Voting Age

^
Not in my state. In my state they have the right to take and keep my money because I'm their child and I only have the basic rights of food/water/shelter/clothes/education.

^
TBH I was making that up, I assumed that they did have a right to take your money but not spend it... I guess we don't have that right.

Oh well!

But you're 23, so they cant take it anymore... right?

^
Correct, but when I was in high school they could have. I was speaking as a child because that's how we were talking about it.

18 is fine for voting age, the amount of people who are very uneducated on the topic will still be a large % regardless of age.

Aaronnn:

18 is fine for voting age, the amount of people who are very uneducated on the topic will still be a large % regardless of age.

If age is not a factor then why not reduce the age?

^
The precedent of an age limit has been set since the beggining. Government/people feel the need of an age restriction on pretty much everything dealing with politics/ "grown up stuff"...

Yet another sign of ageism. It's a feeble (yet [mostly] successful) attempt of proving dominance over others. :\

Eizu:

^
The precedent of an age limit has been set since the beggining. Government/people feel the need of an age restriction on pretty much everything dealing with politics/ "grown up stuff"...

Yet another sign of ageism. It's a feeble (yet [mostly] successful) attempt of proving dominance over others. :\

It's not ageism to say a twelve year old shouldn't be able to go into a porn shop. It's not ageism to say that it's probably a good idea that parents take their child to a rated R movie. It's not ageism to say 14 year olds shouldn't be able to buy alcohol. It's just basic common sense. It may not apply to everyone, but it applies to the majority. Setting limits is not the same as ageism.

^

hmm I didn't think about that. Nice point.

druscilla believes.:

It's not ageism to say a twelve year old shouldn't be able to go into a porn shop. It's not ageism to say that it's probably a good idea that parents take their child to a rated R movie. It's not ageism to say 14 year olds shouldn't be able to buy alcohol. It's just basic common sense. It may not apply to everyone, but it applies to the majority. Setting limits is not the same as ageism.

I partially agree and partially disagree.

Whilst I agree that fourteen year olds should really be drinking, seeing films that are "too old" or going into places like Ann Summers, I would suggest that those particular rules are mostly useless since one can still see violent films, watch porn and drink booze from a young age and the rules merely make the youngster have to be a bit clever. And those cases would have a supposed negative effect on them (definitely in the alcohol case).

However, I would argue that voting is a whole other kettle of fish. I would argue that voting in a civilised country holds no negative effects in the immediate sense and that with adequate education, I don't see why young people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Perhaps if it was seen as a good thing earlier in life, it would vastly improve turnout (US and UK turnout is abysmal.) and could change so much.

It would make for an interesting social experiment at the very least.

There should be an age limit but where the vast majority of children shows the ability to understand the consequences of their actions. I would suggest (if adequate experimental hypotheses were intact and I could go out and see how it would effect it in an experimental situation) that teenagers are mentally mature enough to vote and with adequate education on party policies could make a good and informed decision (of which I believe most of the voting population lack.)

^
The age limits are there for children whose parents don't give a damn, imo. Do I think it's wrong for a mom to let her teen daughter have a glass of wine? No. Do I think it's wrong for a mom to let her teen daughter get wasted every night? Yes. As for porn, just because teens see it does not mean they should be in an adult store. That's a safety issue more so than the issue of porn.

In a lot of states n the US it's legal for a child to drink in their parents' home.

But I still don't feel that voting is a right minors need.

^ Why not? Why can't we have the right to vote for our future? It is ours, afterall, and we suffer the consequences of today's leaders.

Eizu:

^ Why not? Why can't we have the right to vote for our future? It is ours, afterall, and we suffer the consequences of today's leaders.

You suffer the consequences of what your guardians do.

You're not a legal adult so you don't have the right to adult rights.

^Why is it an adult right? Why can't it be shared by 16 and 17 year olds? do you think that they can be politically strong enough to have a decision in the way their country is run, and how it will affect their future?

As I stated before, we suffer the consequences of today's leaders. And not necessarily, no, do we sugger guardians because they may have not voted for the winning guy... >_>

^
Because sixteen and seventeen year olds are children who are still learning about this crap and and most of them can't formulate an opinion on who to vote for. The minority can, sure, but not the majority. And I don't want to turn the reigns over to a bunch of teenagers just because some can vote.

Trust me, I understand. I was less than year away from being able to vote in the Kerry/Bush election. I considered buying a fake ID to vote. I cried because I couldn't vote and I cried when Kerry lost for three days. I understand. But my rights were not damaged in the process.

I'd just like to point out the following statistics:
Between the ages 12 and 14, 46% of people are in identity diffusion; 11% are in identity foreclosure; 21% in identity moratorium; 22% in identity achievement.
15-17: 31% of are in diffusion; 22% are in foreclosure; 16% in moratorium; 31% in identity achievement.
18-20: 30% in diffusion; 14% in foreclosure; 13% in moratorium; 43% in identity achievement.
21-24: 17% diffusion; 13% foreclosure; 14% moratorium; 56% identity achievement.

The terms are James Marcia's patterns of exploration and commitment of identity (which would include values & political beliefs).
People in identity diffusion have neither explored nor committed to their identity.
Identity foreclosure is commitment to an identity without exploration (almost always mirroring parents' beliefs)
Moratorium is actively exploring but not yet committed.
Identity achievement is commitment following exploration.

So until 18, more than half of the people in the sample groups hadn't even examined their beliefs. Something to think about.

^ So we should just ignore the minority because... apparently... majority rules?

Eizu:

^ So we should just ignore the minority because... apparently... majority rules?

American is a democracy. Majority rules is kind of the way things work. It's why we vote in the first place.

^
I thought that liberals wanted equality, and the minorities to be recognized...

hmm... Even the bible recognizes minorities in the word sense.

A part of the book talks about how God wouldn't destory a city if there was but one man who believed in God.

So should we destory the right to vote on teenagers 16-17 because less than 50% are politically active?

^
I never said we should ignore the minorities. But if you want the minority vote to win, then why vote at all? Because voting wouldn't mean anything.

There is no right for teenagers 16-17 to vote so we are destroying nothing. We're just not giving into the demands of children who want a right they aren't entitled to. (And it's barely 30%.)

^
Uh... that's the reason we are debating this is because they're being denied a right to vote. Denied a right.