Should children be allowed to vote

Post Reply New Topic

Most adults thankfully do not vote, the only thing is that children have a greater likelihood of not being informed than the average adult and as such I see no reason to extend to them the right to vote. To be honest, I would not mind restrictions on voting in order to require that voters have some knowledge on how the world works, the issue with that ends up being to easily corruption and enforcing a status quo. I do take solace in the fact that the voting public is smarter than the public at large.

If children above the age of 12 can pass a test of political knowledge first then why not?
Many of them many have a better knowledge of the political situation than many adults.

Definitely not! They lack experience, they lack knowledge, they lack understanding, they lack just about all characteristics on average that a good voter is supposed to have.
To claim that children do not have bias and cannot be manipulated by pretty rhetoric is overlooking the nature of children, children will tend more strongly towards idealism and radical change than adults with less understanding of how or why things work the way that they do, thus making them perhaps more biased in a manner that is more dangerous.[quote} Probably true, but would the results really be that much more catastrophic than current election results? Unless actual legislative power was granted to the children and other citizens, ie plebiscites or referenda on issues now decided by a majority in two houses of parliament or congress, relatively little damage compared to that currently done is probable. And presidential vetoes and the role of the Australian Governor-General as representativce of Elizabeth II in signing bills passed by both Senate and House of Representatives into law should alike be abandoned. The Governor General should be purely ceremonial (little change here) there should be a Presidium Council consisting of a Chancelor, (like Germany and many universities - Britain has both a Lord Chancellor who I think has risen through the judiciary and a Chancellor of the Exchequer, basically a mediaeval title for a treasurer) two Consuls (Ancient Roman and, briefly before Napoleon became Emperor, French sense, not just diplomatic post) with the Senior Consul corresponding to Prime Minister and the junior to Leader of the Opposition, and nine councilors, three deputed from the Senate, three from the House of Representatives and three former judges of distinguished history to be elected by the Popular Assembly (full body of citizens voting in tribes crossing geographic boundaries). The Presidium shall have veto power only over its own members, (that should minimise harm) not over either legislative house. Its authority shall be solely executive, to carry out the joint decisions of the legislative houses and in some instances the Assemblies. Conversely the houses shall have only legislative power and control of boards of inquiry and royal commissions, but outcomes of elections will still give majority parties or coalitions the means of giving a certain flavour to legislation in their terms of office. The Senior and Junior Consuls shall work TOGETHER despite ideological differences, and will work to foster a spirit of bipartisanship or multipartisanship to the best of their lowly abilities. The Presidium will be assisted or, if in the public interest as determined by the Assemblies and both legislative houses acting in concert HINDERED by the usual full bureaucratic apparatus of a Civil Service, (I am not really expecting twelve men to run a country!) members of said service subject to a Probity and Integrity Test at regular intervals, as will all holders of public offices aforementioned. The Chancellor shall be the chairperson of the Presidium, the head of the Treasury, assisted and his decisions scrutinised by those clerks of the Civil Service both skilled in accounting and of proven honesty and courage in confronting malpractice. Transparency must be assured at all levels of government.


This is not an issue of oppression vs democracy, but rather of a working system. Democracy is not necessarily the goal but rather the means of obtaining it, so democratic action can righteously be restricted if it is in the best interests of society.

I have to agree, to identify adult Aspergians with children is a gross generalisation concerning both categories, though pursuit of knowledge and interest is not inconsitent with childlike curiosity.

The results would not likely be better and that alone means that there is no reason to change given that such a change increases the problems we would have to deal with. Allowing these votes changes the criterion upon which the politicians are judged and can impact the election to some extent. This can cause a pull towards the interests of the incredibly idealistic. Like I said, I would prefer that we draw off of less and better than more and worse. I think that adulthood and voting are fine partners as is.

It is inconsistent in that children have diverse interests and aspies have particular ones. I do not consider us childlike, even as children we stuck out as sore thumbs.

I already said that I considered the identification of children with people with Asperger's Syndrome was a gross generalisation. And I accept that my utopian/dystopian system of government is unnecessarily elaborate. Basically there should be a triumvirate of snake321 as Senior Consul, you as Junior Consul and myself as your esteemed Chancellor and we should argue in a subterranean cavern with a decent library and ample space for long time apart from eachother, leaving the Civil Service to get along with carrying out the wishes of the electorate and the legislature. The world will really be run by someone else entirely of course - Anubis.

Yes this argument is degenerating into nonsense. A referendum amongst reasonably intelligent and well-informed twelve to fifteen year olds would probably produce something sounder.

Ok, so it was not Australian, I did not read your earlier post. I just skimmed through it because a lot of it did not apply to anything I knew. As well, the whole idea of Senior and Junior consuls working together in that case would likely not work for an obvious reason. We already know that snake considers me less than human thus making working impossible. I might end up dissenting considering that think that the divide among Aspergians is a bit too sharp for a working system probably causing a division into a few major groups. Of course, that is looking at only the strongly interested Aspergians who are more likely to have great differences of opinion, however, I see many people lined up on the extremes in a manner not found in the average democratic system.
I believed in dictatorship around that age so I tend to doubt that.

It was really just an elaborate scheme of mine to tie up the executive branch of government while ensuring a (barely) functional state and some form of democracy. Most of the titles for offices are only there because I like the sound of them.

And I did not determine who would be in charge of defence. The hypothetical commonwealth would be invaded within a week or less, much to the relief of world leaders.

Ah, interesting. Ok.
Meh, whatev.

Well it was not entirely arbitrary. I did think that both the forms of the Westminster system followed in Britain and Australia and American-style presidential democracy provided for insufficient separation of powers. I also thought that greater collegiality between parties would be a good thing, though no doubt the conflict and competition is in fact healthy and necessary as a catalyst for change.