Should the voting age be lowered?

[Kulindahr]

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.

So basically you're saying that you don't like the way that people with more experience in life are voting, and the younger people are too lazy to get off their asses and actually vote, so you want people with even less experience involved in an attempt to outweigh those with whom you disagree.

Tell you what: if you think 14-y.o.s should be allowed to vote, will you let them exercise all the other things that come with voting age, like drinking? let them get married without parental permission? allow them to sign binding contracts? and what about their actual constitutional rights -- like the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Kulindahr]

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.



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

If you're not even going to pay attention to the posts you're responding to, I don't see much point in responding to you.

You're wrong about the Founding Fathers, and you have this superstitious worship of democracy. And you're excessively naive about lawyers -- if nothing else, it's a conflict of interest to have those whose profession is making a living off the law writing it.

 

[construct]

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.!

Or organize a new and improved "Rock the Vote" campaign. The correct answer is not voter suppression. The correct answer is not lowering the age incrementally down to infancy. The answer is for you and those interested in the political strength of the younger demographic to turn out your voters. Stand and deliver.

 

[NotThatCreative]

You're wrong about the Founding Fathers, and you have this superstitious worship of democracy. And you're excessively naive about lawyers -- if nothing else, it's a conflict of interest to have those whose profession is making a living off the law writing it.

My naivete? Over 40% of the members of Congress have law degrees. To advocate no lawyers in government is idealistic and unrealistic to the extreme. There is no profession left untouched by laws of the government, and so there'll always be a "conflict of interest".

I don't have a superstitious worship of democracy. I don't even advocate proper democracy. I advocate a constitutional republic. Are you really telling me you find dictatorships acceptable? Perhaps a monarchy? Military junta?

The founding fathers were sometimes wrong. They did consider women and poor people and blacks as lesser than they. They undoubtedly had multiple reasons for supporting such a limited right to vote. Some because of belief in superiority, some because they thought it'd be better for freedom, some both, and some neither. But that hardly matters. We've extended the right to vote to so many people that they would never have included, their views on this shouldn't matter anymore to us. We've moved past that.

Your elitism here is distasteful by most modern Western moral standards. You think your voice should count for more because you had the good fortune to be properly educated? You're wrong. It shouldn't. Education might cause a person to advocate some form of communism just as easily as anything else. It is no guarantor for love of freedom.

Freedom is best protected if the people who are ruled over have a substantial voice. Disenfranchising people is not the solution to any perceived lack of freedom.

 

[JB3]

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.

Besides social security, every single one of them will get that money back.

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.

I see you've been reading from the ridiculous, ageist playbook of LostLover. Your argument doesn't fly here, so take it elsewhere.

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.

Ah, so because you don't like them, they shouldn't have the right to vote? You would have fit right in with the racists that prevented blacks from voting during the civil rights movement.

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.

They're bankrupt because stupid and complacent voters across ALL age bands thought they could retain their ridiculous entitlements amid declining revenue, and things would be all hunky doory. They're bankrupt because people think that all of their benefits, like universal healthcare, outrageous retirement and work benefits, and other similar entitlements are sustainable, when history tells us otherwise.

What's interesting is that the US is just starting down the road towards a massive inflation of entitlement benefits just as Europe is realizing how destructive those entitlements can be to their economy in the long term. I'm not surprised that politicians in the US seem tone-deaf to what is an increasing roar across the world against the financial calamity these things will cause.

 

[Kulindahr]

My naivete? Over 40% of the members of Congress have law degrees. To advocate no lawyers in government is idealistic and unrealistic to the extreme. There is no profession left untouched by laws of the government, and so there'll always be a "conflict of interest".

Doctors don't make a living off the law. Farmers don't make a living off the law. Only lawyers make a living off the law.
Those who make a living off the law tend to live in a fantasy realm; they think that words on paper are reality, and that putting more words on paper will change reality. And many of them think that written words exist for them to twist to mean whatever they wish, rather than to actually say something.
Lawyers love laws. They delight in having more of them. They think the job of Congress is to increase the number of laws, and that there should be a law for everything. If there's a problem, their first instinct is to make more laws.
That's all dangerous to liberty.

I don't have a superstitious worship of democracy. I don't even advocate proper democracy. I advocate a constitutional republic. Are you really telling me you find dictatorships acceptable? Perhaps a monarchy? Military junta?

If you advocate a constitutional republic, then you should be open to limiting or changing the franchise: the point of a constitutional republic is to protect liberty, not to give everyone a vote.
And if it would better protect our liberty and freedoms, I'd happily go with a monarchy. Make the only authority of the monarch be to veto laws he/she believed would decrease individual liberty, and I' have no trouble at all with it.

We've extended the right to vote to so many people that they would never have included, their views on this shouldn't matter anymore to us. We've moved past that.

Moving isn't necessarily progress.

Your elitism here is distasteful by most modern Western moral standards. You think your voice should count for more because you had the good fortune to be properly educated? You're wrong. It shouldn't. Education might cause a person to advocate some form of communism just as easily as anything else. It is no guarantor for love of freedom.

Giving only those who can earn a GED the vote is "elitism"? I know a guy with an IQ measured just above 90 who had never been to high school but got his GED in six months -- where's the elitism???
Giving only those willing to invest their time and sweat to the country is "elitism"?

I call it elitism to maintain that the ability to speak and shit are sufficient to promote someone to the privilege of having a say in the country.

Freedom is best protected if the people who are ruled over have a substantial voice. Disenfranchising people is not the solution to any perceived lack of freedom.

Freedom is best protected if those who have a say are those who've been willing to put themselves in their country's service. If you can't commit yourself to serve your country for a few years, you can't be counted on to vote in its interest.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Doctors don't make a living off the law. Farmers don't make a living off the law. Only lawyers make a living off the law.
Those who make a living off the law tend to live in a fantasy realm; they think that words on paper are reality, and that putting more words on paper will change reality. And many of them think that written words exist for them to twist to mean whatever they wish, rather than to actually say something.
Lawyers love laws. They delight in having more of them. They think the job of Congress is to increase the number of laws, and that there should be a law for everything. If there's a problem, their first instinct is to make more laws.
That's all dangerous to liberty.

I'm sorry you hate lawyers so, they play an important part of our system. All your argument there is bashing and stereotyping those who choose a certain profession. Except to point stereotyping out and hope the stupidity of it is recognized, I don't respond to it.

If you advocate a constitutional republic, then you should be open to limiting or changing the franchise: the point of a constitutional republic is to protect liberty, not to give everyone a vote.
And if it would better protect our liberty and freedoms, I'd happily go with a monarchy. Make the only authority of the monarch be to veto laws he/she believed would decrease individual liberty, and I' have no trouble at all with it.

The point of a constitutional republic is that a pure democracy isn't workable. We can't all know all the stuff required to be able to legislate on the various issues that go before Congress. One of the major reasons for the committee system within Congress is that there are so many issues and they have such complexity that it isn't realistic to expect anyone to have sufficient knowledge of everything to legislate on it.

Giving only those who can earn a GED the vote is "elitism"? I know a guy with an IQ measured just above 90 who had never been to high school but got his GED in six months -- where's the elitism???
Giving only those willing to invest their time and sweat to the country is "elitism"?

I call it elitism to maintain that the ability to speak and shit are sufficient to promote someone to the privilege of having a say in the country.

You've said:

And freedom might be better protected if there were education requirements for voting.

That's elitism. The draft idea wasn't. That was.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the draft idea either. And, as I've said, I'm surprised to hear someone who champions "self-ownership" as much as you do have a draft requirement before you can exercise such an essential and basic right as voting. But it sounds like you think voting is a privilege and not a right. If you think that, then we truly are far apart on this issue.

Elitism - The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

That's the definition. If you have trouble with the definition of words in the future, try looking them up. What you call elitism has nothing to do with what elitism actually is. Your entire second paragraph isn't elitism.

Freedom is best protected if those who have a say are those who've been willing to put themselves in their country's service. If you can't commit yourself to serve your country for a few years, you can't be counted on to vote in its interest.

No one ever votes in the "country's" interest over their own. People may vote in the interest of their country if it doesn't harm their own interest without helping it, but people don't vote against their own interests. That applies to veterans just as much. You seem to be claiming that veterans vote in the interests of the country more so than do current service members and civilians. Do you have any evidence to back up such a claim?

 

[Kulindahr]

That's elitism. The draft idea wasn't. That was.

Asking people to have a minimal competence before undertaking an important task is not elitism.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the draft idea either. And, as I've said, I'm surprised to hear someone who champions "self-ownership" as much as you do have a draft requirement before you can exercise such an essential and basic right as voting. But it sounds like you think voting is a privilege and not a right. If you think that, then we truly are far apart on this issue.

Why do you keep talking about a draft??? Where did that enter the discussion?

Demonstrate from basic principles that there's a right to vote, and I'll go with it. Until then, I will continue to regard it as nothing more than a tool, assigned to certain people to do.

No one ever votes in the "country's" interest over their own. People may vote in the interest of their country if it doesn't harm their own interest without helping it, but people don't vote against their own interests. That applies to veterans just as much. You seem to be claiming that veterans vote in the interests of the country more so than do current service members and civilians. Do you have any evidence to back up such a claim?

I've known quite a few people who have voted against their own interests, because voting the other way would have been wrong. They voted for measures that harmed them financially and in other ways.

I have no idea whether veterans actually vote more in the country's interest. But I see no reason to believe that anyone not willing to invest time and sweat in his country should ever be expected to do so.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Asking people to have a minimal competence before undertaking an important task is not elitism.

Elitism - The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

Is there a word in that definition that confused you? Your standard of "minimal competence" is about how well educated they are. You think that, being educated, you're voice is worth more than the uneducated, be they be uneducated because of poverty or because they couldn't be bothered, you still think your voice is worth more. That's believing in favored treatment (granted the right to vote) because of a perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

How about we make a requirement that you have at least a bachelor's in political science before you can vote? Or a master's. Or a doctorate. They'd be "more qualified" to vote according to your standards than someone with just a high school diploma. So why not make those requirement? Is it possible that under your scheme you personally wouldn't be disenfranchised but you would be if only people with polisci or economics doctorates were allowed to vote? How convenient for you.

Why do you keep talking about a draft??? Where did that enter the discussion?

The draft idea. Your national service concept. It entered the discussion when you wrote about it:

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.

Demonstrate from basic principles that there's a right to vote, and I'll go with it. Until then, I will continue to regard it as nothing more than a tool, assigned to certain people to do.

Not believing in the right to vote is un-American. As long as you're living in this country, in the states of our country, the fact that the Constitution recognizes voting as a right should be sufficient. Since you regard your own personal thoughts and feelings as superior to that document and the bills that have been passed in our 200+ year history that also recognize the right to vote. To be specific, voting is, in this country, a state-based right. And whatever your interpretation of voting rights is, it is without question unlawful in this country to deny certain law-abiding citizens the right whilst granting it to others.

I've known quite a few people who have voted against their own interests, because voting the other way would have been wrong. They voted for measures that harmed them financially and in other ways.

I have no idea whether veterans actually vote more in the country's interest. But I see no reason to believe that anyone not willing to invest time and sweat in his country should ever be expected to do so.

Your first paragraph contradicts many, many philosophers based off a personal anecdote and an assumption that voting a certain way based on one's morals can still be voting against your interest.

In response to your second paragraph, why in the hell do you think anyone will necessarily put the country's interests above their own?

Perhaps an absolute wasn't the best choice, as there are always exceptions. Generally I and the people I talk to take that into account when an absolute is used, but what the hell. I'll say that a few people here and there will vote against their interests for the sake of the country as a whole. But you can't find a demographic wherein the majority, much less everyone, puts their interests in the back seat to the government's interests.

Our disagreement, though, boils down to "is voting a right?" Everything else is extraneous. You, apparently, think voting isn't a right. And, while there are a great many topics I'm willing to argue over, there are some that I'm not. The existence of a right to vote in the United States of America is one of the latter kind. You can argue it with someone else on this forum who believes in the right to vote. I'm done.

 

[Kulindahr]

Elitism - The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

Is there a word in that definition that confused you? Your standard of "minimal competence" is about how well educated they are. You think that, being educated, you're voice is worth more than the uneducated, be they be uneducated because of poverty or because they couldn't be bothered, you still think your voice is worth more. That's believing in favored treatment (granted the right to vote) because of a perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

How about we make a requirement that you have at least a bachelor's in political science before you can vote? Or a master's. Or a doctorate. They'd be "more qualified" to vote according to your standards than someone with just a high school diploma. So why not make those requirement? Is it possible that under your scheme you personally wouldn't be disenfranchised but you would be if only people with polisci or economics doctorates were allowed to vote? How convenient for you.

Okay, now you're making crap up. How about talking about what I said, instead?

The draft idea. Your national service concept. It entered the discussion when you wrote about it:

Okay, I wrote that.
Now, where are you getting the crap about a draft?

Not believing in the right to vote is un-American. As long as you're living in this country, in the states of our country, the fact that the Constitution recognizes voting as a right should be sufficient. Since you regard your own personal thoughts and feelings as superior to that document and the bills that have been passed in our 200+ year history that also recognize the right to vote. To be specific, voting is, in this country, a state-based right. And whatever your interpretation of voting rights is, it is without question unlawful in this country to deny certain law-abiding citizens the right whilst granting it to others.

Okay, you need to go take a class in reading.

How about responding to what I said? I've noticed you have this habit of responding to things you think other people said and not responding to things that don't allow you to just parrot others. But I'll try again:

Demonstrate from basic principles that there's such a thing as a right to vote.

That means you can't resort to the fantasy land of law and pretend it's reality -- it means you answer the question.

Your first paragraph contradicts many, many philosophers based off a personal anecdote and an assumption that voting a certain way based on one's morals can still be voting against your interest.

I figured you'd do that: when faced with facts contrary to your position, you define them away.
You said "no one". I proved that false; now you dodge and weave and fall back on philosophers -- instead of reality.

In response to your second paragraph, why in the hell do you think anyone will necessarily put the country's interests above their own?

Actually I would expect any real American to do so -- it's part of patriotism, along with calling out your president when he's a moron or is serving the corporations instead of the people.

Our disagreement, though, boils down to "is voting a right?" Everything else is extraneous. You, apparently, think voting isn't a right. And, while there are a great many topics I'm willing to argue over, there are some that I'm not. The existence of a right to vote in the United States of America is one of the latter kind. You can argue it with someone else on this forum who believes in the right to vote. I'm done.

Maybe you should man up and answer the question: why is it a right?

Since you're leaving, I'll just say enjoy your "My country, right or wrong" attitude that lets selfish men interested in their own power more than anything else define truth for you.

 

[AsianDream]

No, 18. You are legally an adult at 18 and voting is an adult responsibility and privilege.

The original argument for lowering the voting age to 18 from 21 was "If you're old enough to be drafted and die for your country in the jungles of Vietnam, you're old enough to vote for the president who sends you there." That made perfect sense then and voting is one of those rights you get when you become an adult. You're still a juvenile before that. Fortunately, we are not drafting people anymore.

That seems perfectly reasonable -

If you're old enough to pay taxes and be required to fight for your country - then you're old enough to vote and drink alchohol if you chose.

Under the age of 18 - the government has no right to tax you - becasuse you have no say in how this money is spent,

I wouldn't bet too much on the USA not needing to draft people again in the next 30 years or so.

 

[poolerboy]

That November very few of my fellow 18, 19 and 20 year olds bothered to vote. I was raised to believe it was my civic duty, but my peers apparently didn't feel so inclined.

I find it odd when people give so much deference to abstract symbols like flags, pins, anthems and so forth and if anyone does anything perceived as disrespectful toward them they'll make a huge hissyfit yet they do not actively do anything to actually positively impact their country by being ontop of current events, becoming informed of the issues and "rocking" the vote. /facepalm

 

[PrivateTimm]

That seems perfectly reasonable -

If you're old enough to pay taxes and be required to fight for your country - then you're old enough to vote and drink alchohol if you chose.

Under the age of 18 - the government has no right to tax you - becasuse you have no say in how this money is spent,

I wouldn't bet too much on the USA not needing to draft people again in the next 30 years or so.

Lots of people who earn money and are taxed have no right to vote because they can be legal residents and not citizens. Paying taxes has nothing to do with voting.

The age of majority and voting should go back to 21, that includes voting, signing contracts, etc.