[quote]malonetd wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]malonetd wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If there is a minimum age, there should be a maximum age as well. Perhaps once you retire, you are done having any say in the state’s affairs. After all, why should some 75 y/o who’s going to be dead in 3 years have any say WHATSOEVER in the state that I will be living in for the next 40 years or so?[/quote]
There already is a minimum age without a maximum.[/quote]
What? My point is that if it is logical to raise the minimum voting age due to the belief that teenagers shouldn’t have any say in how the world works, then it is also logical to establish a maximum voting age in which no old people can vote.
In fact, if you want to raise the minimum age, why not also create some sort of test you have to pass in order to demonstrate that you are competent enough to decide how the world works. My 18 y/o cousin is much more capable of making a good decision on election day than half of the people on this site. I’m starting to wonder if those who think property ownership somehow confers upon you a higher degree of importance to the state than someone who does not are competent enough to vote. How about if our votes become public? That way, whoever votes for some failed, horrible bill or some jackass politician can be banned from voting for at least one election cycle for making such a poor decision.
I love it. The very people on this site who claim to adhere to the principles of democracy and representative govt, who lambast (rightfully so) all forms of govt that aren’t rooted deeply in republican democracy at every turn are now flipping out over an election to the point where they want to try to justify undermining the very democracy they worship by disenfranchising entire blocks of the electorate simply because they don’t think they are “deserving” of a vote. Their true colors have been exposed: these people don’t stand for anything except for what suits them in the here and now.
Tell me something Rockscar, Maximus B and others who would remove voting privileges from huge chunks of society: if voting rights are to be doled out on the basis of some sort of warped “qualification” process, then who is worthy of deciding what the prerequisites for voting are? You guys? [/quote]
Whoa, easy there, killer. You’re the one that said, “If there is a minimum age…” I was just pointing out that one already exists. I was fairly certain you knew that, but I can’t assume anything around here.
Next, I never said anything about property ownership giving the right to vote. In fact, I’m completely against the idea and even said so above.
It’s awesome that your cousin is so politically astute at 18, but so what? I’m sure there are some bright and mature fifteen and sixteen-year-old kids out there. Should the voting age be lowered to 15 then? No, because the vast majority of kids that age aren’t mature enough or smart enough.
I think the same thing can be said about 18-year-olds. They’re already considered not mature enough to handle alcohol or rent cars (in most states). Why is this any different? We don’t have the draft anymore forcing these kids to fight and die for their country at 18. (Somewhat related, I also think the age for joining the military should be raised on the basis of maturity as well. Most eighteen-year-olds are not developed enough to understand a commitment that can potentially cost them their life.) Voting at 18 is a relatively recent item anyway. I see no harm in allowing kids to mature and live as an “adult” for a few years before being allowed to vote. Convince me otherwise.
[/quote]
In this country, we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The framers of our Constitution did this in order to ensure that policy would not be subject to the passing whims of society. It is impractical to let people vote on all issues, but it is not impractical to let the people elect those who DO vote on these issues. So representative democracy is already a first step in eliminating the possibility that the country can be held hostage by an uninformed, tyrannical minority. Teenagers with no concept of the political landscape can be lumped into this crowd.
In California we have moved toward direct democracy, a bad move put into action by the Progressives in the state legislature at the beginning of the 20th century. (Much different progressives than the ones Glenn Beck constantly rails against) This is exacerbated by the fact that many people are not well-informed at all about the issues on the ballot and many chunks of the electorate do not vote at all, eligible teenagers being the largest of these demographics.
I fail to see how disallowing teenagers from participating in the political process can help the nature of the state’s political landscape. If direct democracy is to work, we need to have people voting who are informed and we need to have ALL of the eligible people voting, rather than further limit who is eligible and who is not. In a representative democracy it is virtually impossible for one segment of the electorate, ESPECIALLY teenagers, to impact an election so severely that the leaders who win are complete dunces. We end up with complete dunces sometimes as it is, but it is not due to the participation of teenagers in elections.
In other words, if the state moves away from direct dem and back toward a more representative dem, then the effect that uninformed, pimply-faced teenagers can have on an election is minimized to a certain extent. If we remain entrenched in a direct dem-type of govt in the state, then it is imperative that every person with a stake in the state be allowed to vote and it is even more imperative that their votes are educated ones. By removing teenagers from the electorate, it only lessens the chances that our direct democracy directly represents the people. It also increases the likelihood that these teenagers will not be interested in the political process once they are of age. This is not a good thing for any democracy, and especially not good for this state.
Remember, for good or for worse, teenagers are a part of this state. They work, they pay taxes (although they pretty much all get it back in refund form), they pay sales taxes, they use the roads and highways, they attend the public schools, they may be active in the community as a volunteer, etc etc. The point is that teenagers are a participating segment of our society, and I would also argue that many teenagers out there contribute more to their community than many “voting-eligible” people.
If we eliminate the right to vote on the basis of competency, then there must be some test to pass, because age alone is not even close to being an accurate way to determine “voter competency”. Like I said, my 18 y/o cousin is more “competent voter” than most adults I know, as was I when I was his age. The solution is not to disenfranchise those who are prejudicially deemed to be unworthy of voting; it is to educate people even more so about the dominant political issues of the day. The very essence of democracy demands that we encourage society to participate in it. To make participation in the democratic process an exclusive privilege would be tantamount to…well, anything other than democracy. I think to disallow teenagers from being a part of our democracy only encourages them to remain uneducated and disassociated from the political process. As it is now, we have a very small percentage of 18-19 y/o’s voting. They should be ENCOURAGED to vote, but more importantly to learn about the political process, the issues and so forth.
