Should children be allowed to vote

Post Reply New Topic

I voted no but then again there are a lot of grown kids in this world too. I'd say they need a 10 point multiple choice test to check your knowledge on the basics of the basics - if you have some kind of impairment like dyslexia I guess that could be worked out but other than that if you can't get at least 7 out of 10 right you should just be sent home. I hate seeing people vote based on what their friends think is cool or having parents voting by proxy through their kids as well when they're just voting for whoever they were told to (doesn't matter who they're voting for either, its really irresponsible to abuse a right as important as voting).

Is it just to give the right to power over other men to those who cannot righteously even claim that power over themselves? I'd say that a greater injustice would be to give the vote to them because it is power and such power should be restricted as much as possible to those who can justly use it, I do not think that at that age all of the right faculties to justly use it exist.
You forgot a third option, they can vote with additional negative bias that would not be found in the rest of the voting populace. I would say that no other group has a desire to change the system than the young, and on the other side of that token, no group has less understanding of the system than those young people. I think that the propensity of the young to have flawed ideas is too great to give them such power, if they wish to exercise their right to be heard then they can join groups, clubs, and other groups to try to educate others on those views.
Except that many of the senile can't vote anyway as they have to be cared for by others and too many of the old are cogent thinkers on a level that would humble the rest of us, this is not to claim that young people cannot have ideas, but they are not the great systems builders and thinkers that can be found among the 80+ group in many cases. Not only that but it would be politically impossible anyway, old people vote in greater numbers than the rest of us and would not be denied that authority.

Except that we know that our politicians are cunning and manipulative. Frankly, I think that politicians of all peoples in all countries suffer from hucksters in their offices. I do not think that any rational reform would necessarily be able to deal with this. I definitely do not see the reason to "shock" people with this measure but rather work towards the goal of reduction of the evils of our government's policies, it definitely is politically infeasible to create a problem like that to deal with this problem. We would be doing a bad to do a good, where as most other efforts involve doing a good in hopes that this would force us towards another good.

I would not even like this system, and could not consider anything similar unless the questions are difficult or tough essays or something over our political system, our nation's history, economics, maybe even some basic political philosophy questions, and even then I might still think it would be bad due to the additional administrative costs. The thing I really fail to understand is how so many people complain about the stupidity of the average voter but there is this question on this thread that seems like it will seek to reduce the standards and the average. I distrust any measure that seeks to give the right over the power of the nation, over my rights, over my life to a group any less educated. I don't see voting as a right, I don't see it as something that we were born with control of and that we deserve as simply being alive, I see it as a privilege and I see it as a practicality for preserving what we see as good, not as a good in and of itself. I know that there are intelligent children out there, I was probably smarter as a child than many adults are. I would not want to give my under 18 self any right to vote though if only because the models developed by people of that age are often too simplistic and devoid of realism but that this can often change with time.

Cool. Status quo it is then.

Well, every change should be made with purpose in mind and given the fact I do not think that this change is justifiable and do not see any practical purpose guiding it. Status quo may not be perfect, but change in something as important as this should not be just "ah, what the heck, let's do this for kicks".

Have the capacity to exercise power justly, you mean surely, Awesomelyglorious. On the criterion of just exercise of power you would disenfranchise too many. Good point about the superior thinkers in the 80+ group, though. Hello again.

I ain't no grammarian!! I thought my point was relatively clear on power, however, I certainly have a weakness in grammar so any tangled phraseology could simply be a result of that.

It was not that great of a point, I just know that a few of the intellects I respect are getting up there or were up there.

Hello again.

kids do not have the power of critical thought required to vote.


i mean 18 was made the voting age *within the past 30 years* only because it was deemed that if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to vote.

Yes, and if you are old enough to bear full responsiblity for your own actions if you break the law, then you are old enough to have some say in the making of the law. That's the only point I'd really insist on, and that could just as well be addressed the other way around. Perhaps the voting age should not be lowered, but if it is not the treatment of anyone under 18 who breaks the law should always be custodial, not punitive. The point about people over 80 is well taken, and I stand corrected.

Well yeah, it would be stupid to have kids vote just in the sense that yeah, some are pretty precocious but they're also the minority and you can't just say that they can vote while others can't because you can't restrict freedoms - they kinda have to be all across the board. I'm just saying that if they did that test they should be doing it to the 18 and older generation.

I was not quibbling with your grammar, merely your logic. And same here with regard to octogenarian or older great intellects amongst my friends. We meet again.

Well, I suppose I do not quite get what you criticized on my logic. I mean, are you claiming that a lot of other people may also be denied the right to vote based upon what I said about the ability to justly hold that power? If so, then I would still stand for it so long as it is done with an eye for keeping the feedback that democracy tends to have. I am not a fan of the idiotic voter and wish that they never vote.

I think a child who votes, learns things from their parents. If a parent says, "This politician is a crack-pot" so will they say that about that politician. Voting should be based on whether the person is at the age of accountability.

Well the results of democratic elections can be disappointing, but other methods of appointing the executive or the legislature do not really seem preferable, e.g. coups d'etat, hereditary succession, drawing straws, defeating the previous leader in single combat - I am sure that last one has been done at some stage. How about tanistry?

I don't think that will work either. I am not arguing to get rid of the system, I just think that republics have their strengths.

Weaknesses, surely? If you are not arguing to get rid of the system (neither am I) of COURSE you think republics have their strengths (if they had none what would be the point?)