14+ able to vote

[Darnoc]

I think that there shouldn't be really an age from where you can vote. Some are already responsible and mature adults early and some never become adults. So the age shouldn't be fix. Those who rise up and educate the children should decide when someone is ready for voting. If someone is already mature at 16, he can vote from then on. I remember, that I wanted to vote already when I was 12 and it really annoyed me that I couldn't (in Switzerland we can vote about almost everything, even about laws). But from 18 on everyone should be able to vote. The only thing I want to change is that people like myself could vote already from an earlier age. God am I glad that I will be 18 on 23rd March 2004!!!

[Nevermore]

My civics teacher brought up a good idea. He says people should take tests about polotics and the goverments system to be able to vote. That weeds out people that don't realy know what their doing.

 

I think that is a great idea, additionally becuase only people who REALY want to vote would bother with the test. People who vote simply beacuse so-and-so has nice hair and teeth wouldn't go through such measures to bother.

 

Anyways, 14 year olds are idiots in most cases when it relates to making desitions. Take for instance Raphle Nader. Everyone (well child) in my school had Nader stickers on their lockers, yet no one knew anything about him other then 1. He's running for president, and 2. His name is Nader (and hehehe it's funny).

 

I knew nothing about Nader, but didn't have a sticker on my locker. Mostly becuase I knew that unless I knew what he stood for I shouldn't align myself with him.

 

14 YOs just are to dumb to vote, I wouldn't allow my self to vote as a child even.

Fact is lotsa people are too dumb to vote, they are sheep refusing to belive they are.

 

Jeez, I don't know how voting should work but I got a good idea. Votes should be placed on individual laws, not poloticians who love good press shots and would do anything for a vote.

[thanateros]

A little side note: Nader's platform consisted of getting young Americans involved in the democratic system; he has founded numerous organizations that try to raise awareness of the democratic system among high school and college age Americans. But what many of your classmates probably fail to realize is that he is the reason that Bush is our president because people who could not make up their mind over Bush or Gore voted for him. Little did they know their votes for Nader were, in the end, the reason why Bush won. He is also an awful public speaker.

 

As for the test that seems a bit prejudice to me. Prejudice against blacks, mexicans, latinos and other legal immigrants (I use the term legal because I do not believe illegal immigrants have the right to vote in this country). In short, this system sounds like the Jim-Crow South revisited., but on a national scale This test clearly puts urban, lower class citizens at a striking disadvantage than the middle class white population. I say this because the populations I mentioned above have less access to the information made easily available to the white middle class populace.

 

I think that is a great idea, additionally becuase only people who REALY want to vote would bother with the test. People who vote simply beacuse so-and-so has nice hair and teeth wouldn't go through such measures to bother.

This effectively destroys the moral interta of civic repsonsibility, which is a subject that many Americans are not taught. Most Americans would not take an hour out of their schedules to sit down and take a test on how the government works (and lesser still would actaully get in their cars and drive to a testing site to take a test). Furthermore, what they teach you in school about our political system is completely different than how our political system acutally works, so this proposed test seems nothing more than a way for the middle class white population to further their gap from the lower class.

 

Said test sounds more like a test a person would need to take to gain citizenship in the United States, and we have those. People from foreign populations applying for citizenship have to have a general understanding of the political system of this country and its history (such as how a bill becomes a law, checks and balances etc.). In middle school (at least in North Carolina) there are standardized tests which you are required to pass in order to move to the next grade, some of which test your knowledge of the political structure and history of the US.

 

Anyways, 14 year olds are idiots in most cases when it relates to making desitions. Take for instance Raphle Nader. Everyone (well child) in my school had Nader stickers on their lockers, yet no one knew anything about him other then 1. He's running for president, and 2. His name is Nader (and hehehe it's funny).

 

I agree with you here; though I would have written it differently. If 14 year olds were allowed to vote then the Federal Government should issue a standardized test to see if they meet certain criterion. Now, don't let my point on this confuse you into thinking there should be a test that all people must pass to grant the right to vote. I think if 14 year olds want to vote they would need to pass said test but by the age of 18 they are automatically granted the right to vote just like every other citizen (excluding those who are still applying for citizenship).

 

I think that there shouldn't be really an age from where you can vote. Some are already responsible and mature adults early and some never become adults. So the age shouldn't be fix. Those who rise up and educate the children should decide when someone is ready for voting. If someone is already mature at 16, he can vote from then on.

 

There is a certain degree of maturity which the US deems an 18 or 21 year old to have, just by having experienced life for that amount of time. The only reason that 18 year olds have the right to vote is because of the Vietnam War when 18 year olds would be drafted into the Army but have no right to vote. I think there needs to be voter reform, standardization of ballots and easy access to key political information, but there isn't. And in a country in economic turmoil where big business influences our political system there likely will not be any focus on voter reform for the next decade, rather it will be on our affairs in the Middle East.

 

The problem is not that California itself wants to explore the idea that 14 years is old enough to vote. It's that the federal government leaves too much (in the way of voting education etc.) to the states, even in national elections. States would argue, however, that their rights are being taken away since constitutionally the specific rules regarding voting is left to the state. Only with a voting reform amendment could this problem be solved.

 

Any thoughts?

[Darnoc]

I do not no how it is in the US, but here in Switzerland they are debating to make voting possible for 16 years old kids. And I think it weird that in the US you can drive a car when you are 16 but aren't allowed to drink alcohol until you are 21. In Europe you are adult from 18 and then you have all rights and can do everything that is legal. In Switzerland you can even drink beer and wine and smoke cigarettes (probably very soon also Weed) when you are 16.

 

For myself, I was interested in politics at a very early age. When I was 12 I began to read the political parts (national and international) in the newspapers, but didn't bother about sports. I studied the voting-books (there everything is written about the laws which the voting is about), pros and contras etc. and as I said I was very annoyed that I must wait 6 years (until I was 18) to vote. Of course I know that I am an exceptions: I was the only one in my class who did this. And I am not really middle class, higher lower class or lower middle class would be more correct. I just think that people like myself should be able to vote at an earlier age.

 

OK, I am also for more controlled education and job system. That means, only someone fitting a job will have the chance to get one. At schools you have the chance to explore your abilities and then you will be educated in these abilities. When the field of possible jobs for you is narrowed enough, you will get a list of jobs fitting your abilites. So only people who are really good for the job will come in the government and not such idiots as Bush and his guys. And of course the children must be indoctrinated that their abilities are to be put into the good of the whole society. The abilities of a person have only one purpose, this is to serve society. This must be indoctrinated into the brains of everyone, so that no one can break this indoctrination. With this we prevent corruption in economics and politics.

 

And of course, equal chances for everyone. Relations and background do not matter at all. You can be the son of a factory worker and still become president (or something similar powerful) because of your abilities. People do not get into government because the crowd likes them and they are good at TV, they get into government because they are fit for the job. OK, then we would have to abolish democracy. But perhaps this isn't even so bad. Most people are too stupid to really make a good decicion or just do not care. Power should only for people who are fit for it. When we allow democracy then only for people who can really make reasonable decicions. This means, they are intelligent enough, have a talent for organization and ruling and are indoctrinated in such a way that they would never do anything to harm society or the nation. Why not make a world like in "Brave New World"? Wouldn't it be just perfect? It would function and everyone would be content and happy.

[Ancalagon]

It does seem strange that 18 year olds can decide whether or not to die for their own country, but cannot imbibe alcohol (in the U.S). And now they want to lower the voting age even more...hell, that puts a bigger skew on things now.

 

Bloody visigoths :P

[thanateros]

The ability for an 18 year came about as a reaction to being qualified for the draft. I'm sure things would be different in the United States had 18 year old been able to vote and then the government declared that if you can vote you are eligible for the draft.

 

Darnoc, in the United States it is the decision of the state that determines the age at which a teenager can drive. Granted in most states the age is 16 but this does not qualify you to be able to drive by yourself. In a lot of states you have to drive with a parent or guardian for 1 year before you can drive by yourself. Even then you are limited to the times you can be on the road (usually 6am - 9pm).

 

As for the point about drinking, well, Americans are extremely irresponsible when it comes to alcohol. Another reason for the age being so high (I believe) is that this country is spacious, meaning to get anywhere there's a possibility you'll need to drive. This makes the threat of intoxicated 18 year old drivers skyrocket; in the United States, drinking should not be allowed under the age of 21. (The Louisiana drinking age used to be 18, however the federal government pulled all of their interstate highway funds until they amended the age up to 21). If the drinking age were to miraculously drop to 18 I would want to see an enforcement policy like that of Cuba. Plain and simple, if you're caught drinking and driving you're shot in the head on the spot. No if's and's or but's.

 

You are probably wondering why I'm so conservative on this issue, well in high school this buffoon in my government class had been arrested three times DUI and still had his licence; there's something seriously wrong with this country when scum like him can get away with something like that, peoples' lives are in danger whenever someone makes the poor decision to get in a car after consuming alcohol.

 

There are too many social and moral problems, both current and that have a longstanding history in this country for its youth to be responsible enough to consume alcohol by the age of 18. I'm 20 years old, I didn't start drinking until I was 19 and in college, only because I know (this is a small campus) that there is never going to be an instance when I have to get in a car and drive. Even at off campus parties I refuse to drive home. If someone is a DD then I will, but if everyone is drinking, then I'll stay there for the night. But not all people share in this approach to their drinking habits, and we don't have local pubs within reasonable walking distance whereby we can stumble home afterwards and pass out.

 

I'm not disaggreeing with you wholly, but understand that our cultures and way of life is very different from that of European nations. In France, for example, drinking is a social norm, so it's understandable that french people have a different approach (and furthermore maturity) to how drinking effects society. But teenagers in the US are sheltered from drinking as a social activity and have to explore it on their own (which is why so many teenagers make poor decisions when it comes to drinking).

 

I support the idea that a 14 year old can vote, for example, but there has to be other stipulations besides simply granting them that right. And Ancalagon, 18 year olds who are drafted do not have a decision on whether or not they can die for their country, rather they are required to enlist in the armed forces. Just to clarify :D

[Hayabusa]

In my opinion the people under 18 shall not vote nor be counted to the vote of the parents. I think that even at the age of 18, most people are immature and should not vote until they`re 21. BTW recently I`ve read another article about poor coindition of democracy due to fact that the frequency is about 50%. Well I think it is rather a good sign - if someone doesn`t want to vote it means he cannot truly decide at the moment or makes his own decision in this way. So it`s OK and probably better - I doubt if there were more reasonable results when, for example, 90 % would voted.

[ThetaOrionis01]

OK, I am also for more controlled education and job system. That means, only someone fitting a job will have the chance to get one. At schools you have the chance to explore your abilities and then you will be educated in these abilities. When the field of possible jobs for you is narrowed enough, you will get a list of jobs fitting your abilites. So only people who are really good for the job will come in the government and not such idiots as Bush and his guys. And of course the children must be indoctrinated that their abilities are to be put into the good of the whole society. The abilities of a person have only one purpose, this is to serve society. This must be indoctrinated into the brains of everyone, so that no one can break this indoctrination. With this we prevent corruption in economics and politics.

 

And of course, equal chances for everyone. Relations and background do not matter at all. You can be the son of a factory worker and still become president (or something similar powerful) because of your abilities. People do not get into government because the crowd likes them and they are good at TV, they get into government because they are fit for the job. OK, then we would have to abolish democracy. But perhaps this isn't even so bad. Most people are too stupid to really make a good decicion or just do not care. Power should only for people who are fit for it. When we allow democracy then only for people who can really make reasonable decicions. This means, they are intelligent enough, have a talent for organization and ruling and are indoctrinated in such a way that they would never do anything to harm society or the nation. Why not make a world like in "Brave New World"? Wouldn't it be just perfect? It would function and everyone would be content and happy.

This might be veering off topic - if so, could a moderator please create a new thread for this? - but Darnoc's part-quoted post is one of the most horrifying I have come across on these forums.

 

I hardly know where to start - the inhumanity of this on the surface rational suggestion is repulsive. A Brave New World indeed - not of humans, but of automatons. A society of programmed robots. A vision of nightmare.

 

Humans do not cease to learn and develop when they leave school, or even when they select their career - humans keep on learning and developing, and growing as individuals throughout life. To decide on the basis of schooling alone which jobs a person will be suitable for denies this fundamental part of our humanity. It denies people the ability to make mistakes, and learn from then. It denies them the opportunity ever to fulfil their potential, to be all they can be.

How many people know at such a young age what they want to do in later life? And those who think they do - ask them again 50 years later, as to whether they were right. What about those who have dreams which are not matched by their abilities in their youth, but who persevere throughout life to fulfil their dreams - be it to create a work of art, or become a neuro-surgeon, or a computer programmer - would you deny them that?

Education should be as broadly based as possible, to give people an understanding of as many subjects as possible, to encourage them to think, to grow, to develop. It should not be merely focussed job training - how many people end up doing a job they had not even considered as a career while they were at school? And yet you would proscribe their future careers, their lives, for them on the basis of the grades they achieved in one subject or another?

Where does this leave space for the inventors, the innovators, the entrepreneurs - where does this leave space for the experiences which change us throughout life?

 

Let's say the only people your society allows into politics are those who excelled in political studies at school. Theoretically, they should be the best politicians a country could have. I don't think so - I think that without experience in other fields they would be appalling politicians. I'm sure their laws would be perfectly thought out in theory - yet completely unworkable in practice. Why? Because by allowing only career politicians into government who have never had another job, you create a cabal of people who have little or no experience of the lives or aspirations of the people they govern.

 

Of course - the people won't have any aspirations. After all, their lives are determined for them when they are teenagers. And as I recall - it's been a long time since I read Brave New World, so I apologize if my recall is not entirely accurate - the society portrayed therein functioned only while all those deprived of hope and aspiration were kept drugged on soma... Without that, your society would be one full of very unhappy people.

 

What happens if the quota of people showing an ability for a certain job exceeds the number of jobs availabe or economically sustainable? What happens to those who are then denied the job they would be best in?

 

Moreover - if the person you select to run the country is the most fit for the job, how can anyone argue with such a person? How can anyone point out to that person their mistakes - and everyone makes mistakes? After all, this person knows best - he/she is the supreme leader...

 

Oh yes....the brainwashing and indoctrination.. into what's best for society. The thing is - who decides what's best for society? The government? What if your government decided that it would be in the best interest of society to kill everyone at retirement age since they no longer contribute economically? What if such a government were to decide that a certain group in the population had to be eradicated by whatever means possible since they are 'enemies of the people'?

Precisely - any form of brainwashing and indoctrination paves a path to power for crazed dictators. Every society needs critical thought.

 

 

Back on topic...

 

I think lowering the voting age is a bad idea. I'm sure there are people out there who think they know it all at 12, or 15, or 17, or 21, or 35 or whatever - but who says that they are right? The only difference between the ages is that the older you are the longer you've had to become aware of the extent of your ignorance.

 

I tend to favour the approach that people should have to prove that they deserve the right to vote. That way, if your electorate was solely composed of people who can see right through the spin, and the staged photo-opportunities, and the soundbites, politicians will be elected on the strength of their policies, not their perceived charisma. Politicians will have to convince a politically aware electorate that they are fit to govern. And that electorate wil not be diverted by petty scandals, but will focus on what's important - and such an electorate, hopefully, would elect politicians which are fit to govern.

 

However...who then decides who is fit to vote? Who sets the criteria?

 

Democracy is flawed as it is currently, but it is the best system we have devised so far. Its future doesn't lie in brainwashing people, but in educating people's ability for critical thought.

[Pack Rat]

Democracy is flawed as it is currently, but it is the best system we have devised so far. Its future doesn't lie in brainwashing people, but in educating people's ability for critical thought.

Democracy is far what it used to be. Today more and mor epeople take abuse of democracy. I agree on the educating part however most people are being brainwashed while being educated. It's something that happens more often in a democracy.

 

Is democracy the best system? Yes and no?

I am for instance a marxist, I support a lot of the communist ideals altough I disagree on some total points. To have a good and equal society the communist ( I say the true communist system) is the best. The danger of communism is mankind itself. It's hunger for power and then you get situations and people like Stalin and the Stalinism.

[Darnoc]

Yes, this is exactly the problem. And this is why all power must be equally shared and everyone in possession of power must look that the others don't get more. Acctually, Hazad el Azaf, the former president of Syria, developed a very good system so that he could reign without trouble. He created about 7 secret services. Everyone of them watched over the other ones, because no Secret Service wanted the others to gain power. It was very efficent. Hazad reigned until he died of age some years ago. A similar system, but without a dictator on the top, must be adapted to a stable and secure state (meaning lasting for a long time and no one can get more power). Every council (no person alone should be allowed to have power; this means, no single guy at the top, like a president) must watch that the other councils don't gain more power. It's like the principle of stone, paper and scissors. The stone can crush the scissors, the scissors can cut the paper and the paper can wrap around the stone. So everyone can destroy the other one. In order that no such thing happens, no one makes a move. Stability. This is what they made in Europe after the defeat of Napoleon 1815. They gave every nation about equal power and so there were no wars for about 30 years in Europe (to be more accurate: Until the legendary year 1848 when revolutions occured almost everywhere in Europe).