News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Children's Suffrage

Started by Xerographica, August 21, 2013, 12:51:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Xerographica

Quote from: "surly74"yeah i'll give my nine your old a vote...he'll vote for the first guy that dresses up like batman. not sure who my two year old will vote for seeing he can't read yet...probably Thomas the Tank Engine...and my four month old? Obviously Justin Trudeau.
Your job as a parent is to ensure your children's well-being.  You teach them to eat their veggies... you teach them to look both ways before they cross the street...you teach them how to drive...you teach them about the importance of safe sex.  You help them to learn how to act according to what's in their best interests.  And it's up to you when and how you teach them the things you think they'll need to know.  Teaching them how to vote would be no different.  I'm pretty sure that it would be up to you to decide when you felt they were ready to do so.  

And if you want to argue that parents aren't responsible enough to teach their children how to vote...then you're arguing that parents aren't responsible enough to have kids.  Which is certainly true in many cases...but whether or not a license should be required to have children is another debate.

surly74

Quote from: "Xerographica"Your job as a parent is to ensure your children's well-being.  You teach them to eat their veggies... you teach them to look both ways before they cross the street...you teach them how to drive...you teach them about the importance of safe sex.  You help them to learn how to act according to what's in their best interests.  And it's up to you when and how you teach them the things you think they'll need to know.  Teaching them how to vote would be no different.  I'm pretty sure that it would be up to you to decide when you felt they were ready to do so.  

And if you want to argue that parents aren't responsible enough to teach their children how to vote...then you're arguing that parents aren't responsible enough to have kids.  Which is certainly true in many cases...but whether or not a license should be required to have children is another debate.

and that job covers over 18 years with certain topics being brought up at certain times. there are topics that I feel aren't appropriate for a nine year old. Other people may feel differently and they are free to parent how they see fit.

QuoteAnd if you want to argue that parents aren't responsible enough to teach their children how to vote...then you're arguing that parents aren't responsible enough to have kids.
I'm NOT arguing for this...you seem to be and poorly I might add. I do educate my oldest on policity things that he will understand that doesn't mean he's prepared to cast a ballot. You seem to be now backtracking in that it's up to the parent to decide who is ready to vote when in your mess of a topic post you said people regardless of age...and no one can accompany them. Are you starting to see how that is an idea not even based in reality or do you still think people with infants will allow the infant to vote?

This is the difference between you and I. Real life is not a theory. I recognize that...you don't.
God bless those Pagans
--
Homer Simpson

Colanth

Quote from: "Xerographica"The biggest argument against children voting is that they lack the information necessary to make an informed decision.

If you want to argue that kids don't understand the issues.

Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't pay taxes?

Kids shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't have enough life experience?

Another argument is that people with kids would have more influence than people without kids.
All bogus arguments.  The only reason kids shouldn't be given the franchise is that they're not mature enough to make informed decisions.  That's also why statutory rape laws are constitutional, not discriminatory.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

The Whit

I think we should handle it with a Bar type exam.  If you pass the exam and are a citizen, you can vote (no age requirement).  If you can't pass the exam (regardless of your citizenship status) you don't vote.  However, this would require that all the material covered by the test is taught to students or available for study to all.

I think this would make people appreciate it and more people would not only vote, but vote based on educated opinions.  There would be those who are discouraged from voting because of the requirement but these probably shouldn't be voting anyhow.
"Death can not be killed." -brq

stromboli

The purpose of a minimum voting age is that of making rational choices and responsibility. Voting age in the US used to be 21. During the Vietnam era, somebody pointed out that we were sending young people off to die and not giving them the choice to vote over the politics involved. It was lowered to 18, the age most people are considered legally to be adults.

The idea is that the voter should be mature enough and capable to make rational choices between candidates and issues, such that the majority will hopefully always make the right choice and we get the best candidate for the job. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way, but that is the idea.

missingnocchi

I'm firmly against democracy. Libertarian-socialist-parliamentary-aristocracy is the way of the future.
What's a "Leppo?"

Plu

Rather than an exam, I would prefer that every time a vote happens you have to answer a few simple questions about the political view of the person you are voting for. Just a few of the major talking points, that should be easy as fuck to answer if you so much as read the newspaper twice in the last month.

Because I'm betting half the voters would still fail. And I wouldn't even be opposed to letting people retry the test a few times, until they actually take the time to read what they're voting for from a non-propaganda source.

aileron

Quote from: "Plu"...should be easy as fuck to answer if you so much as read the newspaper twice in the last month.

That's all well and good in the G8 nations where 99% and over of the population is literate, but most of the world isn't like that.  The people who grew up with no opportunities to learn to read deserve the vote too.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! -- President Merkin Muffley

My mom was a religious fundamentalist. Plus, she didn't have a mouth. It's an unusual combination. -- Bender Bending Rodriguez

Plu

The newspaper isn't the only source of information. You can watch the news, ask someone else, hell you could call the political party and ask them for the answers if you felt like it. As long as you know the answers it's irrelevant how you got there; you just need to know what you're giving your vote for.

The Whit

I think everyone should be required to pass the same stuff immigrants have to pass to get citizenship.  It's only fair.
"Death can not be killed." -brq

Plu

That'd be fair indeed. I'd definately fail the test though because the questions are really stupid. (I actually made it once, most of the questions are completely irrelevant to being a proper citizen). (Mind that this is the Dutch citizenry test, other countries will have other tests that might be less stupid.)

aileron

Quote from: "Plu"The newspaper isn't the only source of information. You can watch the news, ask someone else, hell you could call the political party and ask them for the answers if you felt like it. As long as you know the answers it's irrelevant how you got there; you just need to know what you're giving your vote for.

Although it's a good idea for voters to keep themselves informed, history shows that mandating it as a condition of voting invites abuse.  For example, until the US federal government put a stop to it, in several Southern states they had literacy tests.  Realistically, very few recently emancipated slaves had a chance to learn to read so this was nothing more than a way to keep African Americans from voting.

Even today there would be serious concerns.  For example, who gets to decide the test criteria?  Even if a neutral body was supposed to be in charge of the questions, realistically the political party in power would have a better chance to bias the test in their favor.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! -- President Merkin Muffley

My mom was a religious fundamentalist. Plus, she didn't have a mouth. It's an unusual combination. -- Bender Bending Rodriguez

Plu

#27
I know, It would never work in the US. That place is just too fucked up beyond repair, I guess. I think I'd be willing to support it if it ran where I lived, I think we can get a few people together who are objective enough.

aileron

Quote from: "Plu"I know, I would never work in the US.

Thanks.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! -- President Merkin Muffley

My mom was a religious fundamentalist. Plus, she didn't have a mouth. It's an unusual combination. -- Bender Bending Rodriguez

Plu

Quote from: "aileron"
Quote from: "Plu"I know, I would never work in the US.

Thanks.

A typo turning the sentence into something completely different that is most likely also true... fascinating :P I meant to say "it", though.