PDA

View Full Version : Lower the Voting Age?



Sigurd
Friday, March 7th, 2008, 03:28 AM
Some European countries have brought up the idea of lowering the voting age to 16, some, like Austria, have even already passed such a law.

Are you in favour of lowering the voting age to 16? Why/ Why not? Do you think it makes a difference which type of election is concerned, i.e. local/national elections/referenda, or does it maybe even depend on the issues concerned? Etc.

Emder
Friday, March 7th, 2008, 03:34 AM
Sometimes I think 18 years is not old enough.

It would be great if there were a test people had to pass before they were permitted to vote or pro-create.

Mrs. Lyfing
Friday, March 7th, 2008, 03:55 AM
Depending on the individual, 16, may or may not be old enough.

Sometimes, instead of concern over voting, I think concerns should be more with the person running. ( Not intended to everyone ) but it seems we know little of these candidates until time to run for office, US president speaking anyways, like Obama for example, I never heard of him until election time. I am supposed to vote for these men? Put the power into the hands of someone who I know nothing of except for his flying promises of doing this and that for us. ( Not just Obama but any of them)

Shouldn't they prove more of them selves to us? Such as, if you are planning to run for president, they should have become well known for years now, the moves they make, the ideas and views they have, the media should supply us with such things, as they do with Celebrity Gossip.

It sad that I know more about Brittney Spears than the President.

Hey, thats America for you.

Point was...:rolleyes:, having more voters wouldn't hurt, unless they are voting for Obama ;)

Thrymheim
Friday, March 7th, 2008, 04:27 AM
I said other

This is one of those awkward ones where it all depends on the individual some will be able to make an informed judgement at a young age maybe even 13, 14 where as others should never be allowed to vote no matter how old they become. Of course this does not fit very well with the idea of a democracy, the reason that the government wants to lower the voting age is to get the turnout percent up, I doubt it will work however as most young people are not interested in such things, if they were then sites like this would be much more heavily subscribed.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, March 7th, 2008, 04:55 AM
I think it should be raised. I don't know what it has traditionally been in Europe, but in the US it used to be 21.

The world is a lot more complex than in past times, and people mature later in life do to needing to stay in school (and live with parents) until a later age.

The Lawspeaker
Saturday, March 8th, 2008, 03:27 AM
I think it should be raised. I don't know what it has traditionally been in Europe, but in the US it used to be 21.
It used to be 23 untill 1965 and was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971 here in the Netherlands. Actually I do think that the voting age (both to elect and to be elected) should raised to 23 or 25. As should the right to get a driver's license. Because one's brain actually only stops developing at the age 27 and judged by the way in which many 18 year olds act or think about driving, drinking, smoking or politics that they aren't mature enough to take political decisions yet or get a driving license. It requires thinking instead of acting on impulse (and the younger drivers are the most reckless- and no doubt so are young voters- for instance: I used to be, for pete's sake, a commie at that age.)


The world is a lot more complex than in past times, and people mature later in life do to needing to stay in school (and live with parents) until a later age.
Agreed.. so I think that they should be given the chance to mature in steps rather then rushing it, like society is doing now.

Beornulf
Saturday, March 8th, 2008, 03:38 AM
I say no because I don't believe in the voting process and personally don't wish to partake in it. Regardless of the ages of voting I think Democracy is a gigantic failure.

Soldier of Wodann
Saturday, March 8th, 2008, 03:46 AM
At no age is universal suffrage going to work well. ;) May as well lower it to 6, the results won't be any different.

Ĉmeric
Saturday, March 8th, 2008, 04:02 AM
I think the voting age should be raised to at least 30 or perhaps even 40. And no one receiving welfare or social security benefits should be allowed to vote regardless of age. They tend to vote for politicians who promise more goodies at the expense of people who pay taxes.

Eikinskjaldi
Saturday, March 8th, 2008, 04:50 AM
There should be a minimum IQ level required to vote. We don't let 10 year old children vote, but we let adults with the mentality of a ten year old vote.

BeornWulfWer
Saturday, March 8th, 2008, 02:59 PM
I do have to agree with the main consensus of the age being to low, but with that said the chances for a revolutionary government coming to power would increase with the potential backing of youth who feel disillusioned and lost.

When you reach family rearing age you do look for the party which will give you added financial incentives and greater schemes, as mentioned by Ĉmeric, but as the years go on you realise that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

With youth comes no responsibility. With no responsibility comes a willingness to vote against the social norm.

I voted in agreement with it being lowered, anyway.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, March 9th, 2008, 12:58 AM
I do have to agree with the main consensus of the age being to low, but with that said the chances for a revolutionary government coming to power would increase with the potential backing of youth who feel disillusioned and lost.

You have a point there, but more often than not the urge for revolutionary change is not tempered by wisdom, and not properly thought through, and their support goes towards a candidate which is good in superficial appearance but intellectually bankrupt. The kids who 'get it' at age 20 will still 'get it' at age 30, but many of the clueless at age 20 will wise up by age 30

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, March 9th, 2008, 01:09 AM
but more often than not the urge for revolutionary change is not tempered by wisdom, and not properly thought through.

Ah, but that is where the beauty of youth is. You can mould them into choosing the right candidate or party.

It does sound very domineering, but as a youth you do have an overly amount of trust for your elders. Whether you respect them is another thing, but you know what I mean.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, March 9th, 2008, 03:39 AM
Ah, but that is where the beauty of youth is. You can mould them into choosing the right candidate or party.

It does sound very domineering, but as a youth you do have an overly amount of trust for your elders. Whether you respect them is another thing, but you know what I mean.

If you are arguing that they are more susceptible to outside influences in picking a candidate or party, I would think of that as an argument against allowing them to vote.

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, March 9th, 2008, 06:42 PM
If you are arguing that they are more susceptible to outside influences in picking a candidate or party, I would think of that as an argument against allowing them to vote.


Like I said, it is a 'dodgy' policy to take, but if you can capture the spirit of the youth then I think the chance would be worth taking.

Bärin
Tuesday, April 29th, 2008, 05:02 PM
No, I believe that 18 is the lower boudary for voting age.

I was interested with politics since I was 13-14, but I was almost alone in that at my school. I didn't mind having to wait until 18 to cast my first vote. :)

I agree that voting should be for adults and additional requirements should be like people said IQ, no welfare, and more.

I also think that voting should be open, not secret and anonymous, behind booths. Then people would take more responsibility who they vote for and also learn to be more open about their politics.

Guntwachar
Tuesday, April 29th, 2008, 05:07 PM
I voted no, i think it should even be changed to 20/21.
People should be tested also to see if they can vote, because most people from 18 here are idiots you dont want them to decide who is going to be the "leader".

ChaosLord
Tuesday, April 29th, 2008, 11:46 PM
I voted no because I think that the general populace is pretty dumb and sheepish enough at 18 years old. A younger voting age would be easier to enact propaganda via the media to shape the youths' minds and ideologies.

The Lawspeaker
Wednesday, April 30th, 2008, 01:51 AM
I agree that voting should be for adults and additional requirements should be like people said IQ, no welfare, and more.
Well... no.. born and bred-Dutchmen have to right to vote- even if they live on welfare. I do think that New Dutchmen that really contribute to their new society ( the well educated, the entrepreneurs and OAP's) should be treated as Dutch citizens after 15 years and a full integration (and of course after a full screening of their political and religious background)- the rest that lives on welfare or performs manual labour should not be allowed to vote. Those that are living of benefits and performing manual labour while having a decent education should be re-educated and be given jobs that are in accordance with their studies (and of course the right to vote).



I also think that voting should be open, not secret and anonymous, behind booths. Then people would take more responsibility who they vote for and also learn to be more open about their politics.
Agreed- I think that voting should be public (perhaps like the Swiss Landesgemeinde). Citizens should know their rights and responsiblities and they should exercise them in plain view. IMHO it should be possible to organise a national holiday, the Day of Democracy (for political meetings and elections).

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, May 1st, 2008, 07:16 AM
Voting should remain secret. If it doesn't, it will make it even more open to media pressure, and even in countries where nationalist candidates are fully legal, people may be in danger of losing jobs or other repercussions.

FinstererStreiter
Sunday, May 4th, 2008, 09:01 PM
Lowering the voting age? I´d state the opposite: Raising the voting age. Most of the people around 18 are not able to formulate a proper political concept. Not even their own. If they open their mouth they spit out an unhealthy babble of mixed nonsense.

Let´s raise the voting age to 21 or 24.

Drakkar
Sunday, May 4th, 2008, 09:26 PM
16 year olds are generally incapable of knowing the consequences for their actions, therefore it doesn't qualify them to vote. 18 is still too young, but then you have to look at the situation with 18 year-old soldiers going off to war. Do you raise both ages? I'm not sure what age exactly to raise these two ages, but they are definitely too low. I would settle for 21, but even that seems too young.

Deary
Sunday, May 4th, 2008, 10:06 PM
Wishful thinking about IQ tests for voting, although I wouldn't mind seeing manditory government or political science classes available to the public before they could legally register to vote. If one does not make a satisfactory score on the test for the class, then they must take the class and test again until they meet the required score. Plus, raising the voting age essentially attempts to ensure the same thing; that people will acquire a certain level of knowledge and wisdom before casting their ballot. It is also far less controversial because it does not necessarily exclude anyone. In America, 21 is probably as high as it will go.

I strongly disagree with votes being made public. If people knew their reputation was on the line based on their vote, they'd me more inclined to vote for whatever betters their status, lets them keep their job, etc. which is going to have a negative effect on the political process or something as important as the outcome of the presidential elections. People actually take the most responsibility when they know they cannot not be judged or made an open target of.

Rainraven
Monday, May 5th, 2008, 12:48 AM
Being 16 not so long ago I do not think lowering the voting age woud be a good idea. There are hardly even enough 18 year old with enough political knoweledge to allow them the vote, however there are enough to make it unfair to take the right off them. I guess the only hope we have is that those without strong opinions and reasons behind them won't care enough to bother turning up to vote.

Siegfried
Monday, May 5th, 2008, 10:00 AM
Like several other members, I think the voting age should be higher than it currently is. The age for active suffrage should be around 21, and I'd support even higher standards for passive suffrage (30, 40, maybe even 50). The latter is a bit problematic in our situation, as that would transfer more power to the baby boomers who have caused our culture so much problems. Raising the age would provide us with greater political barriers against such nightmares in the future, though.

GroeneWolf
Monday, May 5th, 2008, 05:45 PM
Wishful thinking about IQ tests for voting,

Alto it is probaly a good idea to create an extra precondition to aquire votingrights except for reaching a certain age. I don't think that IQ-tests would be a good idea. High-IQ people can sometimes be a bit eccentric. Or maybe have little idea about what is happing on the street, there are exceptions of course.

Maybe we should relink civil rights with civic duties again (and that means more then just paying taxes).


although I wouldn't mind seeing manditory government or political science classes available to the public before they could legally register to vote.

Here in the Netherlands we have something called maatschapijleer that in part is meaned to give youth some basic ground. But such things are usualy highly coloured. If the quality isn't low to begin with.


I strongly disagree with votes being made public.

It could indeed be a good thing. Here parties if they want to participate in elections must gather a certain amount of signatures. And everyone can look up who provided their signature. And they must do so every elections even if they gained seats in the last one. That last one was passed as law to help beat down nationalists parties in the early 90's.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, May 6th, 2008, 07:23 AM
Yeah, any mandatory political class would just turn into a propaganda indoctrination by whichever government was in power.

Likewise, trying to get too complicated with the tests would get corrupted. It has to be based on something concrete you can't rig the test for, like race, gender, age, land ownership, military service, income, etc.

Veratŭr
Thursday, May 8th, 2008, 12:39 AM
I don't think it should be lowered or raised, I think people should be tested on if they're intelligent/mature enough to vote and make a good decision. Most people at my school would instantly vote for Obama only because he's black and not look at his ideology.

Oswiu
Thursday, May 8th, 2008, 01:27 AM
We learnt Nineteenth Century British History at school, and you could feel that the syllabus was set up by people who wanted us to get the impression of ever improving progress in the political system, through the various Reform Acts up to female suffrage. Some of us there in the class were quite taken however by what we heard of the old system - Burgage Boroughs in particular. Lets put things back how they were in the Good Old Days, and leave such matters to those who, as they said back then, "have a stake in the country", in other words male propertyholders over the age of 21!

Now and then you hear this: "If the Government thinks I'm old enough to get married and have kids, why can't I vote?" Of course though, their bodies and biological urges are hard things to legislate for, and parliamentary suffrage is something we can organise more sensibly. Don't expect to see it any time in the next generation or so, though! It seems that the political establishment is anxious that the burgeoning hordes of young second, third and fourth generation third world immigrants be extended political power as soon as possible...

Resurgam
Thursday, May 8th, 2008, 08:45 AM
I believe that the vote should be restricted to taxpaying property-owners. Additionally restrict it to Protestant male heads of households. That means ending women's suffrage.:cool:

Siegfried
Thursday, June 5th, 2008, 03:01 PM
I believe that the vote should be restricted to taxpaying property-owners. Additionally restrict it to Protestant male heads of households. That means ending women's suffrage.:cool:

Is there a real political movement in the USA towards ending women's suffrage? There's one party here in the Netherlands (two seats in parliament) which openly strives to end it, the theocratic Protestant 'SGP'.

Ĉmeric
Thursday, June 5th, 2008, 04:36 PM
There is no movement to end women's suffrage in the US, though there should be.;) I agree, suffrage should be severely restricted.

Deary
Thursday, June 5th, 2008, 05:03 PM
It should be easy enough to create one, however. Simply ask a bunch of women if they want to end women's suffrage ;) I've done it before and got a great many unhesitating agreements.

arthor
Thursday, June 5th, 2008, 07:23 PM
cyfarchion

No tax - no vote. No property - no vote.
In fact there should be more than one vote up to a maximum of three. You start with one once you have achieve enough generations of living here. A set level of tax contributions would get you another. Military or similiar service would get you another. Votes could be removed for certain things such as more than a set amount of time on the dole. Criminal offences, lunacy etc.

wasshael

GroeneWolf
Friday, June 6th, 2008, 08:49 PM
Is there a real political movement in the USA towards ending women's suffrage? There's one party here in the Netherlands (two seats in parliament) which openly strives to end it, the theocratic Protestant 'SGP'.

As far as I know they only state women shouldn't have an active part in politics.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008, 08:00 AM
Due to the level of participation by elderly voters and the fact that men die much younger, women are actually the majority of voters now.

It's not a realistic proposition to remove the vote for women under the current system.

However, if there were some sort of revolution, you'd have to be on drugs to propose that women be given the vote under the new system.

Siegfried
Friday, June 20th, 2008, 09:42 AM
As far as I know they only state women shouldn't have an active part in politics.

You're right they now advocate a more moderate position than before; I hadn't realised just how watered down it had become. Passive suffrage for females is still rejected, but it is now left to the individual female's conscience whether active suffrage is compatible with her proper role. See the 'Toelichting' for Article 10 of their Declaration of Principles here (http://www.sgp.nl/Media/download/5257/Toelichting%20Pr.v.B.pdf).



Article 10
De opvatting van het vrouwenkiesrecht voortkomend uit een revolutionair emancipatiestreven, strijdt met de roeping van de vrouw. Dat laatste geldt ook voor het zitting nemen van de vrouw in politieke organen, zowel vertegenwoordigende als bestuurlijke.
De vrouw zij in haar eigen consciëntie overtuigd of zij haar stem kan uitbrengen met inachtneming van de haar door God gegeven plaats.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, June 20th, 2008, 10:18 AM
No, I think 18 or maybe 21 should be the legal voting age. At 16 it's too early to have a decision about the country's political situation and parents can also manipulate: "If you vote for this party, we give you more allowance money/we buy you the scooter you've been waiting for." :rolleyes:

Sissi
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 05:19 AM
No, I am against it. I think the voting age should be raised to at least 21. Teenagers should not be in the position to decide a country's future. They don't know what's best for themselves, let alone what's best for their country or city.

SouthernBoy
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 05:30 AM
I say raise it to fifty. ;)

Ulf
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 08:04 AM
Screw age. IQ and knowledge of candidates stances should be on a required test before voting, if a ten year old can pass that let them vote! Also I think you should be able to vote up to 3-6 months before the actual election. PA doesn't have early voting so it seems awesome to me!