It shouldn't be age-based at all, you should have to pass a voter-aptitude test which ensures you have sufficient knowledge of relevant issues and decent reasoning skills.

Generalities based on age are no better than generalities based on race or gender. They're an insult to the human condition, completely incompatible with any notion of civilization.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It shouldn't be age-based at all, you should have to pass a voter-aptitude test which ensures you have sufficient knowledge of relevant issues and decent reasoning skills. Generalities based on age are no better than generalities based on race or gender. They're an insult to the human condition, completely incompatible with any notion of civilization.

it shouldn't be age based, you're right, but ideally shouldn't voting be open to ALL citizens regardless of knowledge, and "decent reasoning skills"?

i'm all for your idea, i think it's excellent. but isn't it also undemocratic to exclude certain people based on some arbitrary definition of "decent reasoning skills"? and what would classify as relevant issues? what's important to me may not be important to you...

here's an interesting report on voter apathy in canada:
http://www.elections.ca/loi/tur/tud/TurnoutDecline.pdf

i haven't read it all yet, but i will, =P.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by mr. poopyhead it shouldn't be age based, you're right, but ideally shouldn't voting be open to ALL citizens regardless of knowledge, and "decent reasoning skills"? i'm all for your idea, i think it's excellent. but isn't it also undemocratic to exclude certain people based on some arbitrary definition of "decent reasoning skills"? and what would classify as relevant issues? what's important to me may not be important to you... here's an interesting report on voter apathy in canada: http://www.elections.ca/loi/tur/tud/TurnoutDecline.pdf i haven't read it all yet, but i will, =P.

It is not undemocratic to exclude people based on their reasoning skills. Not more undemocratic than having a voting age at least. Every normal person has the ability to learn enough to become a voter. And if a person is really unable to learn/understand how the world works, then of course that person shouldn't be allowed to vote. A retarded person shouldn't be allowed to have an influence on situations it doesn't understand. Relevant issues would be general knowledge of local and world politics and economy. It shouldn't be a very strict test, but enough to make those people who have no idea what the world's really like unable to vote.

___________________
1+1=10

very nice points everyone! good that theres no flaming hehe

well anyway, i also oppose lowering the voting age. and no, i dont take any offense to the fact that i am 16 or anything.

oh and to add to the discussion, i took a more legal/constitutional perspective to this. not to say that the points u guys are wrong or anything...just a different stance.

so, we look at the us constitution...many of the amendments relate to suffrage of some kinds...same with US history. so, groups of people who were "voting-opressed" (for lack of a better term), and how they were solved.

people who werent wealthy white landowners- fixed by the whole notion of jacksonian democracy.

women (although i think we should repeal this : jp )- constitutional amendment

blacks- constitutional amendment

18 year olds- suffered from the vietnam "symbolic opression" thing...imo 18 year olds sholdnt vote, but they at least had some sort of an argument..- fixed by constitutional amendment

anyway

1) sounds trent lottian, but shifting the votes to 16 year olds would obviously require some sort of constitutional amendment. people who have taken US history, you know how difficult this is. i just feel that government shouldnt waste time on something as dumb as this, esp with war in iraq, budget deficits, and stuff like that.

2) i see no reason why 16 year olds have a big reason to vote/ amend the constitution. obciously, blacks argue on the basis of race, and women argue on the basis of sex quality. the vietnam boys at least had some sort of an argument. but theres no really dominant point on why 16 year olds should deserve extended suffrage imv...which leads to point 3

3) by giving 16 year olds the vote now, imv, it creates a pretty dangerous constitutional precedent. as i said before, theres no really overriding reason why they shold be given the vote anyway. but if they were...20 years from now, could 14 year olds be able to vote? yeah, we all no theres no reason in hell why aaplz and his 14 year old goons should be given suffrage, but they can persuasively argue that because 16 year olds also have no reason to vote, and were given the ability to do so, a 14 year old should too. of course, this argument is dead when someone mentions why a 16 year old should vote, but its not clear right now

so anyway, good points people, and please also look at my stance

~4

___________________

WHAT?

A non-Iraq thread????

Get out of here!!!!!!!!

Age is nothing more than a number. Lets face it there are some 12 year olds more responsible than some 18 year olds. Age however is the only real way to quintify maturity though because any form of test is subjective at best. So I think 18 is fine, though sometimes I wonder if voting rights should be taken away from some people(maybe sex offenders, people with multiple felonys, other random stuff)

quote:

So I think 18 is fine, though sometimes I wonder if voting rights should be taken away from some people(maybe sex offenders, people with multiple felonys, other random stuff)

I agree, those people shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I agree, those people shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

US law:
All felony convictions lead to the loss of voting rights. This means even if these persons serve their time in the county jail, part of their sentence under home monitoring, or on parole, they still may not vote until their rights are restored by the courts.