Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaxTheFox]

Voting isn't about smarts, or emotions, or trust, or ability.  It's about representation.  Think about that.

Yes and children younger than 16 at the absolute least (I prefer 18) should not have representation. They are not full citizens. Not within their schools even, as the majority will choose to soften education.

If you don't engage people in meaningful politics while they are young, they think its bullshit and let the Bad People into government because they just don't know or care enough to fix it.

This would be true, if engaging them in politics, especially regarding education, wasn't actively harmful.

Let's go the other way....
Should the voting age be increased?
Should voting be restricted to those who pass a test?

No, and no. I want it to stay the same. It is a strawman if you think I want less representation than now. But I know enough 12-year-olds and remember my time as one clearly enough that I really wouldn't trust them to have a single peep in running a country or even their school.

[martinuzz]

Kids, voting rights? Please no. In these times of populist parties and social media, they'd vote for Hitler if he managed to make the coolest looking instagram page.

[LordBaal]

Kids, voting rights? Please no. In these times of populist parties and social media, they'd vote for Hitler if he managed to make the coolest looking instagram page.

This.
"Look, Mao does the best tik-toks and is a pro on Overwatch, how bad can it be?"

[MaxTheFox]

I'd begrudgingly accept 16, plenty of 16-year-olds I met are reasonable and mature people. I'd outright riot to have the "reform" undone if it was changed to 12.

[Loud Whispers]

Kids, voting rights? Please no. In these times of populist parties and social media, they'd vote for Hitler if he managed to make the coolest looking instagram page.

lmao let's vote in facism ironically

[TD1]

Oh God no.

Representation is an important part of democracy, but not its raison d'etre. It's about the very serious business of running a country. There are very few clear-cut cases in which you can argue that someone lacks the agency and forethought required to participate in that business. But being in their minority - a child/early-to-mid teen - is one of them.

[Mathel]

I'd say lower, really. At least as low as whatever age your country's willing to try someone as an adult in a court of law (which stateside would be, like... twelve or something, maybe lower, ha) or allow them to emancipate or drive or whatever.

I agree with this one. Anyone considered mature enough to be legaly responsible should be also considered mature enough to vote.
That being said, it only combines two problems into one.
"What is the age at which one should be considered mature enough?"

I'd say 16 might be about the lower bound, 25 the upper bound. The exact age I am not sure of and it might even differ between countries.

[LordBaal]

A psicological and critial thinking test should be required first, regardless of age. Too many gulliable morons out there voting jackasses on offices and it shows on the current state of the world.

[MaxTheFox]

A psicological and critial thinking test should be required first, regardless of age. Too many gulliable morons out there voting jackasses on offices and it shows on the current state of the world.

Too susceptible to rigging IMO.

[hector13]

Y’all are talking like people over the age of 16 cannot possibly be complete buffoons.

[Mathel]

If there is a test, then who sets the questions? Who decides which answers are correct?

I agree that there are many stupid voters. But such test could also be used to remove anyone who disagrees with whoever sets the questions. At which point it only takes one fool who somehow snuck through to cause only fools or cheaters to pass.

Fakeedit:
Sure, anyone can be a fool. And preteens can be wise. But since we for some reason consor important stuff from children, children usually do not have enough knowledge to for informed decisions. And teenagers are in puberty, causing them to think less clearly.

[MaxTheFox]

Y’all are talking like people over the age of 16 cannot possibly be complete buffoons.

They can be but it's a lesser proportion. There probably are some mature 12-year-olds (a grand total of three!) too.

[hector13]

Y’all are talking like people over the age of 16 cannot possibly be complete buffoons.

They can be but it's a lesser proportion. There probably are some mature 12-year-olds (a grand total of three!) too.

There are fewer under-16s than over-16s, so that still amounts to significantly more buffoonish “adults” than childish children :p /pedantry

It would at least open the door to education on political systems and how they work in the leadup to elections, which I don’t ever recall happening when I was at school.

If there is a test, then who sets the questions? Who decides which answers are correct?

I agree that there are many stupid voters. But such test could also be used to remove anyone who disagrees with whoever sets the questions. At which point it only takes one fool who somehow snuck through to cause only fools or cheaters to pass.

Fakeedit:
Sure, anyone can be a fool. And preteens can be wise. But since we for some reason consor important stuff from children, children usually do not have enough knowledge to for informed decisions. And teenagers are in puberty, causing them to think less clearly.

Adults have legal access to drugs and chemicals that alter the way they think so they can’t be trusted either!

Puberty can also last into the 20s, plus it can vary when you go through it, so that’s not a great argument against earlier access to voting.

Further, adults often don’t fully inform themselves of the situation or the choices they may have prior to when they vote either, and folks in school will probably be better equipped to actually find and consider information about elections because that’s what they (should!) be doing every day in school.

As an aside, I’m also against what looks like means testing for voting. They did that in the American South to stop black people voting, and given how politics today seems to be polarizing groups moving further and further apart everywhere, it would just be used as a means to disenfranchise the Them to the Us of whomsoever is giving the test.

[MaxTheFox]

It would at least open the door to education on political systems and how they work in the leadup to elections, which I don’t ever recall happening when I was at school.

That can be done independently. Most adults can be responsible enough to vote responsibly, with those that aren't being pretty negligible realistically speaking. It's a matter of educating them.

Kids can't. Their judgement is biologically clouded. It doesn't matter how well you educate them, most only care how good the politician's Instagram is.

Also your drug argument falls apart because most people aren't constantly high so unless you go to vote while high I don't see how that is relevant.

What's like a first world problem but in the first world? There are bigger issues for you guys than squeakers not being able to vote because muh representation.

[LordBaal]

If there is a test, then who sets the questions? Who decides which answers are correct?

That is why a self programming AI needs to do it. Then it determinates that democracy wont work with humans and exterminate all of us. Problem solved!