PDA

View Full Version : Voting Age



slayer54321
6th May 2008, 9:21 PM
I am currently living in the USA, and my voting age is 18. This debate is mainly about what age you would like to be able to vote at, and why.

I would like my voting age to be 16. If you are able to drive a car at 16, why not be able to pick a president? You have the potential to kill people with a car, but yet we have the ability to vote at 18. Casting a ballot isn't nearly as deadly as possibly killing multiple numbers of people with a car. I know it's not as simple as casting a ballot, but only on rare occasions does the popular vote matter when electing a president. Normally it's only the electoral college votes. So as I said before, killing people is much worse.

At 16, most people know the difference between right and wrong. Most people at the age of 16 have been through elementary school, middle school, and almost all of high school. They obviously know how to make decisions, so why shouldn't they vote?

Some may argue that the president is the leader of the country and that your vote matters more than a car or deaths. But as I said before, on rare occasions does the popular vote matter.
;473;;473;;473;

You can all talk now :D

;473;;473;;473;

ShacarterzOr
6th May 2008, 9:25 PM
I would like my voting age to be 16. If you are able to drive a car at 16, why not be able to pick a president? You have the potential to kill people with a car, but yet we have the ability to vote at 18. Casting a ballot isn't nearly as deadly as possibly killing multiple numbers of people with a car. I know it's not as simple as casting a ballot, but only on rare occasions does the popular vote matter when electing a president. Normally it's only the electoral college votes. So as I said before, killing people is much worse.



i agree. you drive a car, you possibly kill someone. you vote, you possibly pick a president that will vandalize america. either one is BAD BAD BAD.

Hydrohs
6th May 2008, 9:27 PM
I agree with 18, people are far more responsible. And I also think the driving age should be 18. For the same responsibility reasons. and you see, voting can in a sense have a lot more consequences. 18 is a fine age.

slayer54321
6th May 2008, 9:30 PM
I agree with 18, people are far more responsible. And I also think the driving age should be 18. For the same responsibility reasons. and you see, voting can in a sense have a lot more consequences. 18 is a fine age.

I'm not quite sure i understand, you'll have to explain

The Big Al
6th May 2008, 9:33 PM
At the age of 18 you're an adult. You can legally enter contracts on your own and are criminally liable. Most people have graduated from high school by then as well. So, the voting age should remain at 18.

Brettt
6th May 2008, 9:34 PM
I agree with 18, people are far more responsible. And I also think the driving age should be 18. For the same responsibility reasons. and you see, voting can in a sense have a lot more consequences. 18 is a fine age.

Agreed. 18 is the generally accepted age for adulthood. Driving age should be that, and despite the fact I like it being 16, it should be 18. Its just a more generally responsible age. The majority of 18 year olds are more responsible than the majority of 16 year olds. Its pretty much that simple.

GhostAnime
6th May 2008, 9:48 PM
lowering it to 16 just because you can drive at that age is ridiculous. electing the most poweful man in the world is not the same as how you transport yourself.

i think the age should be higher. much higher. 18-year-olds arent responsible enough to know anything about politics. lets be honest here, people. do they own a house? do they know anything about taxes a lot?

we need the most educated voters we can get.

Brettt
6th May 2008, 9:51 PM
lowering it to 16 just because you can drive at that age is ridiculous. electing the most poweful man in the world is not the same as how you transport yourself.

i think the age should be higher. much higher. 18-year-olds arent responsible enough to know anything about politics. lets be honest here, people. do they own a house? do they know anything about taxes a lot?

we need the most educated voters we can get.

Yeah, but that requires personal information on every person in the country. True, they don't know, but how can you know which ones do and don't know? Maybe only raisedto the drinking age. Though driving age doesn't need to be that high to be honest.

MareepMan
6th May 2008, 9:55 PM
I think the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here. The voting age is fine how it is and so you don't need to fix it.

GhostAnime
6th May 2008, 9:58 PM
how do i know that most of them dont know? how many own a house? they havent lived long enough to make economic decisions. living with your parents for 18 years doesnt exactly constitute as "knowing a lot about politics!"

slavery wasnt broken, btw. neither was women not voting. should we have fixed them?

slayer54321
6th May 2008, 10:00 PM
how do i know that most of them dont know? how many own a house? they havent lived long enough to make economic decisions. living with your parents for 18 years doesnt exactly constitute as "knowing a lot about politics!"

slavery wasnt broken, btw. neither was women not voting. should we have fixed them?


you can ask your parents.read the paper, etc. to learn about politics

GhostAnime
6th May 2008, 10:01 PM
that isnt enough, slayer. your parents could easily suck you into what they believe in.

slayer54321
6th May 2008, 10:03 PM
that isnt enough, slayer. your parents could easily suck you into what they believe in.

this is true
but the average kid can obtain information very very easily in this era

you don't have to be so contradictory

Cutiebunny
6th May 2008, 10:04 PM
I am currently living in the USA, and my voting age is 18. This debate is mainly about what age you would like to be able to vote at, and why.

I would like my voting age to be 16. If you are able to drive a car at 16, why not be able to pick a president? You have the potential to kill people with a car, but yet we have the ability to vote at 18. Casting a ballot isn't nearly as deadly as possibly killing multiple numbers of people with a car. I know it's not as simple as casting a ballot, but only on rare occasions does the popular vote matter when electing a president. Normally it's only the electoral college votes. So as I said before, killing people is much worse.

At 16, most people know the difference between right and wrong. Most people at the age of 16 have been through elementary school, middle school, and almost all of high school. They obviously know how to make decisions, so why shouldn't they vote?

Some may argue that the president is the leader of the country and that your vote matters more than a car or deaths. But as I said before, on rare occasions does the popular vote matter.
;473;;473;;473;

You can all talk now :D

;473;;473;;473;

You know what's funny about these topics? They're always written by the under 18s.

You wanna know what else is funny? These rants about the voting age always end when the person turns 18.

There are smart 16 year olds. There are also dumb 18 year olds. The point being, you don't need to be a certain age to be 'smart'. Unfortunately, there aren't enough people in the government to go around certifying people to see if they're fit to vote. That's part of the downside of living in a democracy; You have lots of idiots out there who can vote(and who, sadly, do vote) and generally make their decision based on what color tie the man is wearing.

By the age of 18, hopefully you have enough common sense to understand the issues, think about the short and long term benefits of each canidate and their policies and have the intelligence to pick accordingly.

GhostAnime
6th May 2008, 10:04 PM
they can look up issues all they want but they will never understand them without taking college courses on things like economics or living through life paying taxes for a few years.

Pachirissu!!
6th May 2008, 10:05 PM
In the Netherlands it's both 18, and I'm fine with that. When I walk down the street I see sooo many people around the age of 16 and I can't imagine they would be able to drive in a car in the USA. It's just that, the MOST of them (not all) are only childs yet! How are you supposed to vote for a president on that age when you don't even know a single thing about politics. Sure, some 16 year olds can do that, but because the most of them can't, and the whole country has to have 1 age at which you can drive a car and vote for a president, the most people agree that 18 is the best age. Otherwise, if you choose to raise it to around 20, the most people will start threads like this and protest that it's unfair and such ;) I just think it's fine, both on 18.

slayer54321
6th May 2008, 10:09 PM
they can look up issues all they want but they will never understand them without taking college courses on things like economics or living through life paying taxes for a few years.

You don't have to go to college to learn about economy
it can be learned about elsewhere

GhostAnime
6th May 2008, 10:11 PM
and thats where enough to understand it fully? and even then, how can you trust little teens to research?

Brettt
6th May 2008, 10:35 PM
how do i know that most of them dont know? how many own a house? they havent lived long enough to make economic decisions. living with your parents for 18 years doesnt exactly constitute as "knowing a lot about politics!"

slavery wasnt broken, btw. neither was women not voting. should we have fixed them?

Slavery was always broken. So was sexism. They needed fixing since their inception.

Also, do you own a house? Then how do you know that 18 year olds need to own one to vote? It is quite possible that there are 18 year olds that are politically active, follow presidential debates and everything, heck there are people even younger doing so. I'm 15, you're 17, neither of us own a house, neither of us can vote, but do you consider yourself to understand politics?

GhostAnime
6th May 2008, 10:51 PM
but they arent the majority. thats the main point.

do i consider myself to understand? enough to know which vision i prefer between two democrats. ive been active for the past 6 months.


Slavery was always broken. So was sexism.and i deem these broken the same way i deem the voting age 'broken' is what i was trying to get across. if you lived in those times, they sure as hell wouldnt seem broken to you. i just want better reasoning than just "well nothing's wrong so lets not doing anything about it" but there is always room for improvement.

Poliwag2
7th May 2008, 12:24 AM
Younger demographics are significantly less likely to:

1) have left home; their vote is more likely to be influenced by parents and family
2) remember (or have studied) life under a different administration; therefore they have no reliable point of comparison
3) have life experience (e.g. employment); so on what basis should they have a say on government policies?

You cannot compare the right to drive with the right to vote. For one, the effects of the former are local, while the consequences of the latter are national/global.

CosmosSage
7th May 2008, 12:27 AM
I'm honestly not sure what to do about this. I think the whole idea of gaining the ability to vote based on age is pretty flawed, as there are a great deal of people over 18 who don't know the slightest thing about most significant issues, and plenty of people under 18 who actually attempt to research and understand the issues and have a far more reasonable viewpoint than many adults. I realize that there are quite a lot of minors who know ridiculously little about politics, but I think it's somewhat unfair to exclude those who do... but I'm not sure how anyone could statistically determine which minors knew enough to vote.

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 12:29 AM
there is no way to do that; unless you want to give out a test (i think this could be feasible if done right).

otherwise, raise the age.

CosmosSage
7th May 2008, 12:40 AM
there is no way to do that; unless you want to give out a test (i think this could be feasible if done right).

otherwise, raise the age.

A test would be an interesting idea, but then that brings up the question of what exactly it would be testing (general knowledge? political knowledge?) A test of reasoning would be a good idea in my opinion. Then again, the idea of any sort of test could be considered somewhat discriminatory, as it's essentially stating that one person's opinion is much more valid than someone else's.

And also, on the topic of raising the voting age. It's obvious that the average 20-year-old will be smarter than the average 18-year-old, but then the average 22-year-old will be as well. Doesn't that mean that, by this argument, one could raise the voting age into the fourties or fifties, as we would be "getting the most experienced voters we can get"?

muumajii23
7th May 2008, 12:45 AM
Well, what about the people who are old enough to vote, but don't follow/care about politics. Then election day comes and they end up voting for the Marijuana (sp?) party as a joke.

And yes, there is Marijuana party in Canada.

So, GhostAnime, using your logic, no one should be able to vote because some of the people in that age group don't care about politics.

cascade88
7th May 2008, 12:48 AM
I think that the voting age is fine just the way it is. Being a teen doesn't neccesarily make you stupid (and I'm 20, btw). Likewise, being 30, 40, or 50 doesn't neccesarily make you wise or intelligent. I think that age 18 is the right medium as far as voting rights are concerned, and that it therefore shouldn't be lowered or raised.

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 12:48 AM
Then again, the idea of any sort of test could be considered somewhat discriminatory, as it's essentially stating that one person's opinion is much more valid than someone else's.how about a test on how much they know about the candidate theyre voting for?


And also, on the topic of raising the voting age. It's obvious that the average 20-year-old will be smarter than the average 18-year-old, but then the average 22-year-old will be as well. Doesn't that mean that, by this argument, one could raise the voting age into the fourties or fifties, as we would be "getting the most experienced voters we can get"?there is a limit to where we can stop. i say somewhere in the 20s when theyve settled down enough to experience how life really is.


So, GhostAnime, using your logic, no one should be able to vote because some of the people in that age group don't care about politics.thats not my logic. my logic is that the majority dont have the means of making a good vote based on how they lived and are subjected to things older people arent.

JakeSteel
7th May 2008, 12:58 AM
You have the potential to kill people with a car, but yet we have the ability to vote at 18. Casting a ballot isn't nearly as deadly as possibly killing multiple numbers of people with a car.

You're making it sound like driving a car equals instant death to all people around that person. Which is untrue. True that at 16 you should know right from wrong. But the truth isn't 16-Year-Old driving car is death. Casting a ballot is anyone's choice. You've compared to completely unrelated things. It isn't like people choose to kill other people by causing car accidents. Unless they're psycopathic. But then again psycopathic people probably wouldn't vote either. True voting is less dangerous than driving a car, but pretty much anything now is less dangerous than that. Accidents can happen anywhere, anytime. It could even be the non-16-Year-Old's fault. But voting should stay at 18 because at least then you should've made enough choices in your life to cast your OPINION. Driving isn't an opinion. It's a physical action that has many dangers. But yet people, millions of people do it.

CosmosSage
7th May 2008, 1:00 AM
how about a test on how much they know about the candidate theyre voting for?

This might work, but it doesn't really tell whether the voters actually know much of anything about the issues. Example: Person A supports John McCain because of his viewpoint on, say, illegal immigration. She knows what it is, but does that make her more knowledgeable on the subject? Is she more well-informed merely because she knows & agrees with McCain's views on a topic she may know little about herself? Just because someone has a strong opinion on an issue doesn't mean they're necessarily well-informed on said issue.

Nidogod
7th May 2008, 1:01 AM
i think the age should be higher. much higher. 18-year-olds arent responsible enough to know anything about politics. lets be honest here, people. do they own a house? do they know anything about taxes a lot?

we need the most educated voters we can get.

Stupid people own houses too, you know. I happen to know alot of them. With this post you're implying that age=wisdom and it really is not the case here. I've seen many adults talk politics and their knowledge on voting is basically limited to what they see on FOX news. I agree that we need the most educated voters we can get, but raising the age won't make voters any smarter. No matter what demographic is voting there is always a large percent who will make a decision based on close to nothing. Hell, I know a few people over the age of 30 who voted for Hilary/Obama just based on sex/race respectively.

Basically what I'm saying is that whether the age we're looking at is 16 or 76 there will always be an adequate number of dumb voters. Based on what I've seen, that number probably doesn't even fluctuate much from age to age.

I believe 18 is fine for the already named reason, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I honestly don't think lowering it to 16 would effect the overall out turn being as if someone is going to register to vote chances are good that they have at least the same knowledge as those older then them.

For the record I'm 19 and unregistered. Politics is so thickly coated in ******** that I don't have the time or the motive to dig deep enough for the facts I'd need to have an honest stand on the presidential race.

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 1:02 AM
age obviously does not equal wisdom but what matters is that the majority doesnt need to vote because their opinions arent justified.

i dont see what the big deal is in letting the people who decide the country actually be the ones who work and adjusted to life on their own instead of high school teens that just left or still live with their parents.

anybody even NOTICE the dropout rates in major cities?

Nidogod
7th May 2008, 1:05 AM
age obviously does not equal wisdom but what matters is that the majority doesnt need to vote because their opinions arent justified.

Yeah, that's true but it wouldn't have anything to do with lowering the age two years. It would be basically impossible to only allow people to vote if they have a valid stance.

Strants
7th May 2008, 1:07 AM
there is a limit to where we can stop. i say somewhere in the 20s when theyve settled down enough to experience how life really is. At age 20, you may or may not have had children, even if you will later in life. By age 30, you won't have experianced a divorce (I hope.)By age 40, you won't have experianced a golden anniversary. By age 50, you probably won't know what it is like to be in a nursing home. Just saying.

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 1:10 AM
what have the things you listed have to do with knowledge in politics, strants?

nidogod, thats why i support raising the age.

muumajii23
7th May 2008, 2:39 AM
what have the things you listed have to do with knowledge in politics, strants?

That different people are going to be knowledgable about different topics.

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 2:52 AM
... okay? those topics are political how? we're talking about politics; not random stuff.

muumajii23
7th May 2008, 3:01 AM
It is essentially an example.

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 3:13 AM
an example that is a non-sequitur and thus has nothing to do with the issue at hand. old people may not know about certain things. well, whoop-dee-doo. they certainly know more than the 18-year-olds as a whole who know nothing about living on their own.

GrizzlyB
7th May 2008, 6:09 AM
What kind of maniac honestly thinks it's a good idea to let mush-brained sixteen year-olds vote for anything more than prom royalty? Besides Democrats, I mean.

Seriously, if anything, the age should be raised. We have enough older nitwits who vote according to one issue or irrelevant criteria. Honestly, virtually no teenagers will actually examine all facets of the candidate's policy, or, if they do, have any idea what they really mean. 'Gas tax holiday? Yee-haw, who cares about the actual ramifications, I buy gas. Change? Well, I'm opinionated about things I don't understand fully, why not?' I bet if a candidate promised to federally mandate a lower drinking age, they would immediately have the entire 18 (or 16, theoretically) to 20 year-old bloc.

Actually, I really think the thing to do would to set up a 'voter literacy' test of sorts, that you need to pass to register to vote. Nuts to the age requirements. Or, an idea my government teacher had, not tell people that they can vote at 18, and they'll wake up one morning, and realize, "Hey, why can't I vote?" And, at that point, they actually care about how the government is run, or something. It's really kind of a shame that the whole idealism behind a democracy is to grant everyone a say in the government.

Blue_Lightning8
7th May 2008, 6:16 AM
I completely disagree. I'm still only 17 but I still think that there are those who are too young and too immature to make such a crucial choice. And not many teenagers of that age even know or understand politics or what's even going on around with our world, so why is it a good idea. There'd be too many complications with a more open system.
And many teenagers already make the rest of us look bad with all the reckless driving. But that's another subject.

Regan
7th May 2008, 8:52 AM
Id like to see it even younger, possibly 14. Stating that someone is not mature enough to vote at a young age implies that people over the age of 18 are going to be more intelligent. Voting rights are not based on intelligence, but if it was im sure you'd have a much better President and i'd have a much better Prime Minister. Governments continuously make decisions for children, with adults arguing the issues. It seems rather pathetic that age is used as a limit, and not IQ. It'd be nice to see the kids be able to have there say for once, some have some good ideas.

And sure, there would be some stupid children that voted for the fun of it, but aren't there stupid adults that vote for the fun of it? It'd be nice to see the politicians try and please everyone instead of excluding the future voters.


EDIT: This might not apply to the US, because according to some of you all your teens are complete idiots, but here in NZ id like to say we have a somewhat smarter teenage population

And also, voting shouldn't be about the policies that the politicians create, but about whom they trust to lead there country. I feel the most important part about voting is to show whom you trust to lead your nation, not that they're offering tax cuts and other policies to stur up media attention.

Rensch
7th May 2008, 11:31 AM
I rememeber I was much more politically aware at 18 than when I was 16. 18 is perfect. 16 Is too early.

Regan
7th May 2008, 11:39 AM
I rememeber I was much more politically aware at 18 than when I was 16. 18 is perfect. 16 Is too early.

You were much less politically aware when you were 16 by choice. Is 18 perfect because you yourself learnt the wonders of the political world at that age, or was there another message intended in that?

Rensch
7th May 2008, 11:41 AM
Well, many eightteen year olds are just more mature in the way they think than sixteen year olds. Or at least that is my experience.

Conquistador
7th May 2008, 11:49 AM
Pfft. In my opinion, if anything, the voting age should be higher, to 21 perhaps.

16 is too low. 16 year olds (on the whole) know nothing to very little about politics and how to run a country. Their votes would be ill-informed and poorly decided. There's little improvement at 18 either. Fresh out of school, just about to start Uni.

At 21, most people have completed an undergraduate degree, have jobs and are on their way to a career of some sort. They have dealt with the "real" world and are much more informed. They understand things like income etc... better having experienced paying tax for themselves. They've had jobs, and having so they understand industrial relations etc... much better than when they were 18. On the whole, they simply know more precisely how politicians' proposed policies will affect the majority in the "real" world.

EDIT: Lol at Regan's proposition that NZers are smarter than Americans. Sheep, anyone?

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 12:02 PM
regan has no idea how the teenage mind matures.

Conquistador
7th May 2008, 12:43 PM
After an MSN conversation with Panda, I just thought I'd have a word about the "test" idea.

Personally I think it would be a very good idea to have a compulsory test to determine voting rights. Perhaps at the end of schooling, that way the schools would be able to handle everything.

What would be on the test? No, nothing like an IQ test, that would be pointless as IQ doesn't really stand for much.

Just a test asking for basic knowledge on the country's political system, laws, taxation, immigration (etc...) policies, and just to show you understand what common policies that are brought forward by political parties actually entail.


It at least lowers ignorant voting. People voting when they don't know (subconsciously or consciously) what they're really voting for is just pointless. Waste of votes and may end in a bad decision with the wrong candidate being appointed.

Poliwag2
7th May 2008, 12:57 PM
Too much red tape. Give a vote to each household on the premise that if you can afford to own/rent a house/apartment; you are contributing to society, have some life experience, and each vote is independent. This also corrects for over representation of certain demographics (relative to their productivity) e.g. when large working class families have greater voting power than a smaller, yet more productive, middle class family.

Regan
7th May 2008, 1:22 PM
regan has no idea how the teenage mind matures.

in general, or in americans?

Medea
7th May 2008, 1:41 PM
Whoa, long time since I've posted in the debate forum.

Once again, I find myself very split by the whole thing of the voting age. But I'm leaning towards lowering the voting age. I'm noticing that now, more and more young people (under the age 18) getting into politics. And I've noticed a steady rise in young people's interest in the issues that they will one day have to vote on. Take when voting for a congressman or even president, you know that there is so much on television and on the internet about people running for whatever position. So much media hype during election years that might get through to people. Not to mention, there's talk within the school over who is running for what position and the teenagers of this country have their own opinion, but it doesn't mean squat if they can't even vote until 18. And plus, it doesn't have to be with politics either. It could be to vote on something else like renovating our roads or giving more money to the school system. Some of the young ones would like to partake in something like that.

But of course, I'm only speaking on a small percentage of teenagers. The ones who really care about the issues. And that's where I go back on this issue on keeping the voting age at 18. It's not really an age where you're officially mature because it really isn't. What I mean is that you should at least have some clue as into what you're voting for or what your stance is. And sometimes you just need a few years on the sidelines absorbing what crap you see on television and what opinions your family has.

With me...I wanted to vote since I was 14...But that was only because I didn't want George W. Bush to win. Thank God I was 18 for that last election.

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 1:43 PM
mainly americans. when it comes to electing one of, if not, the most powerful man in the world, we do not need teenagers that barely seen the light of day vote because mommy and daddy told them or 'the media said obama was a rapist.' (yes, every teen ive met actually takes blanket statements from the media and not form their own conclusions).

Nidogod
7th May 2008, 4:39 PM
Actually, I really think the thing to do would to set up a 'voter literacy' test of sorts, that you need to pass to register to vote. Nuts to the age requirements. Or, an idea my government teacher had, not tell people that they can vote at 18, and they'll wake up one morning, and realize, "Hey, why can't I vote?" And, at that point, they actually care about how the government is run, or something. It's really kind of a shame that the whole idealism behind a democracy is to grant everyone a say in the government.


Personally I think it would be a very good idea to have a compulsory test to determine voting rights. Perhaps at the end of schooling, that way the schools would be able to handle everything.

As much as it sounds like a good idea, imagine the chaos caused when people take this test, fail, and are deemed unable to vote. It's a right in this country to be able to vote so it might not be a good idea to take this away. Think about areas like the inner city where there is a high highschool dropout rate. i can see the headlines now. 'The American Government Thinks Black People are Too Stupid to Elect a Leader.' As much as it would be good to weed out the people who really shouldn't be voting, there is really nothing we can do without taking away their rights as American citizens.

JakeSteel
7th May 2008, 10:21 PM
If the voting age was lowered to 14 as Regan suggested, roughly 65% of the population could vote. Out of that 65%, the roughly 8-12% in between 14-and 18 would again be split up and about 6-8% would have no idea what the F**k anyone was talking about. Ask any random 8th grader on the street who they'd vote for if they could and it is fact that over half would say "I don't care about politics" or "Who are the candidates again" or something similar to that. This includes me. Being roughly in that age group, I don't give a rat's *** who runs our country as long as I'm not forced to do anything by whoever is now running the country. I believe that law is perfect the way it is and should not be changed in any way, shape, or form.

Carlisle
7th May 2008, 10:51 PM
I have to agree on not lowering it. The average teenager in America just doesn't understand. God forbid it. So many other fellow teenagers I've run into have told me they simply support Obama because he has a "cool name." Yeah, no. Stuff like that doesn't belong in determining who will be our next president.

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 11:41 PM
nidogod, you say we take their right to vote how? why did we make it 18 in the first place? arent we just taking a 16-year-old's rights away to vote?

of course you could say that when youre 18 you have the rights of an adult but i believe making the 'rights of an adult age' higher as well.

Carlisle
7th May 2008, 11:50 PM
nidogod, you say we take their right to vote how? why did we make it 18 in the first place? arent we just taking a 16-year-old's rights away to vote?

of course you could say that when youre 18 you have the rights of an adult but i believe making the 'rights of an adult age' higher as well.
I'm not too sure about raising THAT age. You have to break the ice sometime. And by that time, most teens are ready to go to college and get away from their parents. Being 20 and your parents still having a legal say on what you can or can't do would be rather...annoying.

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 11:53 PM
im sure thats what the 13-year-olds said centuries ago.

Carlisle
7th May 2008, 11:55 PM
im sure thats what the 13-year-olds said centuries ago.
Um...okay, I don't care. Times are different now. Besides, the average person back then had to grow up at a faster rate.

GhostAnime
7th May 2008, 11:59 PM
Times are different now.and this only enforces my point even more: times are different now. and when times are different, things change, right?


Besides, the average person back then had to grow up at a faster rate.HAD to grow up at a faster rate? mind elaborating?

Strants
8th May 2008, 1:04 AM
You might be surprised at how informed American teens can be, if you looked beyond the ones that act like idiots in front of everyone. I know a young man who is in MIDDLE SCHOOL and already has his collage life planned (as in where he goes) and reads books on this kind of thing, economics and the like. I'm going out on a limb here, but he may know more than some adults. What about old, senile people? They have lost muturity, to an extent, and intelligence, too. Should THEY not be allowed to vote?

GhostAnime
8th May 2008, 1:09 AM
im not saying they shouldnt, but the majority rules here. they can wait.

Nidogod
8th May 2008, 3:34 AM
nidogod, you say we take their right to vote how? why did we make it 18 in the first place? arent we just taking a 16-year-old's rights away to vote?

of course you could say that when youre 18 you have the rights of an adult but i believe making the 'rights of an adult age' higher as well.

We aren't taking away a 16 year old's right to vote because they've never had that right in the first place. And yes, voting is a right that adults get. That's something that I don't see changing. Sure, we could make the driving age higher (like my state continues to do), the tobacco age, ect, but so much now is based around being 18 and becoming an adult. When you are 18 you finish highschool and either start working or go to college. If we raise the age that you're considered an adult does that mean that people won't be able to move out and start their own life right after highschool? Would they go to college but still not have a full driver's license, or still not be allowed to do anything without asking their parents first?

In our country you are an adult when you turn 18 and there are rights and responsibilities that come with it. Sure we can change some things, and sure there are reasons why the age should be higher, but so much of how the country works is based on being an 18 at age 18 and it would be a complete mess if we changed that.

And I don't know why it was made 18, either. If I had to guess I'd once again say it has to do with finishing high school and being at a point in your life when must start doing things on your own.

Regan
8th May 2008, 6:49 AM
Sorry, iv realised that my idea wouldn't work with America. In NZ, i think the voting age could be lowered without problems to 16 or even as low as 14 because most of the teenagers in our country are politically informed, and know the issues. Its a scary wake up to realise how ignorant teenagers are in other countrys, but a wake up call all the same.

GrizzlyB
8th May 2008, 7:27 AM
Sorry, iv realised that my idea wouldn't work with America. In NZ, i think the voting age could be lowered without problems to 16 or even as low as 14 because most of the teenagers in our country are politically informed, and know the issues. Its a scary wake up to realise how ignorant teenagers are in other countrys, but a wake up call all the same.

Sounds like another sweeping generalization that teenagers do oh-so-well.

And on the issue of limiting the rights of those under the voting age, it should be noted that children enjoy many immunities that adults do not. Probably the biggest one is that if they commit a crime, they do not go to jail. Also, they are held much less liable tax-wise. In a way, people under eighteen are only partial citizens in the US (not meant to be taken literally).

Regan
8th May 2008, 7:29 AM
Sounds like another sweeping generalization that teenagers do oh-so-well.

Actually, it was the complete opposite.

Josiah
8th May 2008, 7:39 AM
Actually, it was the complete opposite.Nope. You basically said that NZ people are more intelligent than the US.

And it doesn't matter if people are informed. They have to understand the effects of their decisions. Knowing what universal healthcare is is not the same as knowing what needs to be done in order to maintain it, or the problems that may come with it.

Blue_Lightning8
8th May 2008, 7:44 AM
This might not apply to the US, because according to some of you all your teens are complete idiots, but here in NZ id like to say we have a somewhat smarter teenage population


I disagree with that. Common sense maybe.
Oh, and be careful with what you say.

GhostAnime
8th May 2008, 7:50 AM
i dont see any reason to think NZ teens are any different from the western world teens.

Regan
8th May 2008, 7:53 AM
We get higher test scores, we have a lower drop out rate (much, much lower in fact), and from what iv experienced we have a certainly deeper knowledge in our and worldwide political situations.

Josiah
8th May 2008, 8:00 AM
We get higher test scores, we have a lower drop out rate (much, much lower in fact), and from what iv experienced we have a certainly deeper knowledge in our and worldwide political situations.Intelligence does not equal sense. Just looking at these forums should show you that people share the same level of stupidity in every region(newbs, n00bs), as well as the same level of intelligence (The Panda, BCVM22, and Joshlol seems fairly witty as well).

Blue_Lightning8
8th May 2008, 8:03 AM
Regan needs to take a reality check. Seriously.

GhostAnime
8th May 2008, 8:04 AM
ill admit that our dropout rates are higher but ive never met an NZ teen anywhere on the internet that seemed any different from a normal teen here.

you have to remember that we're a multi-cultural nation and that kinda makes us do worse than normal.

GrizzlyB
8th May 2008, 8:39 AM
We get higher test scores, we have a lower drop out rate (much, much lower in fact), and from what iv experienced we have a certainly deeper knowledge in our and worldwide political situations.

And from the New Zealanders I've experienced (you), your intellect level is much, much lower than that of Australia, the US, or the UK. So, how's about a source?

Besides, as has been said, none of those actually matter in regards to intelligent voting. Some of the dumbest people I know have much better grasps on politics and economics than some of the smartest people I know.

Conquistador
8th May 2008, 9:05 AM
Regan, back yourself up of get the **** out.

Every NZer I've met has been has been an absolute idiot, so please give some credible evidence to make me revise my opinion of New Zealanders.

Amonitas
8th May 2008, 7:34 PM
I think voting age would be 15, people at age 15 are old enough to make their decisions and choose wisely.

GhostAnime
8th May 2008, 9:13 PM
how about you back that up.

The_Panda
8th May 2008, 10:51 PM
Regan, back yourself up of get the **** out.

Every NZer I've met has been has been an absolute idiot, so please give some credible evidence to make me revise my opinion of New Zealanders.

They have funny accents too.

More on topic, the voting age is fine at eighteen. Most teens take absolutely no interest in politics until that age anyway. And beyond that age, some can't be ****ed either.

GhostAnime
8th May 2008, 10:54 PM
though anecdotal evidence is ***, ive yet to see anybody around me actually make educated decisions about politics. they just scream out the candidate's name randomly.

Nidogod
8th May 2008, 11:19 PM
Most teens take absolutely no interest in politics until that age anyway. And beyond that age, some can't be ****ed either.

It seems, to me at least, that politics becomes more important with age. Most people my age (college) couldn't be bothered, by the time you hit middle age most people have a genuine interest and eventually you get to be like my grandparents and spend the entire day in front of the tv watching the news to find out as much as possible about candidates along with a stack of current political books right by your chair.

I'm not saying those older people will make a better decision, I'm just saying that I notice that more and more people gain an interest in political issues as they age, for better or for worse.

Strants
9th May 2008, 1:46 AM
We get higher test scores, we have a lower drop out rate (much, much lower in fact), and from what iv experienced we have a certainly deeper knowledge in our and worldwide political situations. Regan, it would help your case if you spelled a three letter contraction correctly. Just saying.

As far a teenage interest goes, would the uninterested ones honestly come to big rallies and the like? Voting can take a long time.

JakeSteel
9th May 2008, 1:57 AM
I know a young man who is in MIDDLE SCHOOL and already has his collage life planned (as in were he goes) and reads books on this kind of thing, economics and the like.

You might wanna correct that grammar error... Just saying.
As I've said before, the law shouldn't change. The law is at 18 in the first place becuase 18 is the supposed age that a "Kid" becomes an "Adult" and has to make many more choices. I have to agree partially on that. The law should stay the same.

GrizzlyB
9th May 2008, 7:08 AM
I think the real problem with younger voters isn't so much that they are stupid as much as it is that they are so narrow-sighted. I have no doubt that many, many teenagers would vote for a candidate based exclusively on their stance on one issue, or something as irrelevant as their demeanor (and the good Lord knows enough adults already do this).


You might wanna correct that grammar error... Just saying.

Then you might not want to make so many mistakes yourself, or at least notice all of his mistakes. Just saying.

Profesco
9th May 2008, 7:52 AM
Meh. Responsibility and forethought/consequential thinking are hardly developed before the age of 18. Those are they key components you look for in such an important decision. I happen to think the "adult" age could stand to be raised.

JakeSteel
9th May 2008, 11:28 PM
Then you might not want to make so many mistakes yourself, or at least notice all of his mistakes. Just saying.

It was a joke. If you noticed on the page before, he corrected someone on a grammer error. So I thought it was funny he made one too. Things taken way too seriously... That should be a debate.

Gengar25
10th May 2008, 7:32 PM
You could stab someone to death at the age of three, and yet having a bunch of three-year-olds deciding our President isn't exactly ideal. Just because you have the ability to kill doesn't mean you should get to vote. Your logic is faulty and ill thought-out.

I Thought I
12th May 2008, 6:28 PM
Well, i'm just 13 - but I'd like to be able to vote for Prime Minister in England. It affects me just as much as my parents, and I don't care which party gives us the most "perks".

I know quite a few people my age are childish and would definately be stupid and easy to persuade if we got the chance to vote now - but I know that others would take it very seriously, and would love the chance to affect Britains future.

GhostAnime
12th May 2008, 9:32 PM
are you sure that it affects you just as much as your parents? maybe you should re-think that thought.

Isaac
12th May 2008, 10:03 PM
I agree with 18 because that is the age where you can become a soilder. And if u fight for america I think u should be able to vote in the elections.

RICH
12th May 2008, 10:09 PM
16 is a horrible idea. 16 year old kids are stupid and naive and they have quite a bit of trouble thinking for themselves. trust me i am one of those kids and sure there are a small group who kno whats going on in politics but the general have no idea who is even running for president unless they get on MTV or american idol

Shinin
12th May 2008, 10:15 PM
Well, i'm just 13 - but I'd like to be able to vote for Prime Minister in England. It affects me just as much as my parents, and I don't care which party gives us the most "perks".

I know quite a few people my age are childish and would definately be stupid and easy to persuade if we got the chance to vote now - but I know that others would take it very seriously, and would love the chance to affect Britains future.

I agree with GhostAnime here. Do you pay taxes? Do you have to support yourself or your family?

I Thought I
13th May 2008, 7:05 PM
are you sure that it affects you just as much as your parents? maybe you should re-think that thought.

Well, kinda. Depending on who is PM in England, education could be different, schools could get more money or the school day could increase/decrease or if my parents have to pay more taxes, then that's less cash to spend on the family as a whole, then I might get less pocket money, or meals might be different (if its a VERY big tax change), and also the way the government is going at the moment, if my parents got a divorce overall we'd be getting more money due to benefits. This country is already messed up.

So, maybe it affects me and my parents in different ways, but still pretty much the same.

GhostAnime
13th May 2008, 9:17 PM
but theyre the ones taking care of you. sure, youre affected if the effects are drastic but your life will barely budge.

pokemon1571
14th May 2008, 7:34 PM
Remember , in the USA , originally the public wasn't able to vote. Because the founding fathers thought that the general originally wouldn't be able make the good choices for the leader. I think that there are some people that shouldn't be voting , just kidding.

I think that 18 is a good age for vote , at the age of 18 your not a minor anymore. If they were to lower the voting age to 16 , they would have to change the age of age of Majority to 16 , meaning that you would be able to smoke.

Nidogod
14th May 2008, 9:21 PM
I was recently thinking about that testing thing that was mentioned. I originally said that it would be a disaster to make people take a test in order to vote. Now that I think about it applied to the 16 thing, I don't think it would be bad. We would keep the voting age at 18, but offer a test to those between 16 and 18. It would ask various questions about the state of the country, various members of Congress, important issues, ect. If they pass it they get a special license that allows them to cast an official vote. For one it would make sure that the young voters know what they are talking about, it's enough of a process that no one would be scrambling to take it for the hell of it, and it would look good on resumes and college applications.

pokemon1571
14th May 2008, 9:54 PM
I just think that there will never be voting under the age of 18 in the USA.

Nidogod
14th May 2008, 10:29 PM
Yes, I'm with that, too. My last post was based more on a 'what if' situation.

Nidogod
14th May 2008, 10:30 PM
Yes, I'm with that, too. My last post was based more on a 'what if' situation.

Dark SpOOn Bender
15th May 2008, 6:42 PM
Just make the world a little easier and don't complain about the voting age. 18 is a fine age so that at least the majority of people who vote will have graduated their required amount of schooling and will most likely have a better understanding on some of the issues going on in this world because of that education. Also, by then most people will be finished or almost finished with puberty and will hopefully be more mature and less narrow-minded than they were a few years ago when they were still in a very hormonal stage of their lives.

GhostAnime
15th May 2008, 9:09 PM
a high school diploma straight out of high school doesnt guarantee anybody to know a single thing about the economy. youre giving them too much credit.

Dark SpOOn Bender
15th May 2008, 9:27 PM
a high school diploma straight out of high school doesnt guarantee anybody to know a single thing about the economy. youre giving them too much credit.

I didn't say that. What I was saying was that people having graduated from high school have a higher chance of having a better understanding about world issues because they completed their required education. It may not be true for everybody, but it's easier to just assume that it applies to the majority. And like I said, it gives people more time to gain a mature outlook on the world. Again, not everybody who is 18 is going to be mature, but you have a better chance of it than when you were 14 or 15.

GhostAnime
15th May 2008, 9:33 PM
of course you have a better chance than 14/15 but that still isnt saying a lot.

i dont see anything in high school that teaches you anything about the economy on a serious level. or anything about the war. or anything even about why gas is high.

Shinin
15th May 2008, 10:09 PM
i dont see anything in high school that teaches you anything about the economy on a serious level. or anything about the war. or anything even about why gas is high.

My school has economics and current issues as electives for social studies classes.

GhostAnime
15th May 2008, 10:10 PM
interesting.

though its an elective; not required.

Shinin
15th May 2008, 10:14 PM
Yes, but there's no one social studies class, you pick two electives out of around 10-12 available classes, one for each semester. This is only for juniors and seniors, by the way.

Nidogod
15th May 2008, 11:08 PM
That's the whole reason I mentioned the whole testing 16 year olds thing. Most teens don't know about the state of the country, the economy, important issues, ect, but there are some who do. For those who actually know and care and can prove themselves it would be a good way to show that they know what's going on and make a difference.

Dark SpOOn Bender
16th May 2008, 12:08 AM
^ Or those 16 year olds could just wait two years to have time to learn even more and to just make life easier. A lot of people who are 16 wouldn't even have a chance to vote even if it was allowed because elections happen every 4 years. Mine as well just leave the age at 18 for everybody.


i dont see anything in high school that teaches you anything about the economy on a serious level. or anything about the war. or anything even about why gas is high.

There are elective courses that teach you about politics and economics and such. Many clubs after school also help with an understanding of these issues, such as a Model U.N. club that a school might have. There are also science issues that you should know about that help determine who you want for president based on their own views of the issue, and history plays a large role in learning about nations around the world as well as the politics of your own country. I've done a few essays about current issues in my history class as well.

A lot of things come into play when deciding who you want to vote for based on your economical/political knowledge. Sure, there tons of people who are not very knowledgable about politics by 18 (or at any age) but at least give them a chance to finish basic schooling first.

GhostAnime
16th May 2008, 12:12 AM
i will give them a chance; a bigger chance by wanting the age higher.

exactly what are the things these electives teach? how do they go about it? if it was good enough and required, id want it to stay at 18 but im still wary of their only influences being teachers and parents and not exactly living like an american.

GrizzlyB
16th May 2008, 5:32 AM
This high school talk is intriguing me. At my school, Economics and US Government are required courses. So, at most schools, if you don't take either of those (both of which I feel give you at least some insight on voting properly), what do you take?

Also, I feel that if a test were to be implemented, it would have to apply to all age groups. After all, if not so, couldn't it be considered as sort of a poll tax, due to discrimination based on age (though I'm not sure how having an age requirement stands up if this is the case)? This seems very similar to that controversy swirling around about some states wanting to require photo ID to vote.

MULTI_MEDIA_MAN
20th May 2008, 6:40 PM
slavery wasnt broken, btw. neither was women not voting. should we have fixed them?

WOAH!!! Red flag!!! Did you mean that slavery and women not voting was fine, cause that's what it looks like!

LarryK
20th May 2008, 11:37 PM
Well..... George W. Bush Sucks!!!!

Who agrees?

GrizzlyB
20th May 2008, 11:55 PM
Well..... George W. Bush Sucks!!!!

Who agrees?

Perfect example of why those under eighteen are not allowed to vote. Simplistic, heavily opinionated, probably unfounded, viewpoints.

dragoniteKnight
21st May 2008, 2:10 AM
unless they add a "i dont like anyone on the list" option the age can be whatever the hell the gov. wants