What do you think of increasing the voting age?

Page 4 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,743
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

05 Jan 2015, 9:17 am

GoonSquad wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Tequila wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
With increasing voter apathy, Western governments can't really afford to disenfranchise more people.


You also don't want more voter fraud, which the authorities have been turning a huge blind eye to.


Attempts to thwart voter fraud in the US is labeled as "voter suppression" by the liberals.


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.


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


Economic?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,862
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

05 Jan 2015, 12:57 pm

blunnet wrote:
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.


That's kind of like saying 'letting women vote is like enabling married men to vote twice'.

While it may be true in some cases, an uninformed child (or spouse) may vote the same as their parents (or spouse) does due to not really being familiar with the candidates and their positions, we don't ask people to justify their vote. Plenty of people vote based on stupid/ignorant/trivial things (I like his/her name/hair/appearance/voice, we went to school together, the other guy looks funny, ect) and we don't deny them their vote.

Anyways, what says teenage rebellion more than 'screw you mom, I voted for someone who's gonna raise taxes and spend it on school, so I can get a good job and someday tell you "I don't need you, I got my own house"'.

Okay, maybe teenagers don't show that much foresight when they tell their parents off...


_________________
Who’s better at organic chemistry than a person? They’re made of organic chemistry!


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,959
Location: International House of Paincakes...

05 Jan 2015, 7:48 pm

pawelk1986 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:

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.


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


Economic?

Yes the real conflict was over issues like land reform, the state corn dole, etc. The populares wanted to break up the giant Latifundia (slave worked plantations) and give the land back to the common folks as small farms. They also wanted to start an official state run grain distribution to the urban plebs to help break the patron system...

The optimates didn't just try to suppress voting to stop this, they actually started killing Tribunes over these issues! That was really the beginning of the end for the Republic.

(Also, while every Roman citizen has a vote, those votes were wieghted according to wealth. The richer you were, the 'heavier' your vote was... i.e. it counted more than a poor man's vote. So, the rich really didn't need to 'suppress' votes all that much.)

Then they went from killing Tribunes to having full-on Civil Wars. First, Sulla (optimate) vs Marius (populares) and then Pompey/Senate (optimates) vs Caesar (populares).

The optimates/populares conflict was completely driven by economics. The optimates wanted to keep all the land and wealth and the true populares wanted to redistribute that wealth and land...

Of course, cynics would say that Caesar didn't really give a damn about the plebs and only use populares politics as a path to power. Be that as it may, I think the Gracchi--Gaius and Tiberius--were sincere reformers. They really did care about the wealth inequality and tried to restore the traditional Roman middle class via land reform, etc. You could call them the world's first progressives! :wink:

Unfortunately, the rich folks weren't having it, and killed them.

Interfering with a Tribune of the Plebs (much less killing them) was one of the most serious crimes there was in the old Republic--amounted to high treason. But, all it took was money to change all that, and make people forget the law.

Sorry, I'm a bit obsessed with Roman politics/constitutional matters... :oops:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,743
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

06 Jan 2015, 7:49 am

GoonSquad wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:

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.


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


Economic?

Yes the real conflict was over issues like land reform, the state corn dole, etc. The populares wanted to break up the giant Latifundia (slave worked plantations) and give the land back to the common folks as small farms. They also wanted to start an official state run grain distribution to the urban plebs to help break the patron system...

The optimates didn't just try to suppress voting to stop this, they actually started killing Tribunes over these issues! That was really the beginning of the end for the Republic.

(Also, while every Roman citizen has a vote, those votes were wieghted according to wealth. The richer you were, the 'heavier' your vote was... i.e. it counted more than a poor man's vote. So, the rich really didn't need to 'suppress' votes all that much.)

Then they went from killing Tribunes to having full-on Civil Wars. First, Sulla (optimate) vs Marius (populares) and then Pompey/Senate (optimates) vs Caesar (populares).

The optimates/populares conflict was completely driven by economics. The optimates wanted to keep all the land and wealth and the true populares wanted to redistribute that wealth and land...

Of course, cynics would say that Caesar didn't really give a damn about the plebs and only use populares politics as a path to power. Be that as it may, I think the Gracchi--Gaius and Tiberius--were sincere reformers. They really did care about the wealth inequality and tried to restore the traditional Roman middle class via land reform, etc. You could call them the world's first progressives! :wink:

Unfortunately, the rich folks weren't having it, and killed them.

Interfering with a Tribune of the Plebs (much less killing them) was one of the most serious crimes there was in the old Republic--amounted to high treason. But, all it took was money to change all that, and make people forget the law.

Sorry, I'm a bit obsessed with Roman politics/constitutional matters... :oops:


Yes i forgot, i love Roman History too i have Total War: Rome 2 :D

In the end both optimates and populares was screwed by Caesar and his successor Augustus, because Emperor took all the power.

In Poland we say"Gdzie dwóch się bije, tam trzeci korzysta" the crossest English translation is "Two dogs strive for a bone and the third runs away with it" :D