizenship is.

At 18 you can vote, you can be drafted, you can serve on a jury to judge your peers.

I don't want 16 year olds in the military, in juries, or voting.

All one, neat package.

[OzzyKP]

You are a US citizen at birth.

Likewise women and blacks were citizens despite lacking many priviledges of majority status.

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
You are a US citizen at birth.

Likewise women and blacks were citizens despite lacking many priviledges of majority status.

Which is why you can't compare the struggle of youths to that of Blacks and Women, since those groups were being denied their legal rights as citizens, while the fact remains that youths are not yet granted full citizenship rights until they reach a certain age, but once they reach them, they have them.

The situations are NOT similar.

Your entire argumenet seems to be based on the analitical capabilities of teenagers being high enough to allow them to make reasoned choices, and thus they should. Well, if this is your arguement, I would ask if you would grant immigrants those rights the second they got residency..after all, they have the same analitical abilities any citizen does, so why should an accident of birthplace matter more than an accident of age?

[fed1943]

Dangerous argument,OzzyKP;so,I should have the right to vote in your elections,because I know more of American Constitutional Law,Administration and Politics than most American citizens?No way.
To vote is not an exercice about knowledge but a decision about your life.The child have the same rights of the adults(or still more)but have not the capacity of personal exercice,because really have not yet this capacity;has the right to his own body,but cannot decide to marry;has the right to be protected by the Autorities,but cannot decide about,cannot vote.
So,nature itself,imposes a distinction between adults and children.About the age(18,17,19,other)I don't know.
Best regards,

[Flip McWho]

So,nature itself,imposes a distinction between adults and children.About the age(18,17,19,other)I don't know.

Umm bull****. In a lot of societies way back when adulthood was considered around 13. Teenage years weren't really invented untill after WWII.


A lot of the distinction between adult and child now is a social construct. Started at first like how GePap says by extending the voting age to 18yr olds so the govt can get younger soldiers off to war. Now that soldiering and war doesn't matter so much this line of reasoning is kinda obsolete. So we need to look at whether 18 is still the best age. Things change over time and maybe its time we gave the younger people more of a say.

NYE and Ozzy are both on the dot here.

For those that consider people under 18 not mature enough to vote then read this article:

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/040830crat_atlarge

Maturity has nothing to do with voting. Obviously education doesn't either.

I don't see a problem with 16yr old soldiers. I see a problem with 16yr olds being conscripted into the armed forces but I've got nothing against 16yr olds choosing to enter the armed forces. It seems fairly arbitrary when a 16 yr old can choose to get married and/or have kids and carry the responsibilities there yet they aren't considered mature enough to decide whether they are ready to go off to a possible war and die for their country.