Should the voting age be lowered?

[Kulindahr]

Yeah -- but for the ones that DID vote -- it might help balance out the fact that we let prehistoric creatures vote until they die -- leaving us with archaic laws that make little sense to the younger generation...

Maybe we could cut the voting age off at the point someone RETIRES and joins Social Security???

Fun conversation...

If you're going to do that sort of thing, I'd rather go with reading and other educational competence -- at both ends of the age scale. I once knew a pair of 12-y.o.s I would have trusted to vote, and know some 60-y.o.s who are hopeless.

 

[Kulindahr]

Social Security is somehow a handout?

I put that money into Social Security, it's mine, and I expect it back without some silly-assed ageist society taking away my right to vote.

". . .mot completely thought out. . ."? Or "No thinking at all"? It's a moronic statement.

He didn't say it was a handout.


No, the money isn't yours, or you could leave it to your heirs.


There's nothing moronic about "not completely thought out"; it merely means he's tossing out a notion rather than presenting a well-developed thesis.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

If you're going to do that sort of thing, I'd rather go with reading and other educational competence -- at both ends of the age scale. I once knew a pair of 12-y.o.s I would have trusted to vote, and know some 60-y.o.s who are hopeless.

Ah. . . more regulations and bureaucracy to enforce and control voting. Great idea.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

ONCE you're being PAID out of the public coffers (which SS has now become) -- you can NO LONGER DICTATE their policies through your vote...

He didn't say it was a handout.

Maybe you can 'splain the difference?

 

[Kulindahr]

Ah. . . more regulations and bureaucracy to enforce and control voting. Great idea.

A half page of regulations, no new bureaucracy.

 

[Kulindahr]

Maybe you can 'splain the difference?

Um, hand-out is 'just because', with no reason for it, and SS isn't?


You're saying you made an investment and expect a return -- that's a false description of SS.

He's saying that what people paid in is not sufficient to cover what they're being given; the money isn't from what you paid in, but from what people are paying in now.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Um, hand-out is 'just because', with no reason for it, and SS isn't?


You're saying you made an investment and expect a return -- that's a false description of SS.

He's saying that what people paid in is not sufficient to cover what they're being given; the money isn't from what you paid in, but from what people are paying in now.

I put money into SS, the SSA decides, based upon how much I put in, how much I get back. How is that a "hand-out?"

And, just quickly figuring from my last SS estimate, I will never get back from SS what I put into it. . . unless I happen to live past, say, 88 years.

PLUS, even while receiving SS, I will pay taxes. So I should have all the rights associated with being a tax paying citizen. Even when I cross that magic age (as if!) where I no longer have to pay taxes, what should disqualify me from having a vote as a citizen of the United States? I paid a lifetime of taxes! I'm supposed to be enjoying my "golden years." How should that not include me having a voice in what happens to me vis a vis government control?

 

[LonelyInVenice]

If you're going to do that sort of thing, I'd rather go with reading and other educational competence -- at both ends of the age scale. I once knew a pair of 12-y.o.s I would have trusted to vote, and know some 60-y.o.s who are hopeless.

Ah. . . more regulations and bureaucracy to enforce and control voting. Great idea.

A half page of regulations, no new bureaucracy.

You think so, huh? Okay, Who designs the tests, and what criteria do they base it on? Then, who administers the test? Then there's the acceptance or denial of registration, with an appeal process. Then, there's the ongoing policing of the registrants to make sure they still live-up to the standards that were set up. Plus, we need to allow time out of school in order to educate (on candidate platforms, etc.), administer, test, and provide access to the polls. Oh, and someone needs to be vigilant to ensure that the testing process is based on intellectual ability and not on political philosophy. . .

And who's going to tell these people "Sorry, you're not smart enough to have an informed opinion." (after all. . . they might vote for Ron Paul! )

Care to recalculate your estimate, Kuli?

 

[Kulindahr]

You think so, huh? Okay, Who designs the tests, and what criteria do they base it on? Then, who administers the test? Then there's the acceptance or denial of registration, with an appeal process. Then, there's the ongoing policing of the registrants to make sure they still live-up to the standards that were set up. Plus, we need to allow time out of school in order to educate (on candidate platforms, etc.), administer, test, and provide access to the polls. Oh, and someone needs to be vigilant to ensure that the testing process is based on intellectual ability and not on political philosophy. . .

And who's going to tell these people "Sorry, you're not smart enough to have an informed opinion." (after all. . . they might vote for Ron Paul! )

Care to recalculate your estimate, Kuli?

I'll grant you have an active imagination -- if only you'd use it to see how all the existing extent of government endangers our liberty.

The tests already exist; the administrators are already in place. The renewal requirements could be pinned to the requirements for driver's licenses.

 

[MercuryJones]

ONCE you're being PAID out of the public coffers (which SS has now become) -- you can NO LONGER DICTATE their policies through your vote...

What about others who benefit financially from policies, or stand to?

Do they get to "dictate" policies through their votes?

 

[Kulindahr]

I put money into SS, the SSA decides, based upon how much I put in, how much I get back. How is that a "hand-out?"

I didn't say it was, I just said two different things were being said.

And, just quickly figuring from my last SS estimate, I will never get back from SS what I put into it. . . unless I happen to live past, say, 88 years.

We've sunk that far?

PLUS, even while receiving SS, I will pay taxes. So I should have all the rights associated with being a tax paying citizen. Even when I cross that magic age (as if!) where I no longer have to pay taxes, what should disqualify me from having a vote as a citizen of the United States? I paid a lifetime of taxes! I'm supposed to be enjoying my "golden years." How should that not include me having a voice in what happens to me vis a vis government control?

I'm not sure what all that's about....

 

[LonelyInVenice]

I'll grant you have an active imagination -- if only you'd use it to see how all the existing extent of government endangers our liberty.

The tests already exist; the administrators are already in place. The renewal requirements could be pinned to the requirements for driver's licenses.

No-no-no. . . not so fast, bucko.

There is no standard for competency test for people to be able to vote. There is no structure to administer it. The laws designing the whole system aren't in place. There aren't enough teachers to prepare these kids for the civics lessons they need in order to make informed decisions. . . you take far too much for granted here. You're adding complexity to the system far beyond what's necessary, and there will be bureaucracy and additional government to put it in place. How can you not see that?

First, you're talking about lowering the upper and lower age limits for voting here, right? What are the standards? Who decides what knowledge is relevant in making an informed choice? What's the pass/fail standard? Who has to take it? Everyone? How often? Early onset Alzheimers can hit very quickly in a person's 40s. How about a 24 year old who has a traumatic head injury? What about the paranoid schizophrenic who sees conspiracies on every corner? What are your standards? As soon as you set standards, you have to start preparing for every layer of complexity that feeds into those standards. That's a bureaucracy in itself!

See, that's the mistake conservatives make when they start pushing for standardized testing in schools. They make no allowances for real world considerations.

 

[Kulindahr]

No-no-no. . . not so fast, bucko.

There is no standard for competency test for people to be able to vote. There is no structure to administer it. The laws designing the whole system aren't in place. There aren't enough teachers to prepare these kids for the civics lessons they need in order to make informed decisions. . . you take far too much for granted here. You're adding complexity to the system far beyond what's necessary, and there will be bureaucracy and additional government to put it in place. How can you not see that?

First, you're talking about lowering the upper and lower age limits for voting here, right? What are the standards? Who decides what knowledge is relevant in making an informed choice? What's the pass/fail standard? Who has to take it? Everyone? How often? Early onset Alzheimers can hit very quickly in a person's 40s. How about a 24 year old who has a traumatic head injury? What about the paranoid schizophrenic who sees conspiracies on every corner? What are your standards? As soon as you set standards, you have to start preparing for every layer of complexity that feeds into those standards. That's a bureaucracy in itself!

See, that's the mistake conservatives make when they start pushing for standardized testing in schools. They make no allowances for real world considerations.

The system already exists.

I leave the proof as an exercise for the student.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

The system already exists.

I leave the proof as an exercise for the student.

Please describe this system. Are you going to pile it onto our already overworked school systems? Uh-uh. And what about the other people you plan to test? Do you expect them to go through the public schools? Uh-uh.

Who, pray tell, is to legislate, design, administer and implement this awesome program? You say it exists. . . WHERE?!?

 

[Kulindahr]

Please describe this system. Are you going to pile it onto our already overworked school systems? Uh-uh. And what about the other people you plan to test? Do you expect them to go through the public schools? Uh-uh.

Who, pray tell, is to legislate, design, administer and implement this awesome program? You say it exists. . . WHERE?!?

You named it -- sort of.

It's the high school diploma or equivalent.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

You named it -- sort of.

It's the high school diploma or equivalent.

No-no-no-no-no. . . you were advocating lowring the voting age, which is 18, and which is the age at which the vast majority of teens graduate high school. So what's the point of lowering the age? And you were talking about some qualifications for seniors to maintain their voting rights. You're sending them back to high school? No, Kuli. You're just being silly here, and I'm sick and tired of arguing with your ignorant assertions. Again Buh-bye!

 

[Kulindahr]

No-no-no-no-no. . . you were advocating lowring the voting age, which is 18, and which is the age at which the vast majority of teens graduate high school. So what's the point of lowering the age? And you were talking about some qualifications for seniors to maintain their voting rights. You're sending them back to high school? No, Kuli. You're just being silly here, and I'm sick and tired of arguing with your ignorant assertions. Again Buh-bye!

You're not arguing rationally, you're imagining fantasy obstacles, and you're not reading.

No one said anything about sending anyone back to high school.

No one's pinning the qualification to age.

And I haven't yet advocated lowering the voting age.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

If you're going to do that sort of thing, I'd rather go with reading and other educational competence -- at both ends of the age scale. I once knew a pair of 12-y.o.s I would have trusted to vote, and know some 60-y.o.s who are hopeless.

Ah. . . more regulations and bureaucracy to enforce and control voting. Great idea.

^ ^^Here's the exchange that started this train wreck. Now, again, how do you propose we make it possible for 12 y.o.s to prove their competency? And what of the 60 y.o.s?

You're not arguing rationally, you're imagining fantasy obstacles, and you're not reading.

No one said anything about sending anyone back to high school.

No one's pinning the qualification to age.

And I haven't yet advocated lowering the voting age.

Look again. Yes, you seemed to be saying it "tongue in cheek." And that's how I responded. . . then you went on defending it. It ended up with you suggesting a HS diploma. Which does nothing to lower the low end of the voting age, and does nothing to gauge the aptitude of the 60 y.o. end of the scale. Now you're just denying any of it?

Please Kuli. . . you've already given me a headache with your circular arguments. I would say that I've been very "rational" considering.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ ^^Here's the exchange that started this train wreck. Now, again, how do you propose we make it possible for 12 y.o.s to prove their competency? And what of the 60 y.o.s?



Look again. Yes, you seemed to be saying it "tongue in cheek." And that's how I responded. . . then you went on defending it. It ended up with you suggesting a HS diploma. Which does nothing to lower the low end of the voting age, and does nothing to gauge the aptitude of the 60 y.o. end of the scale. Now you're just denying any of it?

Please Kuli. . . you've already given me a headache with your circular arguments. I would say that I've been very "rational" considering.

You're manufacturing difficulties where they don't exist.

Twelve-year-olds already get high school diplomas or the equivalent, through an existing system. The only thing that would need to be added is also already in place: taking a G.E.D. test on-line.

The lower end of the voting age would become flexible: anyone who wanted to vote earlier could work for it, those who dropped out wouldn't get to. At the upper end, people would just log on and take the equivalency test (which would be a lot better than the random ballot marking my mom witnessed by a resident at her retirement community).

 

[LonelyInVenice]

You're manufacturing difficulties where they don't exist.

Twelve-year-olds already get high school diplomas or the equivalent, through an existing system. The only thing that would need to be added is also already in place: taking a G.E.D. test on-line.

The lower end of the voting age would become flexible: anyone who wanted to vote earlier could work for it, those who dropped out wouldn't get to. At the upper end, people would just log on and take the equivalency test (which would be a lot better than the random ballot marking my mom witnessed by a resident at her retirement community).

How do you prevent voter fraud. The unscrupulous daddy who takes the test in little Johnnie's name in order to get another vote for himself?

And, my mother has a hell of a time navigating the Gmail account I set up for her. At 80, she's not computer savvy, but she knows how to vote!

You over-simplify things the same way neo-cons do. In your desire to keep things simple, you refuse to consider all the logistical problems inherent in the changes you propose. You try your best to paint things black or white, when there are a gazillion shades of grey in between. And each little exception to the rule adds another layer of complexity to the scheme. You say I'm manufacturing difficulties. . . I believe I'm taking a realistic "big picture" look at the ramifications of your ideas.