What do you think of increasing the voting age?

Post Reply New Topic

Unfortunately, malice is the biggest drawback of my nation. What best describes this scene from the cult Polish film "Day of the Wacko" the movie tells the story of a busy and anxious Polish teacher in middle age.
Watch this scene (note is a little racist) watch from 7:35
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6g4-TH5q5M[/youtube]

No. If you're old enough to fight and die for your country, you're old enough to vote.

Instead, require people to pass a battery of IQ, science, history, economics, civics, math, and language tests in order to vote. Also, bar religious nuts from voting or even running for office as their beliefs are nothing but poison to any civilized society.

So you think that godless, hedonists and all sorts of sexual perverts should enjoy the full electoral rights, while godly, honest and hard-working citizens can be deprived of them, that it's outrageous..

resuming my old thread:) Because i don't want create new one about the same subject

Being 'godly' doesn't guarantee one is also "honest and hard-working".
Being 'godless' doesn't in any way suggest one is a "hedonist[s] [or] sexual pervert[s]".
Both are foolish, outrageous assumptions.

I disagree with Weiss_Yohji though, we don't ban the mentally ill from voting, why would be ban people for a shared delusion if we accept those with more personal/individualized delusions?

I would favour expanding suffrage (lowering the age to 16, for example), I'm not likely to ever support reducing suffrage.

To the contrary, I think voting should be compulsory.

If you'd like to do that, you best make sure 'None of the above' is an option on the ballot.

I think that raising the voting age, for example, for a 21 year old, it's a bad idea. Because there will always be a Bolshevik who wants earn the political capital.

For instance Julius Caesar came to power, because the Roman patricians (the rich) would limit the voting rights of Roman Plebeians (the poor), the trouble is that the army of the Roman Republic (legions) was dominated by the plebeians, then Caesar caused the civil war, and the rest we already know.

No, not unless we also change the rules so that a candidate MUST take 51% of the vote to win.

If we do that, alright.

That wasn't about voting rights. That was about ECONOMICS, pure and simple.

I think they should lower the voting age to 13 or 14 in the US since a lot of times, younger people do not have enough say in what goes on in their lives. Schools, for instance, in states like this one, which is in the US, are often neglected because kids cannot vote so the politicians do what they can to ignore the schools where kids spend something like 75% of their time. Adults in this state do not consider kids to be a priority and many of them are thought of as second class citizens. If it's a place where kids go, it isn't as important as a place where I go is the unspoken but not unnoticed creed. Since there is a law that says they must attend school, they should get more say in how much money goes for their educational needs.

I'd like NO MINIMUM age....

BUT... all voters should have to pass a test every four years to retain their voting privileges for that term. If they can't answer basic multiple choice questions about the candidates of that term, they haven't done their research and shouldn't be voting.

Last edited by Syd on 04 Jan 2015, 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think that decreasing the voting age to underage kids would be like enabling people who happen to be parents to vote twice or more.

There's really no credible evidence for widespread voter fraud.

If the right keeps spreading this lie they're apt to get much more than they bargain for.

If elections are perceived to be fraudulent and rigged, what's to stop people from resorting to violence to affect political change?

People think there's no way we could ever have another civil war in this country, but just keep on marginalizing people economically and undermining confidence in the political system and see what happens.

When people have nothing to lose in the current order and no way to peacefully change it, they don't mind blowing it up.

I'm not sure where I stand on that, although I feel at least somewhat supportive of the notion.

At the very least, if None Of The Above gets 50% +1, we hold another election with entirely new candidates (at least for the parties large enough to do so).

I don't really care if the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)* (as an example) runs the same candidate again as there's so few Maoists that they may only have one suitable candidate in some ridings.

*Note that the Communist Party of Canada is Marxist, the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) is Maoist.

Economic?