Regarding other topic.

I think the voting age should be lowered, but I do not think a 12 year old has the mental capacity to understand what they are voting for. 

Some of them will. Perhaps it should be allowed for the ones that do?

My problem with child voting is less their capacity to decide, and more their vulnerability to being coerced by adults to vote a certain way. I do like the idea in principle though - pressure groups for children's affairs would suddenly get a lot more power, and I think that would be good.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13248.msg134066#msg134066 date=1132075814]
Some of them will. Perhaps it should be allowed for the ones that do?

My problem with child voting is less their capacity to decide, and more their vulnerability to being coerced by adults to vote a certain way. I do like the idea in principle though - pressure groups for children's affairs would suddenly get a lot more power, and I think that would be good.
[/quote]

Adults can also be coerced and adults can also make stupid decisions, so unless there is some arbitrary measurement on when somebody should be allowed to vote, I don't think that can be a valid argument. 

And you're right, children's affairs would get a lot more power.  The decisions made by the government affects children probably even more than adults.  Not only schools and such, but children have to live with the mistakes of the current regime a lot longer than adults do. 

No. I'd like to be able to vote, but the overall population would screw America over because they're morons. They'd also just follow their parents, or follow the opposite of their parents so they could rebel. They wouldn't make informed decisions, at least as a senior taking a Government class is mandatory (at least here, unless you took it early...I took it in 9th grade.) This gives the people an education on how the country works before they make decisions for it.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13248.msg134148#msg134148 date=1132104892]
No. I'd like to be able to vote, but the overall population would screw America over because they're morons. They'd also just follow their parents, or follow the opposite of their parents so they could rebel. They wouldn't make informed decisions, at least as a senior taking a Government class is mandatory (at least here, unless you took it early...I took it in 9th grade.) This gives the people an education on how the country works before they make decisions for it.
[/quote]
So the day somebody turns 18, they are no longer morons?  And suddenly, they aren't influenced at all by their parents?

I know a lot of morons who are over 18. 

Alot of people blindly follow their parent's veiws far into life.

Thats why racism is still around.

[quote author=Shout link=topic=13248.msg134178#msg134178 date=1132110194]
Alot of people blindly follow their parent's veiws far into life.
[/quote]

Although that may be true, they have to take it upon themselves to stray away from the views of their parents.  It's not like they are forced into accepting it.

Monkey see monkey do.

[quote author=Shout link=topic=13248.msg134178#msg134178 date=1132110194]
Alot of people blindly follow their parent's veiws far into life.
[/quote]

Yes, but children are particularly easy to manipulate, for obvious reasons.

Once these children grow up to reach an age where they are considered more independent (making most decisions in their lives for themselves), they should be allowed to vote.  Of course this age varies depending on the person, but on average 18 years old is a good estimate.

I'd like to be able to vote, but children who are still in junior high or high school should not get tangled up in politics that early. Like someone else stated earlier, its too easy to get a vote from a child. I remember when I was in 6th grade everybody voted this guy for president of the student council because he promised to turn water fountains into coke fountains and some shit, so yea you can see what I'm getting at.

[quote]I'd like to be able to vote, but the overall population would screw America over because they're morons.[/quote]
America is already screwed over. iago and I are making plans for getting me housing in Canada the day I turn 18.


Should "children" be allowed to vote? Define children. I think of children as, say, 13 and under. In that case, no. Should "young adults" (say, 14 and above?) be allowed to vote? Sure, 14 year olds can be influenced by their parents, but nowhere near as much as a 5 year old can. See this humorus yet true example.

Parent: If you vote for Bush, I'll give you a dollar!
5 year old: YAY! A DOLLAR! BUSH FOR PRESIDENT!

Parent: If you vote for Bush, I'll give you a dollar!
14 year old: Make it 10.
Parent: Five.
14 year old: 20.
Parent: Deal.

=)

[quote author=Forged link=topic=13248.msg134050#msg134050 date=1132068260]
I think the voting age should be lowered, but I do not think a 12 year old has the mental capacity to understand what they are voting for. 
[/quote]

Don't oppress me!

I believe that everyone who is physically capable should be allowed to vote. I mean, if you can walk, you can vote. Not like it makes any significant difference in the way that this country is run anyway.

[quote author=noob link=topic=13248.msg134208#msg134208 date=1132116369]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=13248.msg134050#msg134050 date=1132068260]
I think the voting age should be lowered, but I do not think a 12 year old has the mental capacity to understand what they are voting for. 
[/quote]

Don't oppress me!

I believe that everyone who is physically capable should be allowed to vote. I mean, if you can walk, you can vote. Not like it makes any significant difference in the way that this country is run anyway.
[/quote]
Perfect example of why kids should not be allowed to vote.

Replace "physically" with "mentally."  As stated in a previous post, if the "child" in question has the mental capacity to make such decisions, then of course, they should be allowed to vote.  In doing so, they'd have a voice, and rather than having to accept the way things are in, say school, they can change it accordingly.  This is under the assumption that they have the mental capacity for it.

If a child did have the mental capacity to do so, he'd grow up a genius. But thats not the case, most people want adults to vote because they're considered mature. Some kid probably hates how bush looks like an ape so much that he'd vote no. Not about what he does or has done. Personally though most people catagorize others without thinking, and base their decisions on that.

[quote author=WoOdTroll link=topic=13248.msg134217#msg134217 date=1132117474]
If a child did have the mental capacity to do so, he'd grow up a genius. But thats not the case, most people want adults to vote because they're considered mature. Some kid probably hates how bush looks like an ape so much that he'd vote no. Not about what he does or has done. Personally though most people catagorize others without thinking, and base their decisions on that.
[/quote]

A child having the mental capacity to make such decisions does not automatically make them a genius.  It just signifies that they are aware of the matters in the world, and in that manner, the awareness can be directed toward making coherent votes.

I said he would grow up.  ::)

Omit that portion of my post then.  The argument still remains.

Still though. Which kid would refuse to go outside, and play with his friends or watch cartoons to learn how the world works. What could possibly interest him/her to learn about what is happening in the world today. I am pretty sure they hate social studies enough to not care about it. Unless you were a political figure in society, perhaps then your child would find interest in what you do, and what is going on in the world.

I think making a goverment class or two mandatory before a child is allowed to vote would make it ok.

[quote author=WoOdTroll link=topic=13248.msg134226#msg134226 date=1132119266]
Still though. Which kid would refuse to go outside, and play with his friends or watch cartoons to learn how the world works. What could possibly interest him/her to learn about what is happening in the world today. I am pretty sure they hate social studies enough to not care about it. Unless you were a political figure in society, perhaps then your child would find interest in what you do, and what is going on in the world.
[/quote]

"Which kid," you ask?  The type of "kid" who has matured and wants to become involved.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they have to give up their right to play outside, play with their friends, or watch cartoons.

By "kid" I meant "Child" and by "child" I meant the ones who want to be Dragon Ball Z characters. Kids who still play GI Joes. They care more about whats on tv, then the news. Its boring to them.

Okay, rather than thinking in those terms, think of "child" in terms of young adolescent, meaning age 16 and up.

Then why not say "teen-ager" instead of having people thinking of younger "children". I think 16 year olds have the ability to understand whats going on. And if they understand what they're votin' for sure, let them... We know they're the voice of tommorrow. But then again you need to realize in this state teen-agers are still naive. And some would vote for the sake of voting, which is wrong. Thus requires adultness.

[quote author=WoOdTroll link=topic=13248.msg134232#msg134232 date=1132121457]
Then why not say "teen-ager" instead of having people thinking of younger "children".
[/quote]

Don't ask me that, ask the creator of the topic.  As for the rest of your post, that's why they have to show a deep level of understanding, hence, the attending of a mandatory government class, as Forged proposed.

Well the first few posts on this topic was directed "12 year olds","children" age keeps moving up.

And a mandatory government class would be awesome. This is what should be done anyways, adults aswell.

Forged was using the age of 12 as an example, but I can understand how the use of "children" would confuse you.

I wasn't confused at all. I don't think people call teen-agers children. I think you're the one whos confused. 

[quote author=WoOdTroll link=topic=13248.msg134238#msg134238 date=1132122980]
I wasn't confused at all. I don't think people call teen-agers children. I think you're the one whos confused. 
[/quote]

I assumed that you were able to draw out what "children" was in context with.  And did I not mention in a previous post to exchange the term "children" with "young adolescent"?  I believe we agreed upon that much.

Sure if now your argument isn't children voting, but young adolescent then we go back to the mandatory government class. Either way... I am sticking with the title of the thread.

Child oughtn't be allowed to vote as they, generally, are not educated enough as trust said.  They dont know how the system works.  I believe a literacy test would be a good idea for people to take, seriously, screw amendments making it legal for everyone to vote.

No, because then trust could vote, and that wouldn't be good for anybody.  :P

[quote author=Hitmen link=topic=13248.msg134285#msg134285 date=1132173890]
No, because then trust could vote, and that wouldn't be good for anybody. :P
[/quote]

It'd be good for everybody.

That bit about teenagers is good. Young children lack the mental capacity to understand complex issues - kids only start to understand shades of gray when they're 9 or 10ish. I forget the exact age.

Teenagers should be allowed to vote, I think.

Teenagers, while mentally capable, are NOT mature, though. Nader would stand a chance, as the majority of teenagers would vote for him just for bragging rights.

However, I'd probably vote for Nader, considering hes a consumer rights..person. Its kinda awesome how Nader's Raiders sued GM. =p

[quote author=Joe link=topic=13248.msg134339#msg134339 date=1132201566]
Teenagers, while mentally capable, are NOT mature, though. Nader would stand a chance, as the majority of teenagers would vote for him just for bragging rights.

However, I'd probably vote for Nader, considering hes a consumer rights..person. Its kinda awesome how Nader's Raiders sued GM. =p
[/quote]

Teenagers aren't mature?  Support your argument.

[quote author=Explicit[nK] link=topic=13248.msg134352#msg134352 date=1132211327]
[quote author=Joe link=topic=13248.msg134339#msg134339 date=1132201566]
Teenagers, while mentally capable, are NOT mature, though. Nader would stand a chance, as the majority of teenagers would vote for him just for bragging rights.

However, I'd probably vote for Nader, considering hes a consumer rights..person. Its kinda awesome how Nader's Raiders sued GM. =p
[/quote]

Teenagers aren't mature?  Support your argument.
[/quote]
I went through four years of highschool, personal experience supports the argument...

[quote author=Forged link=topic=13248.msg134353#msg134353 date=1132212343]
[quote author=Explicit[nK] link=topic=13248.msg134352#msg134352 date=1132211327]
[quote author=Joe link=topic=13248.msg134339#msg134339 date=1132201566]
Teenagers, while mentally capable, are NOT mature, though. Nader would stand a chance, as the majority of teenagers would vote for him just for bragging rights.

However, I'd probably vote for Nader, considering hes a consumer rights..person. Its kinda awesome how Nader's Raiders sued GM. =p
[/quote]

Teenagers aren't mature? Support your argument.
[/quote]
I went through four years of highschool, personal experience supports the argument...
[/quote]

I've gone through high school, also.  During that time, I watched friends grow from immature brats, to practically young adults.

I agree, we're not mature. I can't stand teenagers.

Plenty of adults are immature.

[quote author=Explicit[nK] link=topic=13248.msg134352#msg134352 date=1132211327]
[quote author=Joe link=topic=13248.msg134339#msg134339 date=1132201566]
Teenagers, while mentally capable, are NOT mature, though. Nader would stand a chance, as the majority of teenagers would vote for him just for bragging rights.

However, I'd probably vote for Nader, considering hes a consumer rights..person. Its kinda awesome how Nader's Raiders sued GM. =p
[/quote]

Teenagers aren't mature?  Support your argument.
[/quote]Joe is a teenager.  Point & match

[quote author=Joe link=topic=13248.msg134339#msg134339 date=1132201566]
Teenagers, while mentally capable, are NOT mature, though. Nader would stand a chance, as the majority of teenagers would vote for him just for bragging rights.

However, I'd probably vote for Nader, considering hes a consumer rights..person. Its kinda awesome how Nader's Raiders sued GM. =p
[/quote]

I would have voted for Nader, because I don't like Bush or Kerry.  It's kind of a protest vote, instead of not voting :)

But yeah, Arta took the words right out of my mouth:
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13248.msg134360#msg134360 date=1132231390]
Plenty of adults are immature.
[/quote]

So then we shouldn't let adults vote?

That's retarded. Teenagers are, on average, way less mature than adults. Sure, 18 year olds aren't necessarily more mature - but you have to have some number. If "18" is defined as an "adult" and "adults" have the right to vote, then 18 should be the age.

You miss the point, I think. Of course adults must be allowed to vote, regardless of their mental faculties. Since, imho, a non-trivial number of (perhaps older) teenagers are capable of making informed decisions, there's no particular reason why they shouldn't vote. In other words: the current age threshold is arbitrary.  You can drive and join the army before you're 18 (can here anyway); these are both adult activities. Why not reduce the threshold for voting rights? Why should it be 18? Why not 16, or 14?

If I can vote @ 14, why can't I drink.

I don't know, ask your parents.  On that note, that is a good idea, allow minors to drink and smoke but do not allow them to buy their own ciggerates and alcohol.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13248.msg134503#msg134503 date=1132324565]
If I can vote @ 14, why can't I drink.
[/quote]
You can vote at 18, but you can't drink.  What's your point, exactly?

Arta's post reminds me of a song by 2Pac, where he raps: "Did you ever stop to think..that I'm old enough to go to war, but I'm not old enough to drink?"

Anyway, there are times when teenagers do act mature.  One of those times can and should be when they are voting.  For example, during job interviews, you present yourself as professional, and in a sense, act like an adult.  You could just as easily apply that professional, adult-like manner toward voting, and of course, pick the immaturity back up after.

Edit: Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, I'm kind of tired.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13248.msg134501#msg134501 date=1132324375]
You miss the point, I think. Of course adults must be allowed to vote, regardless of their mental faculties. Since, imho, a non-trivial number of (perhaps older) teenagers are capable of making informed decisions, there's no particular reason why they shouldn't vote. In other words: the current age threshold is arbitrary.  You can drive and join the army before you're 18 (can here anyway); these are both adult activities. Why not reduce the threshold for voting rights? Why should it be 18? Why not 16, or 14?
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous proposal.

At the age of 14, generally parents are making most if not all major life decisions for their children (regardless of whether they get some "input"): where the child lives, what he eats, where he goes to school, what literature/TV/media he is exposed to, what money he has to spend, and so on, is all determined by the parent.

Yes, children should have a say in things, but generally a kid of 14, or even 16, is not independent enough to be given such an important "right" (whatever choice he/she makes will be horribly clouded by the ever-so present influence his/her parents have over the child's life). 

Now at 18, the "young-adult" usually decides: where will I live?  will I work or go to college? what will I do for a living?  He is having to (for once) make major life decisions; only then does it follow that he should decide "who should I vote for?".

Of course our parents and where we grow up will always have an influence on us, and of course some adults are more immature than children.  However, at 18 we are given a much greater opportunity to think for ourselves for the most part, and it is only then that we should  be voting.

And of course there are some children (e.g. < 18) that would make excellent voters; conversely, we have to draw the line somewhere, and the age of 18 seems more sensible than most other times.


Edit: (Re: Arta)
Re: Driving:  Being under the control of your parents shouldn't affect so much whether you're a good driver or not: "good driving" isn't something that is too subjective in nature -- unless you're a fool you know what good driving means, and there are tests to try and insure those that have their license are responsible drivers.
I see the "right to drive" as something much different than the "right to vote".  While driving does not usually require critical independent thinking, voting does.

Re: war:  I don't think children under 18 should be allowed to go to war, for many of the reasons I don't think children under 18 should be allowed to vote.

[quote author=Explicit[nK] link=topic=13248.msg134551#msg134551 date=1132349292]
Arta's post reminds me of a song by 2Pac, where he raps: "Did you ever stop to think..that I'm old enough to go to war, but I'm not old enough to drink?"
[/quote]

Yeah, we've been making fun of the US by saying that for many years. 

They should move drinking/war/cigarettes/driving/everything to 21.  From working at a beer store, I know that 18-year-old kids are immature punks, and I hate them.  Therefore, they should have no rights.  :)

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13248.msg134501#msg134501 date=1132324375]
You miss the point, I think. Of course adults must be allowed to vote, regardless of their mental faculties. Since, imho, a non-trivial number of (perhaps older) teenagers are capable of making informed decisions, there's no particular reason why they shouldn't vote. In other words: the current age threshold is arbitrary. You can drive and join the army before you're 18 (can here anyway); these are both adult activities. Why not reduce the threshold for voting rights? Why should it be 18? Why not 16, or 14?
[/quote]

Maybe because we define "adult" as 18? It's an "adult" right. How is that not simple to understand? Plus, Government is generally taken when you're 17 or after you just turned 18 (depending on when you entered school.) It's good to have people educated before they vote.

[quote]
Arta's post reminds me of a song by 2Pac, where he raps: "Did you ever stop to think..that I'm old enough to go to war, but I'm not old enough to drink?"
[/quote]

If you're in the military, you can have a drink at dinner and stuff if you're stationed overseas.

Since when did drinking have anything to do with serving your country?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13248.msg134785#msg134785 date=1132501685]
Since when did drinking have anything to do with serving your country?
[/quote]

I think the point is knowing where to draw the line...

Lots of people go on about saying that if you can die for your country you shouuld be able to drink.  I don't really see how it makes that big of a difference, it ain't like you're missing out on something super spectacular.  You can vote, thats what you NEED, you dont NEED to drink.

Of course it's nothing to do with serving your country. It's just thoroughly patronising and completely nonsensical: that you're allowed to volunteer for a job that might kill you, but not to go to a bar, is completely bizarre.

It relates to child voting a bit. If you're an adult at 18, you should be able to drink at 18. Incidentally, perhaps there's something to be said for raising the age at which one can join the military to 18, too. It seems to me that minors shouldn't be allowed to do that: most certainly, if they're old enough to decide to join the army, then they're old enough to vote!

That's why you can vote @ 18 now.

"You're allowed to VOLUNTEER...".  People volunteer for the fire department & can die there, but you don't see people up in arms about not being able to drink as a firefighter

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13248.msg134914#msg134914 date=1132600254]
That's why you can vote @ 18 now.

"You're allowed to VOLUNTEER...". People volunteer for the fire department & can die there, but you don't see people up in arms about not being able to drink as a firefighter
[/quote]

Fires are fought locally while wars are fought abroad.  It might help to compare conditions here to over there; we have hospitals that injured folks can be rushed to, but abroad, it's more difficult to receive medical treatment, not to mention the sanitation.

[quote author=Explicit[nK] link=topic=13248.msg134924#msg134924 date=1132607755]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13248.msg134914#msg134914 date=1132600254]
That's why you can vote @ 18 now.

"You're allowed to VOLUNTEER...". People volunteer for the fire department & can die there, but you don't see people up in arms about not being able to drink as a firefighter
[/quote]

Fires are fought locally while wars are fought abroad.  It might help to compare conditions here to over there; we have hospitals that injured folks can be rushed to, but abroad, it's more difficult to receive medical treatment, not to mention the sanitation.
[/quote]Army doctors do exist.  Sure they are MORE at risk, but they are both at risk nonetheless

The argument still remains:  Why is it that you can go to war, risk your life, and take another's life, but not be able to consume alcohol at the age of 18?  Compare the rights.

You shouldn't be able to volunteer for anything dangerous when you're under 18. If you're too young to decide who to vote for, you're obviously too young to decide whether or not to place yourself at risk. After all, being able to judge risk is something adults are supposed to be ok at, and children are generally terrible at.

That said, if people who are under 18 are qualified to decide to join the army, drive, and become firefighters and policemen, then clearly, they are qualified to vote.

Within reason, I don't really care where the age limit is, but it should be consistent.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13248.msg134935#msg134935 date=1132611097]
That said, if people who are under 18 are qualified to decide to join the army, drive, and become firefighters and policemen, then clearly, they are qualified to vote.
[/quote]

Agreed.

People under 18 aren't qualified to join the military or police or fire & rescue, at least not where I'm from.  You can drive @ 16 which is dangerous as well, but I don't think it is as 'high risk' as the military, polic, or fire.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13248.msg134937#msg134937 date=1132612102]
People under 18 aren't qualified to join the military or police or fire & rescue, at least not where I'm from.  You can drive @ 16 which is dangerous as well, but I don't think it is as 'high risk' as the military, polic, or fire.
[/quote]

I believe you can join the military at 16 w/ parental consent.

I wouldn't want children to vote...We already have idiots in office, whats next...Friday will be national candy day? I think the age requirement is perfectly fine..however, there are plenty of legal age voters who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=13248.msg134940#msg134940 date=1132613700]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13248.msg134937#msg134937 date=1132612102]
People under 18 aren't qualified to join the military or police or fire & rescue, at least not where I'm from.  You can drive @ 16 which is dangerous as well, but I don't think it is as 'high risk' as the military, polic, or fire.
[/quote]

I believe you can join the military at 16 w/ parental consent.
[/quote]Army site says 17 w/consent.  You also have to have a high school diploma/GED to enlist, proving you are at least almost competent.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13248.msg134935#msg134935 date=1132611097]

That said, if people who are under 18 are qualified to decide to join the army, drive, and become firefighters and policemen, then clearly, they are qualified to vote.

[/quote]

Like I said earlier, I don't think there's a really strong connection between the right to drive and the right to vote or join the military.  Driving is a tested skill.  Although perhaps not so extreme, what you are saying could be seen as analogous to "everyone who rides a bike should be able to go to war," or "everyone who has driven a motor (or sail) boat should be able to go to war and also to vote."  Of course maturity is part of being a good driver (not just having the ability to pass a test), but it is not the same degree of maturity necessary to decide about war or voting (and what "good driving" is, isn't very subjective either).  On the other hand, I don't trust teenagers to be mature at all really (kind of like iago), so I wouldn't mind if the driving age (along with other things) were bumped up to 21+.


Also, I really doubt that anyone under 18 in either of our countries could become full-fledged (practicing) firefighters or policemen.  Do you have a source for that claim?  8)

Driving age of 21+ wouldn't be logical.  Many people move out by the time they are 18, therefore would generally be able to drive.

You can join the military at 16 here, with parental consent. You can join the police whenever you want. I'm going to assume that the fire and ambulance services have the same, or at least similar, rules.

Perhaps you have a point about driving. I was referring to the maturity rather than ability, though, as you point out, and I'm not sure that the two are as incomparable as you claim. How does one quantify maturity? Why is someone who is mature enough to drive not mature enough to vote?

Incidentally, I don't think anything needs to be witheld until people reach 21. 18 is fine, and in some cases, excessive. 21 is archaic.

I skimmed the link to the police website you gave.  This is a quote from their
age requirements
"Candidates who have reached the age of 18 years may apply to become a police officer and can take up appointment on reaching the age of 18½.  "

re: driving

There is some maturity required to be a responsible driver, perhaps, but there is an element of subjectivity missing that could be dangerous in a voting situation.  For example, if a child were to vote, he could easily be brainwashed into thinking that whoever he ends up voting for is the "right," and "good" choice.  I think, however, that most people know what good driving is (it is not a matter of subjective choice to the same degree).

There's nothing to stop adults being 'brainwashed' in that fasion either. Many (I'm not one of them) consider us all to be brainwashed by the media anyway. I just don't buy the argument that we have developed this subjectiity at 18 but not at 16 or 17.

Re police: oops. All I saw was "There are no age limits.".

Children are still, generally, young & impressionable, adults have their mind made up for the most part