What do you think about lowering voting age?

Post Reply New Topic

You've been here a matter of hours; maybe picking a fight in the politics section, then resorting to finger-waving scolding isn't the best way to introduce yourself to the board.

Also, though imperfect, age is a good proxy for experience, especially as any kind of civics test can be easily gamed for political purposes by whoever gets to pick what is considered necessary knowledge.

This could be a problem. Some sort of independent committee comprised of an equal spread of ideological leanings would probably be the best way of regulating such a test, though I'd need much more time to think about the logistics of organising it. Still, even a flawed implementation of this idea would allow greater access to democracy than our current system.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/mili ... /84132402/

Trump is by far the preferred candidate over Hillary Clinton

Ron Paul was the preferred candidate in 2008 and 2012

I see some derailed my thread about voting age, i supposed to be thread about voting age civic knowledge among young generation, but now everyone talking about Donald Trump

As for me Trump look as someone who did not pay very much about political correctness, and i think it's positive among politician, speaking about subjects that no one willing to listen, even if it's true.
I'm right-wingers but i'm not hardliner, During the last elections to the Sejm and the Senate in Poland I voted for the Party of Kukiz'15 because they promised that destroy particracy in Poland, By changing the electoral law in Poland, through the introduction of single-member constituencies, and the change of proportional representation, on the the majority representation.

Given that democrats classify voter ID laws as discriminatory, having to prove even a modicum of knowledge would never pass muster with them. Their ranks would be decimated. Interesting that such a test would not be unconstitutional, however, the Founders could never have imagined such an uninformed populace as we have today, otherwise they surely would have included such a clause.

Obviously, at the time the Constitution was framed, "men" were defined by custom as educated, wealthy, land-owning, Christian males of Northern European descent (re: "All men are created equal"), and only men could vote. The framers of the Constitution never imagined that ignorant people, poor people, non-Christians, renters, women, Asians, Africans, and people of other nationalities would eventually be granted the right to vote. Now, anyone who can point to his or her name on a list can vote.

Remember, the majority of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners who believed that their financial and social status were parts of their "Manifest Destiny", and that God had blessed them with the "inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Everyone else was just field labor, canon fodder, and breeding stock.

From the cited article ...Okay, let's break this down and do the numbers.

The Military Times interviewed only 951 military members out of a total of 1,301,300 active-duty members and 811,000 reserve-duty members, for a total of 2,112,300 military members. That's 0.54 x (100% x (951 / 2,112,300)) = 0.0243%

Do you really expect any intelligent person to believe that less than one-quarter of one-tenth of one percent of a population is a significant number? Well sir, there's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics. This is definitely an exaggeration of a statistic, intended to mis-inform and mis-lead the general public.

I think you are well aware of how sampling and polling work fnord

I like most military vets that I have met, I've found them to be the easiest people to get along and work with at school

No where in democratic principles does it suggest that you need to understand civil issues or politics, it just states that citizens are entitled to vote, with the addition of some caveats. One of those is age, in the uk you are an adult at 18 and since adults are allowed to vote and note children that is the cut off. I personally think it could easily be 16. No argument based on ability or suitability works as you then stop having a democracy as the ruling elite decide who can and cannot vote. Either way money is the deciding factor in voting in most countries and defiantly in the US. So yes lower the age of voting to 16 and cap election spending to a reasonable level with no corporate financing at the same time.

I am, which is why I question the validity of any conclusion that was derived from such a small sample. The margin of error alone is much greater than the sample size itself.

If you lower it to 16 then you are basically giving their parent's a second vote, it's insane idea only supported by the people that think they'd benefit politically.

You must dislike all polling period then which is fine and understandable considering how often they are wrong, that is a pretty standard size however but it doesn't seem like they did sampling but rather just counted who responded. Do you think Hillary is widely popular with the military?

If you lower it to 16 then you are basically giving their parent's a second vote, it's insane idea only supported by the people that think they'd benefit politically.[/quote]

I guess that depends on whether you live in a society that teaches people to think for themselves, I like to think that most 16 year olds in the uk are encouraged to think for themselves and cultivate their own opinions. where as some states in the US actively manipulate the education system to ensure children are taught that which promotes their views. What might children think if they heard the truth?

As to only those who stand to gain politically wanting to lower the age, it is important to take into account that I am from the uk. I am consider to have views to the right of centre and the younger generation are more likely to have views further to the left much as is the case in the US. However my views would make me extremely liberal in the US. There is no way a republican would get elected here, Trump would be lucky to not end up in jail. The media doesn't let politicians get away with flat out lying and the thought any of our main political parties being elected does not fill me with dread. Even if I do have a strongly held preference. I trust our education system and the predominant view of freedom of choice and being given the tools to do that to not fear the opinion of a 16 or 17 year old. They not daft and may even be more savvy than some 30 or 40 year olds. If change is scary or your a republican you should not want the voting age decreased. It would make an already deteriorating situation worse I suspect.

IMO, the voting age should be the decision of each state, not a federal decision.

Not all countries are federal States, such as the US, Germany and Russia.

Besides if the country is a federal state, such as, for example, the United States, the federation may set age limits for the federal legislature, such Congress and the US Senate, and the individual members of the federation can gave s**t (in theory) about it But this should also work in reverse

Why assume the electorate are automatically clued up when they reach a certain age? That notion is laughable.

There has to be an age, but the argument for raising it doesn't make much sense becuase I don't think people become more "sensible" necessarily.

The whole notion of being "sensible", is itself tied to party politicking. The point is to be representative, sensible or not.

It is bit like Jury Duty. You can't assume people understand the role that well, but you can't prevent them being called up unless it is clear they are not fit.

What needs to happen is in schools for people to be taught about due process and the role of the jury, vs. mob justice.

Similarly they need to be taught about the role of government, how to political system actually works.

There are plenty of older people that don't understand either. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if there are children who are better informed than their parents.

I do however think those politician who argue in favour of a position on this, tend to do so becuase the believe they would gain from it (or lose out otherwise).