Okay, except that no one has addressed the argument that adults, too, are often stupid, while "kids" can be very smart. Why not remove the age restriction and extend voting rights to anyone that pays taxes?

10/31/2010 10:34:05 PM

Quote :

"I don't disagree with the actual issue, but the argument you are making here could be used to deny voting rights to any other minority."

Not all minorities are required by law to spend 10 years in an institution that is overwhelmingly government-run. Come to that, we're not really talking about a minority here. They're two years away from becoming part of the "majority," so to speak.

Furthermore, minorities who vote their interests generally have important interests. Regardless of whether or not you agree with, say, affirmative action and welfare policy, I think we can agree that those are important issues. School lunch offerings are not important, but a clever politician can easily mention to students that a nacho counter will now be open five days a week. I would have voted for that motherfucker in a heartbeat. Nacho day was so rare it nearly caused riots when it happened.

Of course, my argument is a blend, really. They're undeveloped, as you say, which makes the ramifications of their minority status that much worse.

Quote :

"Why not remove the age restriction and extend voting rights to anyone that pays taxes?"

Well, if you're talking about income taxes, you're disenfranchising the poor, and during a recession that could be a lot of people. If you're talking about taxes in general, then every five year old who has bought a toy with their Christmas money gets the vote.

Quote :

"Okay, except that no one has addressed the argument that adults, too, are often stupid, while "kids" can be very smart."

This is true, but I don't see how your suggestion solves anything. Smart kids are doing homework and extracurriculars, not working and paying taxes. And Paris Hilton is one of the most profoundly stupid people alive, but she pays taxes.

11/1/2010 12:24:51 AM

Quote :

"Not all minorities are required by law to spend 10 years in an institution that is overwhelmingly government-run."

That's a much better argument than what you had previously, which was just that "they will vote to serve themselves", which could be used to exclude the elderly, blacks, or immigrants.

Quote :

"Furthermore, minorities who vote their interests generally have important interests."

Who are you to say how important their interests are, or that you even know what they are? Saying that they will base their vote based on school lunches is like saying the elderly will base their vote on who will provide prune subsidies.

Stick to the logically valid argument, it's strong enough to stand on it's own.

11/1/2010 12:47:36 AM

Quote :

"Who are you to say how important their interests are, or that you even know what they are?"

A former 16 year old, mainly. There were maybe 10% of us who were into politics, and there were more than a few of those who gladly would have voted for anybody who wanted to shorten the school day and hand out free bacon.

Quote :

"Saying that they will base their vote based on school lunches is like saying the elderly will base their vote on who will provide prune subsidies."

Considering the fact that everybody claims to want to improve social security and medicare benefits, I'd say that's not far off.

11/1/2010 12:53:38 AM

I just wish that there were some kind of more stringent requirement for voting. Simply being 18 years old isn't enough IMO. There really ought to be some kind of basic civics competency test, or as someone else suggested, just make it entirely write in. If you aren't informed enough to know the names of the people up for election you shouldn't be voting.

Theoretically I'm in favor of the idea that only those paying taxes should get to vote, but to implement that would require some significant restructuring of the way we pay taxes since everyone pays sales tax, gas taxes, property tax, etc. At present there is very little way to determine whether or not someone is a net payer or receiver under our current system. It would require some profound changes and is probably unworkable at this point.

11/1/2010 1:12:47 AM

Quote :

"A former 16 year old, mainly. There were maybe 10% of us who were into politics, and there were more than a few of those who gladly would have voted for anybody who wanted to shorten the school day and hand out free bacon."

And somehow that instantly changes in 2 years? Voters usually serve their own interests.

Quote :

"Considering the fact that everybody claims to want to improve social security and medicare benefits, I'd say that's not far off."

I'd describe those as important issues.

11/1/2010 1:15:45 AM

Quote :

"And somehow that instantly changes in 2 years? Voters usually serve their own interests."

What changes is that you are no longer mandated to receive things from the government that nobody else does. Everybody gets jury duty and taxes, but only one segment of society has to get a government-approved education.

In part because of how undeveloped they are, there's also a disconnect between what they call their interest and what actually is their interest. Lots of people are bad at thinking long-term, but kids especially are, for demonstrably physiological reasons. I know plenty of people who gladly would have voted for an inferior education if it was easier. Old people who vote to get more social security and medicare are voting in their actual interest. Getting money now isn't going to hurt them later. A kid who votes for a cut in required schooling hours is hurting themselves later on.

Quote :

"I'd describe those as important issues."

Indeed they are, but in effect they are the "prune subsidies" you mentioned.

11/1/2010 1:56:15 AM

Quote :

"but only one segment of society has to get a government-approved education."

Can't you legally drop out at 16 though? I mean its usually more worthwhile not to, but can't you at 16 or somewhere around that age?

11/1/2010 5:36:59 AM

Yes, and if there's any group I want getting to vote earlier, it's high school dropouts.

11/1/2010 9:12:44 AM

Quote :

"This seems like a troll thread. Kids Humans are fucking stupid -- nothing more needs to be said."

11/1/2010 10:44:28 AM

Quote :

"Okay, except that no one has addressed the argument that adults, too, are often stupid, while "kids" can be very smart. Why not remove the age restriction and extend voting rights to anyone that pays taxes?"

You don't have to be smart to pay taxes, so paying taxes wouldn't weed out the stupid people.

11/1/2010 12:34:16 PM

Quote :

"voting rights privileges"

Isn't voting a privilege and not a right?

11/1/2010 12:47:24 PM

"For" because I consider the average voter to have the political awareness of an elementary-schooler. Also, I think children who become adults during the term of an elected official should have a say in the election of that official.

11/1/2010 12:59:22 PM

Quote :

"What changes is that you are no longer mandated to receive things from the government that nobody else does."

What about social security, welfare, or public scholarship recipients?

Quote :

"In part because of how undeveloped they are, there's also a disconnect between what they call their interest and what actually is their interest."

The first part is a logically defensible argument, the other is not because you are in no more of a place to state their interest than you are those of the black, christian, or numerous other voting groups.

Quote :

"Indeed they are, but in effect they are the "prune subsidies" you mentioned."

The difference being that one is important and the other is silly, just like there's might be school lunches it could just as well be wars that they could be forced to fight or taxes they may be forced to pay. You can't try to state their opinion for them or exclude them because of how important you consider it to be. The development argument is strong enough.

11/1/2010 5:41:42 PM

GrumpyGOP:

Quote :

"but only one segment of society has to get a government-approved education."

Supplanter:
"Can't you legally drop out at 16 though? I mean its usually more worthwhile not to, but can't you at 16 or somewhere around that age?"

GrumpyGOP:

Quote :

"Yes, and if there's any group I want getting to vote earlier, it's high school dropouts."

You said people who have to get the education. This would make all 16 year olds, whether or not they drop out or not, within that category. Unless we're restricting voting based on choices people make about education?

Now it seems like your advocating for gov education being beneficial to have before voting if I'm reading that right?

11/1/2010 5:56:55 PM

Against
I think the minimum age should be increased to 21 and you shouldn't be allowed to vote while you are still financially dependent on your parents (no representation without taxation).

11/1/2010 6:55:50 PM

^I, too, think there should be a poll tax.

11/10/2010 1:52:36 PM

Quote :

"What about social security, welfare, or public scholarship recipients?"

There's not a truancy officer to arrest you for declining to receive any of those things.

Quote :

"the other is not because you are in no more of a place to state their interest than you are those of the black, christian, or numerous other voting groups."

I've never been black, but I have been 16 years old.

Quote :

"The development argument is strong enough."

Not by itself it isn't. Several people here have made the point that there are plenty of 16 year olds who are smarter, more developed people than plenty of 40 year olds.

And on to Supplanter...

Quote :

"Now it seems like your advocating for gov education being beneficial to have before voting if I'm reading that right?"

No, you're not. I'm arguing that the government runs education -- if not by running the schools, then by establishing the curriculum and setting standards. Young people are required, until 16, to be part of that system. We don't let prisoners decide how to run the prison for reasons that are largely analogous to my reasons for not letting students have a say in how to run their school (or crazies to run the asylum, or privates to run the army, etc.)

Your argument, insofar as I understand it (and frankly the sentence starting "This would make all 16 year olds..." makes no sense to me), is that because kids are no longer forced by law to participate in that system after 16, my argument is invalid. Ignoring, for the moment, that you now seem to be wanting to assign voting rights based on the existence of high school drop-outs, we still have the fact that by and large society requires that government-approved diploma for full participation.

Plus, the law allowing kids to drop out at 16 is one of the dumbest goddamn things I've ever heard. Make the little bastards graduate.

11/10/2010 2:23:13 PM