[Servant of Eru]

Gee, two threads in Civ D today. I must be feeling inspired. I was also thinking, because my birthday's going to be just a couple of months late to allow me to vote in this year's election, what age should one be allowed to vote at? It used to be 21, but then because 18 year olds were eligible for the draft, they changed it to 18 because they thought they should have a fair chance to vote for the laws since they were old enough to fight for their country. Well, I was also thinking, that with the current state of our judicial system, that like it or not, when you're 16 years old, you're considered an adult in the eyes of the law as far as sentencing goes. So why shouldn't 16 year olds be allowed to vote? I mean, if they're going to be an intelligent voter at any time in their lives (Better gbrumb?), they're probably going to be so by 16 years of age. People give the argument that a 16 year old isn't responsible enough to vote, but half of the adults that vote are welching off the government, living on welfare, and voting for laws that makes it easier for them to freeload. A large portion of the adults who do vote just check a box on the ballot because of what the media says, without looking at the hard facts, or what the actual character of the candidate is. I mean, a 16 year old is considered old enough to become an emancipated minor and live on his/her own in California. Make their own living, etc. It doesn't really stand to reason why their parents can cast them off should they feel the desire to, and they have to live by the laws with no parental protection or advocacy, but they can't vote for themselves, when in all of other matters they are in essence an adult.

[GoneForNow]

Originally posted by Servant of Eru:
I mean, if they're going to be an intelligent voter, they're probably going to be so by 16 years of age.

Your freaking kidding, right? We got some 60 plus year olds in here that don't qualify for "intelligent voter"! Not pointing any fingers mind you....I do note that all are in the midwest however.

[Servant of Eru]

Originally posted by gbrumb:
Your freaking kidding, right? We got some 60 plus year olds in here that don't qualify for "intelligent voter"! Not pointing any fingers mind you....I do note that all are in the midwest however.

You must've missed the 'if'.

[Rep]

Originally posted by gbrumb:
Your freaking kidding, right? We got some 60 plus year olds in here that don't qualify for "intelligent voter"! Not pointing any fingers mind you....I do note that all are in the midwest however.

LMAO as well.

How about if the Rep certifies each potential voter?

[It Wasn't me]

I believe 18 years old should be the age for voting and I also believe if you are in the military and you are 18 you should be able to walk into any bar and order a drink. Other than that the drinking age should be 21. I also believe that 16 years old is NOT old enough to have a drivers license that should also be 18. And while I am at it I also believe that when you turn 65 you should have to pass a driving test EVERY year.

[twotugs]

SoE:

"The young are not fit to be students of philosophy and politics for they have no experience of life and conduct, and it is these that supply the premises and subject matter of these branches of thought."
Aristotle.

gbrumb:

http://www.three-peaks.net/election.htm

The following is from the columnist, "Ask Marilyn" (Marilyn vos Savant):

Q - "I love the joke about a pollster who asks: 'Which is the greater problem facing Americans today: Ignorance or apathy?' A man replies, "I don't know, and I don't care." What would be your reply?
A - "Twenty years ago, I'd have said the greater problem was apathy. Now I believe it is ignorance. Plenty of people care, care wildly, and even care irrationally. But, in this new information age, Americans are so snowed with misinformation and disinformation, many simply don't know what to believe anymore. Even worse, some think they know what to believe, but they're wrong."

Regarding ignorance, here's an unsettling quote: "Americans are choosing to get less and less news from traditional network TV. A poll in Brill's Content says 13 percent of Americans rely on David Letterman or Jay Leno to keep them informed. And a poll by the Pew Research Center reveals 16 percent regularly get news about political candidates from comedy shows like 'Saturday Night Live.'" -- Gregory M. Lamb (Christian Science Monitor)

How else do you think we got the MTV president (boxers or shorts)? Twice! Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.

I think apathy is worse because it is the root of ignorance. Or is it the other way around? Hmmm. Both ignorance or apathy are deadly ills in our society, but I've got third suggestion: selfishness.

It is my observation that tyrannical and corrupt governments usually are built on the shoulders of good people who do nothing to stop the situation. But why do good people fail to stand up against evils such as Hitler, Stalin, Nero, Saddam Hussein, and a few politicians we can name in our own country? Apathy and ignorance are indeed huge factors, and I think they are interrelated -- one cannot exist without the other. But I think the real reason these people stay in power is because otherwise good citizens want the products of the other guy's labors.

To solve the problem of ignorance and apathy, I have long felt that we need to administer a test before allowing anyone to vote. The questions need not be difficult. Possible questions could be:
"Who pays for government programs?"
"Who makes the laws in your city?"
"How do you fill out a valid election ballot in your jurisdiction?"

Such a test should weed out a lot of apathetic and ignorant voters. Unfortunately, "social progressives" have determined that a test is discriminatory and therefore illegal. (Is discrimination really bad? The word simply means the making of a choice -- and we need to chose between those who are capable of posting a wise ballot.)

But such a test won't do a thing about the selfish voter -- the guy who wants to get something for nothing.

During the founding of the US, a professor Alexander Tyler said this on the fall of the Athenian republic:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

It is important to remember that we have a republic -- not a democracy. In a democracy, citizens make all government decisions directly. In a republic, citizens elect representatives who subsequently make decisions on behalf of the people. In our republic, we do have some elements of democracy -- but not at the national level. For example, most (maybe all) local and state governments have a referendum process where citizens can make their own laws. Very often, these referendums turn out to be foolish (even unconstitutional) because they are frequently initiated by a citizen with a selfish motive and is able to convince a majority of citizens (who themselves are either apathetic, ignorant, or selfish) to vote for the issue and ultimately fulfill Professor Tyler's observation. "If fifty-million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." (Anatole France)

Theoretically, a representative (republican) process bypasses the ignorance, apathy and selfishness of citizens. Representatives are given the task of becoming informed on issues and, considering constituent opinion, making wise decisions in our behalf. Unfortunately, politicians know how to play to the apathetic, ignorant and selfish voter and Professor Tyler's weaknesses of democracy find their way into a republic. As long as the apathetic, ignorant and selfish select our leaders, our republic will suffer the same ails that Professor Tyler sees in a democracy.

One of the things that many people are ignorant of, now, but think that they know, is our method of choosing a president -- the electoral college.

One of the reasons we have the Electoral College was because our founders felt that the average citizen isn't smart enough (too ignorant and apathetic) to make such an important decision directly. The 2000 presidential election snafu in Florida (FloriDUH) clearly illustrates the founders wisdom and the need for informed people to be a part of the process. Hence, the Electoral College is a vital part of our republican form of government. To allow a democratic (or popular) vote for national leadership only increases the likelihood that Professor Tyler's prediction will come true for us.

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are just two of the greatest icons of the government giveaways Professor Tyler warned us about. I heard Hillary's senatorial campaign victory speech where she called for the demise of the Electoral College. The mere fact that SHE wants the end of the Electoral College is enough to tell me how desperately need to keep it.

The difference between a republic and a democracy is the difference between liberty for everyone or tyranny of the often ignorant, apathetic and selfish majority.

Always remember that our form of government is a republic -- not a democracy. Our Electoral College system for electing presidents is an essential part of our republic. It helps to protect our Constitution and our freedoms from idiots.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- John Bartlett

"We must become involved in civic affairs. As citizens of this republic we cannot do our duty and be idle spectators." -- Ezra Taft Benson (Ensign, November 1987, page 102)

[Aaron.W]

13.

Definitely.

Most people start to reach maturity at that age but have yet to meet the complexities that come with external responsibilities to come.

13-18 year old voters would force politicians to pay closer attention to their own behaviour.
It's much harder to fool someone who has a clear conscience and far fewer preconceptions. ;]

[edit] . . .and it would be a good reason to start teaching politics in junior high. History courses might get a boost too. ;] [/edit]

[bassetman]

18, as well as drinking! If you can die for "your" country, you should be able to vote for leadership.

[RandyG]

Personally speaking, and against every thing that Democracy stands for . . .

every voter should have to pass an equivalency test before being allowed to vote.

I think the "uninformed masses" (me included) have screwed the US up enough as it is. It has no longer become who is best suited, but rather who has spent more and gotten the attention of more. Make voting a priveledge, not a given.

I'm 36 this year, and woefully underqualified to vote for our President, as i have been for the last few Elections. I have chosen not to follow politics, and have become that dreaded thing . . . the silent majority . . . when it comes to the political arena. I should no longer have the automatic right to vote.

[Wino]

If you're not old enough to be President (35), you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you're the member of any city, county, state, national governing authority, you shouldn't be allowed to vote regardless of age. If you believe anyone running for a political office is an honest and/or sane person, has your best interest in mind, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you think any incumbent should be elected, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you think the standing president and any of the wannabe's is worthy of the office, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you think a BJ in the oval office is worse than a war based on lies, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. If God tells you GWB will win in a landslide, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

So, that leaves me and about 12 other citizens that will be doing all the voting for all you ineligibles.

[Gibble]

18, and you should be able to drink at 18 as well....

...wait just a sec...that's the way it is in MB, Canada!!!

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by It Wasn't me:
I believe 18 years old should be the age for voting and I also believe if you are in the military and you are 18 you should be able to walk into any bar and order a drink. Other than that the drinking age should be 21. I also believe that 16 years old is NOT old enough to have a drivers license that should also be 18. And while I am at it I also believe that when you turn 65 you should have to pass a driving test EVERY year.

On this, I agree with you 100% on all counts.

[Gibble]

"I also believe that 16 years old is NOT old enough to have a drivers license that should also be 18"

Tell that to farmers...these people need their kids driving before they are 16...

Tell that to kids living outside major cities. It's VERY hard to get a job and get money for college if you can't get to a job.

Also, some of us, start college when we are 17...how are we supposed to attend if we can't drive?

You have to think of all the situations before you put a limit like that on it.

[LANMaster]

a fair point, Gib.
Perhaps a limited license for 16 yr olds, and full permist to drive in rural areas. I have neighbors who count on their 14 year olds to drive the tractor.

[Infidel_Kastro]

Originally posted by Servant of Eru:
Well, I was also thinking, that with the current state of our judicial system, that like it or not, when you're 16 years old, you're considered an adult in the eyes of the law as far as sentencing goes. So why shouldn't 16 year olds be allowed to vote? I mean, if they're going to be an intelligent voter at any time in their lives (Better gbrumb?), they're probably going to be so by 16 years of age.

I think you just killed you're own argument. If a person is considered an adult by the courts, but not in all cases, then they should be allowed to vote. However, we could argue that at 18, you SHOULD know better than to commit crimes, therefore you are considered an adult, however, because there is the possiblity that you will be tried as a juvenile, which is the courts way of saying we're gonna punish you, but when you're an adult (18) you can start again, your record is sealed.
I would imagine that for a country to be the best it canbe, you must have an informed electorate. And maybe 18 passes because of military service, or the fact that you are considered an sult, i.e., enter into legal contracts, but maybe also, by 18, you have had the opportunity to become educated, therefore being informed. I personally don't think 16 is an appropriate age to begin to vote, with maturity comes the ability to understand more than just short term outcomes when voting for candidates, and I know there are exceptions to every rule, but at 16, I don't think the average person has the capapacity to understand fully the rmaifications that their vote could have.
Also, younger people don't vote anyway, statistically.
And as far as killing your own argument, when you talk about 16 , being charged or sentenced as an adult, more than likely you will lose your right to vote if you are sentenced.