|
Voting Age
Do you think the voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16?
There are many educated and politically interested 16 and 17 year olds. I think it's a bit unfair that they're unable to vote. Some of them are much more educated on the issues than many 18 year olds. Since they are the future of our society, shouldn't they get a say in what happens here? I'm curious as to why they shouldn't be allowed to vote, so all opinions are welcome. If you have a different idea for the voting age, that is welcome too. |
There was a recent members bill in Aotearoa, New Zealand which sought to lower our voting age to 16. Unfortunately it was defeated quite easily. I however think that in combination with increased civic and political education the lowering of the voting age could be quite a positive thing. Not only would it get people involved in the system at a younger age, but there are numerous policies which directly effect them.
|
Quote:
I don't even think 18 year olds should be voting. Mostly because the length of study it takes now days to get a job means that they're all living at home untill they're 25 on average, or geting support from home. The parents and workers supporting the economy are the ones that know what they're voting for to support the businesses that make the money circulate. Young children, no matter how capable or educated, the majority will vote for what benefits them now and in the near future. Not what will benefit their children in 10 years. and I'm not saying there aren't young 16 year old who are capable because I know there are, and i know a great many 25-30 year olds living off the governments money. But that's my opinion on the subject.... |
I don't know many 16 year olds on welfare and I don't even see how that would be relevant. Also, most people at that age I've met did have jobs and took care of themselves pretty well. I, myself, have been on my own since I was 16. From the sound of your argument, it sounds like only people with jobs should be able to vote. Tell me if I'm misunderstanding please. Your argument just has me a little confused. I'm a stay at home mom who doesn't work, does that mean I shouldn't have a say on the laws that are passed that could affect myself and my child?
|
Not people with jobs, people who have experience and knowledge about the workings of the economy. Unfortunately the world is ruled by how much money is circulating at any given time. 16 year olds are the future yes, and they have every right to have a say. But i dont think they have the years to have gained the knowledge necessary to make a vote that will keep the support happening in 10 years to come.
The businesses keep everything afloat, they provide the jobs for people to work and the money in the communities to continue to circulate (given some of them are corrupt yes but the public has no control over that...) It's not that they shouldn't have a say. It's that, even by your comment, you want a say about the laws that you and your daughter live under, and that i totally agree with that. (kudos by the way to being a young mum, they dont get nearly enough credit and can often get a bad name, you stick by your guns!) Everyone should have the right to vote for new laws. But you don't get to vote for that... you vote for the government. The government chooses the laws for you, and what you need to vote for is not only a government who will make better laws, but will also have the money to get resourses to enforce them. Australia recently changed governments, the government we are under now supports workers. So the workers are getting more pay, there are move government subsidies. You'd think that would be great. But the business can't afford to employ anymore because of the rise in wages and lack of work... so less people have work. More people have to go on government money, and the government has sacrificed health care, and age care to cater for it, after promising that those are the things they would provide. My point isn't that they shouldn't have a say, it's that the system we are raised in doesn't show us the working of the world like it used too. You're in school for 12 years, uni a minimum of 2-3 after that. Then you get a job at the bottom of the ladder to start working up (usually) They don't really understand the workings of the world (I'm talking about the majority, and this is important because majority rules the vote) where as when my parents grew up, you left school at 14, were trained, worked hard, saw the world learned about how business worked, how laws effected the community. So it's not that they 'have' to be working or 'can't' have a say, it's that the type of mind frame they're in won't make the vote for the future generation. It will focus on the best interest for their generation, as they are so young. (again, i speak about the majority) |
@Kyatto.chan-
Although according to public choice theory, your criticisms aimed at 16 year olds would be equally applicable to all voters. Also as someone who is double majoring in politics and social anthropology, I would assert that a great many people who can vote show an alarming lack of knowledge when it comes to politics. Which is ideally why I would couple the decrease in required age to 16 with increased level of education. I am also not seeing how your example of Australia adds to your argument, other than trying to express that a person who follows right wing ideology is more qualified to vote than someone who follows left wing ideology? |
Quote:
Also my comment about Australia was simply an example ^^ I know it doesn't always work that way, but in this case that is how the events planned out. That's not the voters fault~ |
Quote:
Again returning to Public Choice theory, it holds that the behaviour you describe as belonging to 16 year olds is in fact held by Most (if not all voters). Indeed it is commonly used to describe voters in New Zealand. Which would explain why so few voters opt for the Greens ;) (No prizes for guessing where my vote goes). Quote:
|
Quote:
Thank you very much for the informative and oped debate~ I'm glad that people in this community can have a discussion and not get personally offended and start dogging each other >_> |
Hell no I don't! xD
All the 16 year olds I know are batshit crazy and have the I.Q. of a tampon. D; Not old enough. Honestly, even though I'm 18 myself. I think it should be raised to 21. When people are a little more developed mentally. |
When I was in high school, it seemed like they were trying to shield us from the real world. Understandibly so, they want the students to focus on school work as much as possible. If they were to lower the voting age to 16, there should be a class in the sophomore and junior years that follows current political and economical circumstances and requires teens to discover and write reports on those circumstances using their own sources such as newspapers and television.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I have to agree with Red Death.
Firstly, voting is not a required, mandatory issue. If sixteen-seventeen year old teenagers are not interested enough into elections, politics, anything of the sorts, they would probably be too busy talking on their little Myspace pages. However, if children are informed they have the option of voting for a president, they of course might take up a large interest in such topics. They'll take up more interest in education, more students might just try to pass History classes. And at the time, they'll be in school, learning of the presidents. Learning of government. The information would still be fresh in their minds, and they'd be educated of systems like this, unlike an eighteen year old who has just, or is about to, graduate and leave school if they have not yet simply, dropped out. I think lowering the voting age is a great idea, and it should be considered. Not all children are children, and not all teenagers are party-goers. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Although it is interesting to note that Austria has their voting age set at 16 already. I would be most curious to know the perspective of someone from Austria, or failing that someone who has looked at the situation in Austria since the change in their voting age. Kyatto.chan makes the highly relevant point that voting policies will differ from country to country. There is not only the detail as to whether or not voting is mandatory, but also how proportional the electoral system is. |
Quote:
When a person turns twenty-one in the United States, and they are officially legal to drink, in spite of probably drinking beneath their age, whose to say being twenty-one makes them more responsible? Another few years to develop brain cells and some smarts, but like people have mentioned about eighteen year old teens not all being as informed as younger ones perhaps, why does government suddenly suspect that adults aren't going to go waste themselves the day they turn legal?Back to voting, you understand my point don't you? Not all eighteen year old teenagers are entirely informed of matters. But some are. Shouldn't seventeen/sixteen year old teenagers have some kind of say, in a place where it is legal, to sign some form of document allowing them to vote because they hold a political interest? Like a Driver's Permit... |
Quote:
Quote:
Otherwise we're stuck with horrible presidents and other various horrible politicians. |
Quote:
How do you think the intelligence of a person should be determined? Also wouldn't it make more sense then to do away with democracy completely and simply have those who are most intelligent leading the country? |
Quote:
"I admit, the perspectives of countries who already experience such change does provide a good case in point. An understanding of what things would be like."It would not be an exact understanding, for case and view point, it is not like enough data. And would it be moral, to compare one's country's electoral system to that of another and say what works? Really, like I mentioned two seconds ago in the other post, it would be nice if teenagers could be tested for some kind of permit. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, there are classes in high school all about politics. I know some schools have them as elective classes, I'm not sure if they're required anywhere though. According to you, someone needs intelligence and life experience to vote. Would you suggest some sort of intelligence test before being allowed to register for the voting? That seems a bit overkill to me. Everyone deserves an opinion, regardless of their "intelligence". |
Quote:
Don't look at me for saying that, I know the United States isn't in any condition to criticize another country... Who came up with this, "You will vote or you will pay!" slogan? |
Quote:
Because someone who doesn't know bull about the issue can't have a good argument to support their opinion on the issue. Quote:
Plus really, studying in Belgium, graduating, and working as a minister doesn't make you fit to be the His Majesty (Yes I'm attacking Rafael Correa). |
^ I get what you're saying, but if they did that it wouldn't be a choice of the majority.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:19 PM. |