Voting age.

[the tree]

At what age should people be given the right to participate in democratic elections?

[YT2095]

the same age they can go to war to fight for their country.

[Pangloss]

Right in one.

 

I have heard some fairly persuasive arguments for allowing people to vote at a younger age. They're usually washed out by points about parental control and popular entertainment bias. There's an argument to be made that adults aren't much better at making the choices either, but that's a two wrongs argument and therefore flawed.

[Dak]

when the country dumps upon them the responsabilitis of an adult (e.g., they have to pay taxes as an adult, get charged with crimes they commit as an adult, etc) then it should also allow them to vote as one.

 

otherwize, you have the responsabilities of a full member of society, without the privellages, which is a tad unfair.

[jackson33]

16-18-21 are guide lines for society to as a whole to judge maturity to do certain legal things. there are limits on the other or elderly end as well. the problem is people do not mature or age as others with in the society.

 

as for actually voting, take your age down to ten and you will simply add to the parent or parents vote. even later this is true and in many cases this goes on through a life time.

[JohnF]

I vote for at whatever age they have to pay tax or you only have to pay tax if you can vote.

[Pangloss]

Would that include sales tax?

[geoguy]

Every culture and society has diffent norms. Here in Canada a voting age of 16 or 17 might be beneficial. We only have 65% or so turnout in provincial and federal elections. Allowing students in the final couple years of high school in participate fully in an election might set interest in the political system for their adult lives. Our local high school made provisions last year for the 18 year olds in high school to vote in our Federal election if they wanted to. It would have been a positive if most if not all high school students could have voted.

 

Re voting and the age of armed service. Canada and I believe most of the Commonwealth has provisions for all armed service individuals to vote regardless of age. The youngest voters in the Commonwealth were the active duty 'boy soldiers' of the Navy. 17 year olds in the Reserve forces, if called up to active service, can vote...however, since WW2 active service members have all been at least 18 years (the same age as the vote).

[ParanoiA]

I don't like the idea of 16 year olds voting. In theory, they've only received half of their high school education - half of history - half of economics - just half of the story. I'm not even sure I like 18 year olds voting.

 

Voting is one of those things that bugs me about americans. They can't wait to exercise their right to vote - but they almost never exercise their right to know what they're voting about. They just get all passionate about it because Rage Against the Machine says the Bush administration is bad...

 

I think that's why I like Sortition to draft candidates. But then I also like direct democracy, for a psuedo-veto kind of relationship. I guess I'm doomed either way...

[Sisyphus]

Americans can't wait to exercise their right to vote? Why do we have such ridiculously low turnout, then?

[waitforufo]

Should there also be an age when you stop voting? Say 65? An important question for young people today. Think 10 years from now when most of the voters are retired people wanting more government benefits but no longer paying significant taxes.

 

In the US, the original concept was to only let contributing heads of households vote. A person was considered a contributing member of society if they owned land, had a profession (e.g. doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) or was a member of a workers guild. This test excluded many people. First and foremost all women were excluded. But this concept also excluded most laborers and most of the poor.

 

Those then in favor of such a concept would argue that members of a household would not nullify each others votes. The idea was that household members would discuss things between themselves and the head of household would vote their collective will. This would produce democracy at the family level, if you will. In this way, those who did not meet the contributing head of household test would have a vote within a household.

 

Our present system is better in that functioning households do indeed discuss things and then, in the main, vote as a block. On the other hand, dysfunctional households vote in an uncoordinated way thereby reducing their impact.

 

Today and tomorrows elderly however create a demographic unknown in US history. Never has there been a group of people so large and so dependent on the government. They also vote in large numbers.

[Pangloss]

Americans can't wait to exercise their right to vote? Why do we have such ridiculously low turnout, then?

 

He should have said "in the presidential election", which is what he was talking about in terms of young people exercising their vote. Presidential election turnout has been pretty high of late, and I believe something like 120 million votes were cast in the 2004 election. (Still a far cry from France's turnout in terms of percentage, I believe.)

 

It is pretty pathetic that turnouts are so low in non-presidential elections, and that voter apathy is so bad that most people go to the poll not knowing the first thing about the vast majority of the candidates on the ballot. The walk into the booth where they discover precisely three things about each candidate: Their name, their party affiliation, and whether they are an incumbent (the last piece of information maybe not even meaning anything to them, not having access to the Wikipedia at that exact moment). They read those three pieces of information and then cast their vote and walk away, not even bothering to remember how they voted over the ensuing years.

 

It's almost worth lowering the voting age just to get some fresh faces in there and see if they can do something about it.

[Pangloss]

Should there also be an age when you stop voting?

 

How about they lose the franchise the moment they join the AARP? (grin)

[ParanoiA]

Americans can't wait to exercise their right to vote? Why do we have such ridiculously low turnout, then?

 

I doubt that's freshly indoctrinated 18 year olds. They're all out "Rocking the Vote, man..." Another campaign to swindle those who don't care and don't pay attention, to vote "blind" per the local rock station.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced every properly seasoned person with a pulse should be allowed to vote. I have no alternative, just concern.

[waitforufo]

How about they lose the franchise the moment they join the AARP? (grin)

 

I'm grinning too.

 

I think most people that don't vote, don't do so because they know they are not informed. This is particularlly true for most young adults. They just hope that mom and dad are thinking about them when they vote.

 

There have been some that suggest that "None of the above" or "I choose not to vote" should be included as an option for each item on the ballot. Some would use this as a protest. I think most others would use such an option to admit they don't have a clue. I know when it comes to voting for judges I often feel like I have no idea which candidate to choose. No mater how much I look for information on judges there doesn't seem to be any meaningful data. They claim that providing useful information would mean the potential or sitting judge is or would not be impartial. Some help that is to a voter.

 

By the way, I think most people in the US vote either R or D for the same reason they root for the Rangers or the Seahawks (baseball). Many have little idea what the parties represent.

[the tree]

There have been some that suggest that "None of the above" or "I choose not to vote" should be included as an option for each item on the ballot. Some would use this as a protest. I think most others would use such an option to admit they don't have a clue.

We have that over here, but there's no box for it, we just call it spoiling the ballot when you go to vote but do anything other than put a cross in the box. It affects turn out numbers so it is an effective way of saying "I do give a damn about politics, I just don't like any of the candidates".

 

It's almost worth lowering the voting age just to get some fresh faces in there and see if they can do something about it.

Surely for that aim you'd lower the age that people can run for office?

 

I don't like the idea of 16 year olds voting. In theory, they've only received half of their high school education - half of history - half of economics - just half of the story. I'm not even sure I like 18 year olds voting.

Hehe, I was once called a fascist by a conservative for suggesting that people's right to vote should correlate with their education.

[ParanoiA]

By the way, I think most people in the US vote either R or D for the same reason they root for the Rangers or the Seahawks (baseball). Many have little idea what the parties represent.

 

You know, I remember going to community college and being blown away at how we got to debate and discuss subjects as part of class time during History and Political science. They never did this in high school. I graduated without even knowing the general ideology of either of those parties, much less any others.

 

I got so much out of being able to debate and discuss as we went through History. I got even more out of the political science class.

 

Why isn't this encouraged quite early on in life? Why aren't 12 year olds being engaged like this? I'm always asking my kids what they think about things. They act kind of surprised that anyone would ask them, then they care about how you think of their opinion. Yes, they know they aren't "qualified", but they do matter.

 

It sure would have been nice to have been knowledgable when I first voted. Instead, just like Rock the Vote, I went in blind and voted with half baked intellect and cancelled out someone else's more informed, thought out vote.

[Sisyphus]

I doubt that's freshly indoctrinated 18 year olds. They're all out "Rocking the Vote, man..." Another campaign to swindle those who don't care and don't pay attention, to vote "blind" per the local rock station.

 

Actually, I looked it up, and the 18-24 demographic has by far the lowest voter turnout. Even in 2004 it was only 47%, and that was a Presidential election year.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced every properly seasoned person with a pulse should be allowed to vote. I have no alternative, just concern.

 

I agree. But then, as you say, what's the alternative? Any cure would be worse than the disease, I think.

 

You know, I remember going to community college and being blown away at how we got to debate and discuss subjects as part of class time during History and Political science. They never did this in high school. I graduated without even knowing the general ideology of either of those parties, much less any others.

 

I know in my high school, government was part of the required curriculum. I don't whether that was just a New York State thing, or whether national standards changed between our respective times in high school. I fulfilled my requirements with "AP U.S. government and politics" and "intro to international law," both of which were largely debate and discussion based. Again, I don't know how typical that was, but there is at least some move to try to universally educate voters.

[ParanoiA]

Hehe, I was once called a fascist by a conservative for suggesting that people's right to vote should correlate with their education.

 

And I would agree. "Education" is quite subjective and is ripe for beaurocracy and elitist filtering.

 

See, the thing is, while I can't stand the "uninformed voter", there really is no legislative cure that doesn't introduce worse problems, or potentially worse problems.

 

I'd rather see society take care of this by ending the glorification of lazy pop culture intellectualism, and promote critical thinking and wisdom. Somehow you have to make that cool. Maybe someone could strike a deal with Snoop Dog...

[the tree]

Does this come back to the laws not being the problem but the attitude of the people again then?

[ParanoiA]

Does this come back to the laws not being the problem but the attitude of the people again then?

 

Oh yeah...

[waitforufo]

We have that over here, but there's no box for it, we just call it spoiling the ballot when you go to vote but do anything other than put a cross in the box. It affects turn out numbers so it is an effective way of saying "I do give a damn about politics, I just don't like any of the candidates".

 

I agree that many would use the "None of the above" or "I choose not to vote" for the reasons you suggest but I don't think that would be primary reason for most. It would not be my reason.

 

I like voting on every item on the ballot. When I first voted, I wasn't sure if any of my votes would count if I did not vote for every post and initiative. I know it's foolish and incorrect but I still don't like to leave anything blank. By having such an option, voters could vote for the issues they care and know about and option out those they don't care or know about.

 

By the way I don't think such votes should invalidate the election outcome even if the "None of the above" or "I choose not to vote" option wins.

 

Candidates don't generally like these "None of the above" or "I choose not to vote" options. I think this is because they would prefer to win by a toss of the coin than by an election of the informed and interested.

 

During the 2000 presidential election recount in Florida, some of the re-counters admitted to counting a ballot, where no one voted for president, as Gore, if the voter voted for other Democratic candidates. I think some in Florida who did not intend to vote for president, had someone vote for them.

 

Back to your issue on when someone shoud be allowed to vote. Voter turn out indicates that most people decide this for themselves. Generally they choose sometime after 25.

[Severian]

Let's be honest, even if you raised the voting age to 80, there would still be a large proportion of the population not fit to vote.

 

Here in Scotland we have had a lot of outrage recently about the number of spoiled ballots in last week's election. Apparently the system was too confusing.

 

However, I think we should be making it more confusing. If they are too stupid to figure out where to put their cross (or whether it should be a cross of a '1') then they are probably too stupid to make a rational decision on whom they are voting for.

[Pangloss]

Bad ballots in Scotland, eh? Did they have a problem with hanging cads?