Voting age

[inspire]

A lot of kids think they know more than they really do. I am one of those and if you are reading this then you most likely are too.

[Bane The Oracle]

18 is the perfect age to start voting. 16 would be okay, but most of those kids would just vote what ever their parents voted. And it would be useless. 18 Kids are eligible to start fighting in war, when everything really starts. That is a correct placed age. (Drinking age should also be 18 because they may fight for there country, but not be able to drink? what type of shit is that)

[Civilized Rebel]

I'm not joking.

If a person is too stupid to understand something, they shouldn't have a say in it.

If such a system took place, and if the majority of folks would fail such a test, who would be able to vote? PEOPLE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO RUN THINGS! INTELLIGENT PEOPLE! PEOPLE WHO BE KNOWING THE HALF!

Listen... lots of gun nuts out there are going to vote for Bush. Why? Because Bush is not for tougher gun laws. And Kerry is for tougher gun laws.

I feel such people should not be allowed to vote.

Simply put, the tougher gun laws Kerry wants do not actually harm gun nuts. All they do is make obtaining guns harder. And in the end... THEY SAVE LIVES! Fact is lots of folks get killed in gun accidents. There needs to be laws to protect such folks.

But nope... a large majority of people out there are basicly mass murdering the American people with their ignorance just so they can get a bullet to the brain of a deer sooner.

[OHm]

It cannot be reduced to sixteen because kids at that age don't give a rat's ass about politics. I'm 17 and I wish so bad that I could vote cuz I care, but many of my "peers" don't give a shit what-so-ever. If it was reduced to 16, the percentage of not voting people (worded badly) would be very high. It would kill politics all together.

[Dan Dare]

I'm not joking.

If a person is too stupid to understand something, they shouldn't have a say in it.

I agree with you on a basic level. However, I think that a test to 'qualify' for voting is unnecessarily extreme. I wish I had never bought it up, and I don't appreciate you persisting in entertaining the idea. Its just rediculous, and also impossible to fund or organise as an initiative.

All I tried to originally say was that there are plenty of 16 and 17 year olds who can understand politics at the same level as adults. I study politics at college, and I'm 17. Most of my fellow students are only 16. If I and others younger than I can take exams in the subject why can we not participate in a vote? And if I can be taxed then why can I not have a say in the way that fiscal policy is decided? I also hold a part-time job. Over the last two months I have payed over £80 (about $130) in income tax to the government. I have no problem with having to lose this money, but I would like to have a say in what they are likely to be spending this money on. Is it going into my schooling, or are they spending it on invading Iraq? Why should I not have my say?

If such a system took place, and if the majority of folks would fail such a test, who would be able to vote? PEOPLE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO RUN THINGS! INTELLIGENT PEOPLE! PEOPLE WHO BE KNOWING THE HALF!

What exactly IS the 'half' in any subject? Your word? Do you think YOU'RE intelligent enough? If only a small amount of people were to pass this test, then it would cause serious social problems; people 'intelligent' enough would effectively be a ruling class an those who are not so would effectively be enslaved. I could elaborate on this, but I don't think I will for now.

Listen... lots of gun nuts out there are going to vote for Bush. Why? Because Bush is not for tougher gun laws. And Kerry is for tougher gun laws.

I feel such people should not be allowed to vote.

Simply put, the tougher gun laws Kerry wants do not actually harm gun nuts. All they do is make obtaining guns harder. And in the end... THEY SAVE LIVES! Fact is lots of folks get killed in gun accidents. There needs to be laws to protect such folks.

Again, I agree with you, but only on a very basic level. I agree that there should be tougher gun laws in America, its quite disgusting that people are just allowed to roam around with weapons the way that they are there. Kids killing kids and such. In Britain we are fortunate enough to have much lower possession of firearms, and therefore a much lower murder rate than in America.

However, it is wrong to just TELL these people that they are wrong and discount them from the electoral process. It is not democracy. If you go in this direction, then you start heading towards some form of a communist dictatorship. And history has of course shown that this just does not work. Like the pigs on Orwell's Animal Farm, the top people in the state will take advantange of the more unfortunate amongst them, and use the advantage they are given in order to monopolise.

But nope... a large majority of people out there are basicly mass murdering the American people with their ignorance just so they can get a bullet to the brain of a deer sooner.

Agreed. But again, these people have to have as much right to hold this kind of ignorant view than you or I have to hold our own 'enlightened' views.
.
.
.
.
I say 'have to have,' because the fact is that my opinion on anything don't mean shit the way things are. The ignorant, moronic, bigoted people of this world have this right and I do not. That is where we agree. But, unlike you, I don't believe that testing people's 'competence' is the right way to go about it.........But, what is?

Thats really the question that I would like answered. Does anybody have anything new to say?

[Richard Parker]

the answer - if kids that age were allowed to vote, funding for schools would automatically become an issue. Politicians don't want to deal with that .

[Dan Dare]

^word. the more I come to understand politics the more I realise that they don't really want to 'deal' with anything.

[Civilized Rebel]

For the record, I've entertained such an idea long before this thread came about. If that eases you any.

I think... that with such a system in place, it would encourage people to become smarter.

Think of it this way. Do you really want someone who knows NOTHING about cars to be driving on the freeway? They should have at least SOME level of education.

Obviously (And unfortunetly) it would create a ruling class of elite. But on the plus side, they'd at least know whats best for us. And moreover, it doesn't have to be that way. Anyone can join such a ruling class, assuming they are capable.

And "You don't know the half" is just a phrase. Basicly means "There is more going on here than you know, you don't even know the half of what is going on."

It's similiar to "Kick your butt" could involve no kicking whatsoever.

[Dan Dare]

For the record, I've entertained such an idea long before this thread came about. If that eases you any.

Great. Its eases my mind that you've always been an extremist who wants to instigate a totalitarian state...muppet.

I think... that with such a system in place, it would encourage people to become smarter.

No, it wouldnt. People are already apathetic so they wouldn't even understand the point of learning about politics, even if such a system were to exist. People are stupid you said. Remember saying that? Well you were right.

Think of it this way. Do you really want someone who knows NOTHING about cars to be driving on the freeway? They should have at least SOME level of education.

They do. People learn to drive, then take their test. If they pass, they're allowed to drive from then on. Perfect system. No fascism there. As previously discussed, driving & politics = 2 different things. I don't really see your point.

Obviously (And unfortunetly) it would create a ruling class of elite. But on the plus side, they'd at least know whats best for us. And moreover, it doesn't have to be that way. Anyone can join such a ruling class, assuming they are capable.

I'm glad you think it's so unfortunate. But seeing as DICTATOR you've just IMPOSED this regime on people perhaps it really has very little to do with people's misfortune. Perhaps you just imposed it on them.

lmao @ 'they'd know whats best for us.' They'd know whats best for THEMSELVES more likely!

And "You don't know the half" is just a phrase. Basicly means "There is more going on here than you know, you don't even know the half of what is going on."

It's similiar to "Kick your butt" could involve no kicking whatsoever.

Lmao. was that bit about 'kicking butt' some kind of subliminal diss or something?

Of course I know that 'knowing the half' is a figure of speech. But it seemed to me to be quite important in the context of what was being said. I was merely examining the denotation of the phrase, in order to make my point.

[Civilized Rebel]

Wow. Way to either take what I said out of context, or not understand it entirely.

Great. Its eases my mind that you've always been an extremist who wants to instigate a totalitarian state...muppet.

To be a 'muppet' (Part mop, part puppet.) I'd have to be controlled by someone. I'm not being controlled as far as I know. I have hypothesized that flu injections carry nanites that dig into the brain and control it's brain waves ever so slightly. Forcing a song to pop into my head and distract me right when I'm about to figure out the secrets of the universe. But I've since attributed it to the fact that the media is controlled by the government to insert catchy pop songs into everyone's brains to prevent them from constructivley thinking.

Also, I do believe that a totalitarian state theoreticly is possible and positive in existence. But it all depends on who's running it. Unfortunetly, folks that tend to get to such a power tend not to be the nicest of folks.

I've since stopped listening to the radio, and am no longer controlled.

No, it wouldnt. People are already apathetic so they wouldn't even understand the point of learning about politics, even if such a system were to exist. People are stupid you said. Remember saying that? Well you were right.

They do. People learn to drive, then take their test. If they pass, they're allowed to drive from then on. Perfect system. No fascism there. As previously discussed, driving & politics = 2 different things. I don't really see your point.

It's competition. This is how the country is ran. One person is in a better position than another. And with enough hard work, the other person can reach that point if their good enough. This is why they have honor rolls and valedictorians in schools. Because by giving recognition to students who do well, other students will also want to do well.

Of course, this results in kids who know they won't do well into not doing well. And some of those kids eventually wisen up and get their education. They may be stupid but they're not dumb. They realize that there is a minimum to existence, and they'd best reach that bar. Once you end up having to earn the right to vote, they'll want to on the basis that it's the minimum. And for those kids who do bad, choose to do bad, and don't straighten up and fly right... they won't vote anyway.

And driving and politics, in this analogy, are not very different. You want to drive? Get a liscence. Do you see folks without liscences on the road? Well... yeah actually. But if they get caught, they in for a world of hurt. And even then, they might not have a liscence but they'll know how to drive. Just as in this case, a person should know enough about politics to be able to handle it.

People learn to drive, then take their test. If they pass, they're allowed to drive from then on. Perfect system. No fascism there.

People learn the issues of politics, then take their test. If they pass, they're allowed to vote from then on. Perfect system. No fascism there.

I'm glad you think it's so unfortunate. But seeing as DICTATOR you've just IMPOSED this regime on people perhaps it really has very little to do with people's misfortune. Perhaps you just imposed it on them.

Such a system would not be imposed by me. I am clearly not a dictator. And in case you haven't realized, shit like that happens. Ever notice how compulsory the school system is? Voting should be to, actually.

lmao @ 'they'd know whats best for us.' They'd know whats best for THEMSELVES more likely!

If you think folks are voting for shit for what is best for themselves, earn yourself the right to vote and balance shit out. But at least they'll know what their talking about.

Lmao. was that bit about 'kicking butt' some kind of subliminal diss or something?

Of course I know that 'knowing the half' is a figure of speech. But it seemed to me to be quite important in the context of what was being said. I was merely examining the denotation of the phrase, in order to make my point.

The "kicking butt" part was from the Simpsons.

[Dan Dare]

To be a 'muppet' (Part mop, part puppet.) I'd have to be controlled by someone. I'm not being controlled as far as I know. I have hypothesized that flu injections carry nanites that dig into the brain and control it's brain waves ever so slightly. Forcing a song to pop into my head and distract me right when I'm about to figure out the secrets of the universe. But I've since attributed it to the fact that the media is controlled by the government to insert catchy pop songs into everyone's brains to prevent them from constructivley thinking.

You are a puppet, my friend; a puppet to your own stupidity, i'm afraid to say. I'm glad that you don't listen to the radio though, the radio sucks. But you still have little to no chance of ever 'figuring out the secrets of the universe.' lol.

Let's just agree to disagree though, shall we? You have your thoughts, I have mine. Neither of us is going to shift.

[Civilized Rebel]

I do not understand how, when demonstrating that I'm clearly under no control, that I am a puppet?

And why do you assume I am incapable of figuring out the secrets of the universe? How do you know I haven't already?

I'm only a puppet to my own ego. Luckily I have facts to back me up in most any argument. In this argument, I have logic.

You say neither of us are going to shift, but that is admitting that you are being controlled by your own ego and you know you're going to lose. I myself can very easily shift should you provide a decent argument. I have done so before, which proves I am able to take control of my ego, rather than the other way around.

May I repeat myself? Thank you?

"People learn to drive, then take their test. If they pass, they're allowed to drive from then on. Perfect system. No fascism there.

People learn the issues of politics, then take their test. If they pass, they're allowed to vote from then on. Perfect system. No fascism there."

Now, prove you are not a slave to your ego and admit that such a system would work.

[Bounce]

Lowering the voting age would be a huge mistake. I think the age is low enough and wouldn't complain if it was raised either. There is no reason for me to get involved with the current arguement in here, since I feel it's useless. Sixteen year olds in general do not have the life experience to cast an informed vote. Now I know many adults fall into the same catagory, but why help the problem along. Educationis key, so I suggest you kids pay attention in school, and pick up more than one news paper and tune into mor ethan one network broadcast!

[The-Heir]

let me tell you why the voting age is 18. well because a 16year old doesnt know the real world yet. most likely they still live off of their parents and arent exactly directly affected by many of the issues. this is true of some 18 year olds but i dont see how someone 16 years old could really make a sound judgement on who to vote for. i know their are a few out there that know their stuff but for the most parts 16year olds are mature enough to vote.

p.s il be voting for kerry this election.