Should the voting age be lowered?

[Kulindahr]

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.

Stop inventing difficulties.

Lots of government offices have computers available to the public that spend most of their time unoccupied. Add a few more, and since those government offices alredy know how to check IDs, you're set.

And anyone who can't grasp clicking a mouse on a box on a computer screen shouldn't be voting.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Stop inventing difficulties.

Lots of government offices have computers available to the public that spend most of their time unoccupied. Add a few more, and since those government offices alredy know how to check IDs, you're set.

And anyone who can't grasp clicking a mouse on a box on a computer screen shouldn't be voting.

I'm inventing nothing. Those are real hurdles that your solution overlooks. And your simplistic solution doesn't measure up. You assume too much.

 

[Spiff]

If that's your standard then do you think high school dropouts shouldn't be allowed to vote? A lot of them don't get government class either as that's a senior class in many school districts.

That's not really such a bad idea, ya know? It would be just another incentive for not dropping out of school.

 

[NotThatCreative]

That's not really such a bad idea, ya know? It would be just another incentive for not dropping out of school.

It is, actually. We've come so far enfranchising so many groups of people, why in the name of all things holy should we begin to disenfranchise people now? Because they don't value their own education as highly as you value your education? And what about those who drop out so they can get a job and help their families make enough to live? Disenfranchisement of poor people in America is so last century.

 

[MercuryJones]

It is, actually. We've come so far enfranchising so many groups of people, why in the name of all things holy should we begin to disenfranchise people now? Because they don't value their own education as highly as you value your education? And what about those who drop out so they can get a job and help their families make enough to live? Disenfranchisement of poor people in America is so last century.

I couldn't agree more. Fewer barriers to participation, please. Not more.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

It is, actually. We've come so far enfranchising so many groups of people, why in the name of all things holy should we begin to disenfranchise people now? Because they don't value their own education as highly as you value your education? And what about those who drop out so they can get a job and help their families make enough to live? Disenfranchisement of poor people in America is so last century.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is, actually. We've come so far enfranchising so many groups of people, why in the name of all things holy should we begin to disenfranchise people now? Because they don't value their own education as highly as you value your education? And what about those who drop out so they can get a job and help their families make enough to live? Disenfranchisement of poor people in America is so last century.

How about to have an electorate who can make intelligent choices?

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm inventing nothing. Those are real hurdles that your solution overlooks. And your simplistic solution doesn't measure up. You assume too much.

The only reason I can figure why you keep dreaming up complications that aren't there is you must love bureaucracy.

Yes, once politicians got their hands on this, they'd feel the need to create a giant bureaucracy, because that's the accepted pattern. The bureaucrats would feel the need to write all sorts of regulations and schemes, because that's how they justify their jobs. A sub-agency would of course be set up for enforcement, so all of these people could point to it and say they were actually accomplishing something.

But the mindset which would do that is inefficient and uncreative; none of that would be necessary.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

The only reason I can figure why you keep dreaming up complications that aren't there is you must love bureaucracy.

Yes, once politicians got their hands on this, they'd feel the need to create a giant bureaucracy, because that's the accepted pattern. The bureaucrats would feel the need to write all sorts of regulations and schemes, because that's how they justify their jobs. A sub-agency would of course be set up for enforcement, so all of these people could point to it and say they were actually accomplishing something.

But the mindset which would do that is inefficient and uncreative; none of that would be necessary.

Denial. SOMEbody has to do the work. Somebody has to design the program. Somebody has to administer it. There are going to be challenges and regulations will have to be tweaked and adjusted. Lawyers will make tons. . . if you don't see that, you're in denial.

Furthermore, how do you answer the additional disenfranchisement of people from being a part of the system? In the attempt to make the system more accessible, you've come up with a way to do just the opposite, and build a huge bureaucracy in the process. You can't get around it, Kuli. . . if you put measures on people's competence to vote, by necessity a bureaucracy has to oversee it. There's no getting around it. SOMEbody has to do it.

I thought you were all about individual rights, not against them.

 

[MercuryJones]

How about to have an electorate who can make intelligent choices?

I don't know of a criteria yet suggested that could determine that.

 

[PolterGUYst]

There are a lot of very naive adults and some very smart kids. Unfortunately the voting age cannot change on a person to person basis and the line has to be drawn somewhere. 18 is fine since it gives people a chance to gain some knowledge and experience through the completion of high school and is an age where people have (hopefully) matured beyond a childish mindset. Obviously this hardly applies to everybody, but it's a good general starting point.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

There are a lot of very naive adults and some very smart kids.
Unfortunately, the voting age cannot change on a person to person basis and the line has to be drawn somewhere. 18 is fine since it gives people a change to gain some knowledge and experience through the completion of high school and is the age where rapid maturity seems to slow down for many.

Plus it's the age at which they are typically/legally considered adult, and are outside the legal dominance of their parents/guardians.

 

[PolterGUYst]

^That too

 

[NotThatCreative]

I don't know of a criteria yet suggested that could determine that.

True.

I'd take it a step further though. Even under the hypothetical that we could determine it with some test or whatever, I wouldn't support such a system. This is a republic. By and large (with referenda as a major, glaring exception) we don't vote on the laws, we vote on the people who vote on the laws. Public officials are, one the whole, not stupid (for two funny exceptions to that rule, see [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_eEvn3SHMI&feature=related"]here[/ame] and [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9R-cQ_A_6w"]here[/ame]). Universal suffrage is part of the democratic system. The idea that we'd come up with some line of intelligence is elitism at its worst. We've moved past such notions in our country, let's not regress.

 

[Kulindahr]

Denial. SOMEbody has to do the work. Somebody has to design the program. Somebody has to administer it. There are going to be challenges and regulations will have to be tweaked and adjusted. Lawyers will make tons. . . if you don't see that, you're in denial.

Furthermore, how do you answer the additional disenfranchisement of people from being a part of the system? In the attempt to make the system more accessible, you've come up with a way to do just the opposite, and build a huge bureaucracy in the process. You can't get around it, Kuli. . . if you put measures on people's competence to vote, by necessity a bureaucracy has to oversee it. There's no getting around it. SOMEbody has to do it.

I thought you were all about individual rights, not against them.

The program exists. The administrators are already there. Yes, lawyers will, as usual, twist things so they can argue and get paid for it -- but the regulations wouldn't even fill a half sheet of paper, and could probably even be made lawyer-proof.

No one would be disenfranchised who doesn't wish to be. People with an IQ of 80 or even less can manage to get a GED.

Oh -- who said I want to make the system more accessible? I'm far more interested in having intelligent voters -- however minimal the requirement might be.

No bureaucracy is required, because the system for administering this already exists. All that's needed is high schools, GED tests, computers and the internet. We already have all those -- nothing else needed.

Only someone who's a total fan of bureaucracy would look at that and see a need to reinvent it all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Universal suffrage is part of the democratic system. The idea that we'd come up with some line of intelligence is elitism at its worst. We've moved past such notions in our country, let's not regress.

Universal suffrage is an add-on the the Republic. The aim of government in the U.S. was supposed to be to protect freedom, not to indulge the whims of the masses. The Founding Fathers had reservations about democracy, even feared it. They saw how it would endanger freedom, so they considered it a tool, not a goal.

The U.S. was not founded as a "democratic system", nor should it be. It was founded as a Republic, with voting merely a tool.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

The program exists. The administrators are already there. Yes, lawyers will, as usual, twist things so they can argue and get paid for it -- but the regulations wouldn't even fill a half sheet of paper, and could probably even be made lawyer-proof.

No one would be disenfranchised who doesn't wish to be. People with an IQ of 80 or even less can manage to get a GED.

Oh -- who said I want to make the system more accessible? I'm far more interested in having intelligent voters -- however minimal the requirement might be.

No bureaucracy is required, because the system for administering this already exists. All that's needed is high schools, GED tests, computers and the internet. We already have all those -- nothing else needed.

Only someone who's a total fan of bureaucracy would look at that and see a need to reinvent it all.

Universal suffrage is an add-on the the Republic. The aim of government in the U.S. was supposed to be to protect freedom, not to indulge the whims of the masses. The Founding Fathers had reservations about democracy, even feared it. They saw how it would endanger freedom, so they considered it a tool, not a goal.

The U.S. was not founded as a "democratic system", nor should it be. It was founded as a Republic, with voting merely a tool.

In these two posts you've effectively destroyed your credibility on the topic. No, you cannot limit voting to those who possess a GED or high school diploma. It serves to disenfranchise and is un-American. People without educations work, earn, and pay taxes. . . you're proposing that we should prevent them from having any say. Hogwash.

And then you argue that the government is "supposed. . . to protect freedom. . ." how does that work, that a guy who has to drop out of school to save his family gets disenfranchised from voting as a means of ensuring his freedom? Kuli, stop playing devil's advocate and start arguing your true feelings. . . you've exposed yourself here.

 

[Kulindahr]

In these two posts you've effectively destroyed your credibility on the topic. No, you cannot limit voting to those who possess a GED or high school diploma. It serves to disenfranchise and is un-American. People without educations work, earn, and pay taxes. . . you're proposing that we should prevent them from having any say. Hogwash.

And then you argue that the government is "supposed. . . to protect freedom. . ." how does that work, that a guy who has to drop out of school to save his family gets disenfranchised from voting as a means of ensuring his freedom? Kuli, stop playing devil's advocate and start arguing your true feelings. . . you've exposed yourself here.

Our FOunding Fathers limited the vote to males who owned land. They believed that perfectly acceptable, because it served the purpose of upholding freedom.

So wanting to limit who can vote is decidedly not "un-American".

So I'm not credible because I disagree with you? or because I refuse to bow at the altar of the demigod Democracy?

Freedom would be better protected if senators were not popularly elected. Freedom would be better protected if each county or parish within a state got a state senator. Freedom would be better protected if rural voters held a veto over measures affecting rural areas. Freedom would be better protected if lawyers could not hold office. And freedom might be better protected if there were education requirements for voting.

You want my feelings on voting? We should have national service, which would include the military, the Peace Corps, and maybe some new programs. They would all have to be hard and tough. For people who wanted to serve but couldn't handle any existing service, the government would be required to find something as tough as they could handle.
And only veterans would be allowed to vote -- because if you're not willing to give four years of service to your country, you have no business having a say in running it.

 

[evanrick]

18 is sufficient - there's no rationale to making it lower.....

how about the fact that they will pay into social security without seeing any of it.

they are allowed to work and pay taxes, but not allowed to vote.

they are allowed to drive cars.

the fact is , there are too many old people voting. older voters have had too much sway when it comes to elections. the only way to fix this is either cut off voting rights if you reach 70 or allow younger people to vote.

until America makes not voting against they law, which we should, we should not just let people who collect social security the only people making decisions about who goes to congress.

i would be fine with allowing 14 year olds to vote, there are many out there that are smarter and more in-tune with today's needs than some 65 year old bigot living in the south.

look at europe, they have a aging electorate, a aging populace, and are totally bankrupt. that is what America is turning into, too many people doing nothing for something and borrowed money on your grandchildrens credit card has to end.

if we are to save America for the future, its about time the future had a say in it!

 

[NotThatCreative]

Our FOunding Fathers limited the vote to males who owned land. They believed that perfectly acceptable, because it served the purpose of upholding freedom.

So wanting to limit who can vote is decidedly not "un-American".

So I'm not credible because I disagree with you? or because I refuse to bow at the altar of the demigod Democracy?

Freedom would be better protected if senators were not popularly elected. Freedom would be better protected if each county or parish within a state got a state senator. Freedom would be better protected if rural voters held a veto over measures affecting rural areas. Freedom would be better protected if lawyers could not hold office. And freedom might be better protected if there were education requirements for voting.

The founding fathers also had slavery and believed a slave was 3/5 of a person. They also didn't allow women the right to vote, or non-property owners. The founders were great, but they weren't infallible.

The solution to mob rule is a constitutional republic. Which we have. It wasn't for the purpose of protecting freedom they limited the right to vote, it was because they viewed the disenfranchised of the time as lesser than they. They were wrong, of course, but that's why they did it.

I agree that US senators shouldn't be popularly elected. I think that was a mistake of the Progressives in President Taft's time. Though, i don't think having them elected by state legislatures would somehow be better for freedom. It would be better for federalism though.

And freedom would be better protected if lawyers could not hold office is a claim that showcases your lack of pragmatism/realism nicely. Lawyers make up a huge part of our government. There is no profession more represented in Congress than lawyers. That's just a part of our system.

Disenfranchising people is not the way to get freedom. Because then they become the ones most oppressed. Your reliance on the idea that this wouldn't happen is akin to someone advocating dictatorship because a benevolent dictator could most efficiently protect the economy, handle the national defense, and protect the people's freedoms all at the same time.

You want my feelings on voting? We should have national service, which would include the military, the Peace Corps, and maybe some new programs. They would all have to be hard and tough. For people who wanted to serve but couldn't handle any existing service, the government would be required to find something as tough as they could handle.
And only veterans would be allowed to vote -- because if you're not willing to give four years of service to your country, you have no business having a say in running it.

National draft...no. I'm surprised that someone who advocates "self-ownership" anywhere and everywhere he can would even consider this.