Children Rights

[Hegel]

Should children be allowed to vote? Teens? I've wanted to vote since I was seven, but I still won't be able to for another three years. I have opinions on government, and its actions affect me, yet I have no voice in them at all. Far from universal sufferage...

[roger]

Off the top of my head, I'd say that until a person is fully participating in a society, they shouldn't have a vote. In the US, people under 18 are afforded certain protections (tried as a minor, cannot serve in military, limited work hours, free education, social services) and a corresponding restriction of freedom (can't live independently, etc). Given that special status, I don't think voting is a good idea.

With that said, I have known 16yo with well thought out political opinions, just as I have known 16yo who no longer needed the special protections and restrictions offered above. 18 is arbitrary, but probably a pretty good time to declare adulthood in our society.

[neutrino_cannon]

The 18 years of age voting (secured under what? the twenty seventh amendment?) is just another instance of the consistancy under which we consider someone to be an adult at 18.

While I doubt that we could have done a huge amount of damage to the system it seems hypocritical to extend voting rights to those who can't have a smoke before they make the critical choice. The drinking age needs to be lowered though, we can't disenfranchise the younger voters by denying them the right to get drunk before they vote.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
The 18 years of age voting (secured under what? the twenty seventh amendment?) is just another instance of the consistancy under which we consider someone to be an adult at 18.

While I doubt that we could have done a huge amount of damage to the system it seems hypocritical to extend voting rights to those who can't have a smoke before they make the critical choice. The drinking age needs to be lowered though, we can't disenfranchise the younger voters by denying them the right to get drunk before they vote.

Maybe EVERYTHING sould get lowered? Just a thought...

...or perhaps we should establish a king, get rid of laws, and go back to the good old subjective, precident based way of living.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


While I doubt that we could have done a huge amount of damage to the system it seems hypocritical to extend voting rights to those who can't have a smoke before they make the critical choice. The drinking age needs to be lowered though, we can't disenfranchise the younger voters by denying them the right to get drunk before they vote.

I dunno, as I get older and more unpleasant, I find my tolerance of the youthful thought process drops.

I am firmly for raising the driving ages in most states to 18. Only because I remember the absolute idiocy I and my friends got into driving around at sixteen. It seems wrong to impugn an entire demographic based on my actions but for hecks sake, we were some of the MORE responsible kids around, and it's purely by chance that no one got killed.

The honest truth is as far as I am personally concerned, I really don't trust the average American voter as far I can throw him, and I think I would trust younger voters even less.

I would honestly say RAISE the age to 21.

I voted at 18, I took it very seriously, particpated in local elections as well, and I still do. But I seriously doubt the majority of people between 16 and 21 would show such a level of responsible participation.

I mean what's really going to happen if you lower the voting age?

Even a smaller percentage of registered voters will turn out at the polls.

I do agree with the idea that people should experience all the parts of life in our society before they vote though. I'm actually for lowering th drinking age.

I figure. give people five years to get accustomed to drinking and all the risks and responsibilities that go with it before you give them the keys to a car.

Anyway, once you've got a handle on drinking, driving, living away from home, paying taxes, working for a living.....THEN you get to vote.

[Furious]

While I believe you can have a firm grasp of the issues and be a responsible voter before 18, it is not that common to care about politics. Among 18 to 24 years olds, the voter turn out is paltry.

The age 18 itself is actually arbitrary, but was based on the other factors listed above. I believe 18 was picked because that is the age in which your parents or legal guardian are no longer legally bound to care for you (though that might be a state by state thing since some states allow marriage before 18 without parental consent).

At any rate, you don't have to be 18 to campaign for those you want to elect, so if you are diligent, you would more than make up for your lack of a single vote. That's a weak substitute, but it is not like you can't make a difference.

[roger]

Originally posted by Andonyx
I am firmly for raising the driving ages in most states to 18. Only because I remember the absolute idiocy I and my friends got into driving around at sixteen. It seems wrong to impugn an entire demographic based on my actions but for hecks sake, we were some of the MORE responsible kids around, and it's purely by chance that no one got killed.

I was reminded during a recent visit to classmates.com of how many kids I knew who died due to stupid driving when I was in HS. Playing chicken and nobody was 'chicken', drunk driving, etc. It was pretty depressing. I didn't go to that large a high school either, graduating class was, I don't know, 180 or so.

[Furious]

I am firmly for raising the driving ages in most states to 18. Only because I remember the absolute idiocy I and my friends got into driving around at sixteen. It seems wrong to impugn an entire demographic based on my actions but for hecks sake, we were some of the MORE responsible kids around, and it's purely by chance that no one got killed.

While I agree there are some young idiots driving out there, there are also some conveniences lost. For the two years in high school where I could drive, I was the family member responsible for picking up and carting around my younger siblings (was a condition of being allowed access to a car). My folks HATED my first year of college when I wasn't around to do it anymore, but thankfully my sister then turned 16 the next summer.

It seems to me that unless you were paying for your own car at that age, your parents were idiots for letting you drive theirs. ;)

You might be surprised to know the legal age to drive a tractor in Minnesota is three. That seems hilariously low, but the thinking was that farmers who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a piece of machinery aren't exactly going to let junior cart around his date on a Saturday, even if the sexual attractiveness of a s**t covered red monstrosity that has a top speed of 35 m.p.h. does bring the babes in.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Furious
The age 18 itself is actually arbitrary, but was based on the other factors listed above. I believe 18 was picked because that is the age in which your parents or legal guardian are no longer legally bound to care for you (though that might be a state by state thing since some states allow marriage before 18 without parental consent).

Actually, it was picked because of the Vietnam draft. Up until then, the voting age was 21, but there was enough backlash to the idea of 18-year-olds not having any representation in the government they were being compelled to fight for to change it. The guy who pushed for it, Jennings Randolph, had actually been trying since the WWII draft.

After the 26th Amendment was ratified, you had weird things going on in anticipation of a flood of young voters, such as Nixon appearing on Laugh-In, but the demographics didn't really change too much.

Jeremy

[Furious]

Actually, it was picked because of the Vietnam draft. Up until then, the voting age was 21, but there was enough backlash to the idea of 18-year-olds not having any representation in the government they were being compelled to fight for to change it. The guy who pushed for it, Jennings Randolph, had actually been trying since the WWII draft.

Sorry I glossed over the 18 year old precedent because roger had covered it earlier with the certain protections that one is afforded through 18.

Did the draft create that precedent for 18? I'm honestly curious as to why 18 got picked for the whole bag of tried as minor, military service, free education etc. I assume one of them got chosen first and the others decided to just follow suit.

Sorry if this is basically a thread hijack, but I think it will help answer Hegel's questions about why pre-18s have their rights restricted if we understand why 18 was chosen for whatever reason. I suspect the draft, but would like to know for sure.

[Mr Manifesto]

I think voting should be optional for 16 and 17 year olds, and compulsary for 18 up.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I think voting should be optional for 16 and 17 year olds, and compulsary for 18 up.


I go with Thoreau who, I'm told, said that people have the right to disobey unjust laws.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

I think there should be a test before you get the right to vote activated. The test would show that you understand the basic functions of state and federal governments, allong with a grasp of the responsibilities of the elected offices of your state. You would have to show that you can name the holders of your state's elected offices, and what party they belong to. You would also have to show that you know the differences between the top five parties that have appeared on the ballots of your state in the last 20 years.

You can take the test any time after your 11th birthday, and passing grants you the right to vote for the next two years. You could re-apply at age 14, 16, and 18. If you still haven't passed, you get to vote at age 21 simply for being 21.

After 21, you are ridiculed at every election turnout until you get the special "I passed the test" stamp. Homeless people would be paid $30/hour to stand there and throw rotten vegetables and insults at persons who are over two decades old, yet still can't figure out what's going on in the world around them.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I think voting should be optional for 16 and 17 year olds, and compulsary for 18 up.

I've never understood compulsory voting. What do you gain from it? Are a bunch of apathetic and poorly informed voters really going to make it more likely that a decent person gets elected?

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist
I think there should be a test before you get the right to vote activated. The test would show that you understand the basic functions of state and federal governments, allong with a grasp of the responsibilities of the elected offices of your state. You would have to show that you can name the holders of your state's elected offices, and what party they belong to. You would also have to show that you know the differences between the top five parties that have appeared on the ballots of your state in the last 20 years.

The problem with testing people to vote is, who gets to write the test? What mechanisms are in place to make sure tests don't have the effect of disenfranchising some segment of the population?

What if the election in question has nothing to do with national or even state issues (e.g. county board, mayor, etc.)?

I'd like to see voting rights be determined by something other than age too, but I just can't think of a way to do it that doesn't create huge potential for abuse.

Jeremy

[ArmchairPhysicist]

I, personally, would create the test. Since, it's my own little fantasy world, I get to make the test. ;)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist
I, personally, would create the test. Since, it's my own little fantasy world, I get to make the test. ;)

Then who gets to pace around amongst the people taking the test, ominously smacking a ruler against the palm of his hand? Is that position still open?

Jeremy

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I think voting should be optional for 16 and 17 year olds, and compulsary for 18 up.


I disagree. I really, REALLY disagree. I mean, if someone is too lazy to get up and vote, what kind of person are they going to vote for? Leave this freedom intact.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist
I think there should be a test before you get the right to vote activated. The test would show that you understand the basic functions of state and federal governments, allong with a grasp of the responsibilities of the elected offices of your state. You would have to show that you can name the holders of your state's elected offices, and what party they belong to. You would also have to show that you know the differences between the top five parties that have appeared on the ballots of your state in the last 20 years.

You can take the test any time after your 11th birthday, and passing grants you the right to vote for the next two years. You could re-apply at age 14, 16, and 18. If you still haven't passed, you get to vote at age 21 simply for being 21.

After 21, you are ridiculed at every election turnout until you get the special "I passed the test" stamp. Homeless people would be paid $30/hour to stand there and throw rotten vegetables and insults at persons who are over two decades old, yet still can't figure out what's going on in the world around them.

This is close to how I feel. Sometimes, I even wonder if the right to vote should be abolished altogether. We could have rule by a meritocracy chosen by application and the passage of a special exam.

Seriously, is it really so great that the vast uninformed cadre of voters picks our elected representatives knowing virtually nothing about them or their platforms?

AS

[American]

Judging age seems unfair to me, in fact the trend has been people getting sued for age discrimination in recent years.

It also seems unfair because, sadly, not everyone will live the same length of time. I think it's awful that someone born to die young (due to diseaes) can't know the joys of all the various things you're legally allowed at certain ages.