|
Post by technohawk on Dec 19, 2006 21:15:45 GMT -8
Yes when we add religion we always seem to get swayed off topic. I had a lot to say to Prone about that stuff but I'll forget it and move on.
I think the age could go down as low as 16 years old. If you're old enough to drive 2 tons of metal you're old enough to vote.
I think the vote should count fully as well.
I'd have to say that while there will be the occasional immature kid who would vote, that isn't really different from an immature adult voting.
Lots of adults don't put any thought into voting.
Many kids today are politically informed. And Government has a big factor on a youth's future, education-wise, job-wise and family-wise.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Dec 19, 2006 21:21:19 GMT -8
That rule was instituted, I'd imagine, as a safeguard to disregard the voting of persons 17 years old or less, because based on how the people in that age group act, they aren't going to be modivated to learn about the history, political eperience, or influence that that particular political candidate has had on the country.
This information assumes that those kids will put down whoever they feel like, and that will make the tables unbalanced. The voters need to be well-experienced with prior knowledge of the candidates to make a sound judgement. 17 years or less doesn't cut it! Sorry, dx!
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Dec 19, 2006 21:56:29 GMT -8
That argument doesn't cut it Prone.
For one thing, 16-17 year olds can take political science courses making them more informed than the average adult.
Secondly as I stated(you really must read the posts sometimes) total incompetents can vote just because they are 18 or older.
The elderly, whom are probably the largest demographic that DO vote, have a higher chance of being senile than a 16 year old. But hey, they still get to vote.
To me age matters only slightly. I'd just like to have most voters be well informed on WHAT and WHO they are voting for.
If you're 16 and you know that voting for A will mean more guns on the street and that voting for B will mean less guns on the street then you've demonstrated awareness of the facts.
If your 30 and know that voting for A means voting for the guy with a red tie and voting for B means voting for the guy with an orange tie, then you shouldn't be voting.
|
|
|
Post by ga on Dec 19, 2006 22:07:14 GMT -8
If your 30 and know that voting for A means voting for the guy with a red tie and voting for B means voting for the guy with an orange tie, then you shouldn't be voting. who wears an orange tie, anyways? there should probably be a skill testing question to determine if you are mentally competent to vote. no age restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Dec 19, 2006 22:11:55 GMT -8
Well, voting in a sense, needs to happen from people who know what they're doing. You can't place a computer in the hands of a newbie and ask them to set an account as a remote desktop user. It just doesn't happen.
Probably the majority of the older generation will think that most of this generation is a good-for-nothing, and won't read the facts.
|
|
|
Post by ga on Dec 19, 2006 22:17:52 GMT -8
You can't place a computer in the hands of a newbie... Probably the majority of the older generation will think that most of this generation is a good-for-nothing, and won't read the facts. best prone quote EVER
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 20, 2006 14:16:07 GMT -8
Why are you saying sorry? I never said I thought it should go lower. As a matter of fact, I agree with you and I'll go one better - I think that the voting age should be increased to 19.
Think of it this way: how often are young people influenced by their parents? I grow up in a highly liberal household, and even though I'm the only conservative in the family, I'm still affected by many of my parents' views. Abortion, for example, I believe shouldn't even be debated, because in my opinion it's none of the government's business. The point is, my vote, were I younger, would have been highly swayed by my parents. I may have even voted Democrat in my earlier years.
What does this matter? I'll tell you. Supreme Court Case is Baker V Carr. This is the case that established "One man, one vote", or in other words, one person's vote can't be worth more than another person's vote. This case applies to this, because until your mind has matured past a certain point, you'll be influenced by your parents. Parents with a larger amount of children will bring in more votes for their party, and therefore, their opinion is more "important" than a widower with no child.
Why 19? This court case is Roper v Simmons. This was a death sentence case, when the death sentence applied to anyone age 16 or over. The argument by the defense was quite simple: studies showed that the brain does not fully develop until age 19 (on average). Do you really want someone whose brain hasn't developed voting on the future of our country? 42% of teenagers are liberal, 28% are republican, and the rest are independent. I apologize for saying this but it's true: usually people who have lower levels of thinking tend to be liberals (I'm not saying that there aren't many liberals who are very enlightened). So, do you really want another Harry Truman, who pretty much failed at everything he did (cold war, communism, etc.) or do you want the best candidate for the job, whether he be liberal or conservative? We need better thinkers to elect our officers.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Dec 20, 2006 15:27:27 GMT -8
Easy there Dx. Saying that liberals have smaller minds is quite, what's the word, oh yeah, HYPOCRITICAL. I'd usually go on a tirade about the intelligence of the average republican. I'll refrain from that and move on.
I will say it's extremely misguided to say that republicans are "enlightened" and liberals are not. To me it always seems to have been the opposite.
Examples are always good, so here's one that we talked about earlier.
Gay marriage. A closed minded person would think that 1) Gays are evil and unnatural and 2) Shouldn't have as many rights as heterosexuals because of their lifestyle(akin to the way Blacks were/are treated)
An Open minded person would think 1) A gay person is just as equal as any other person and should have equal(not more) rights. 2) Even if they may never understand why someone is gay, they will be tolerant and acceptant of those people. And 3) They will realize that a loving, monogamous gay couple would be better parents than a couple of heterosexual parents that have an abusive/negligent spouse.
And obviously if you're a conservative I can see how you wouldn't want teens voting, since the numbers don't support your own view.
Parents of course, will have influence on their children. And yet how many teenagers rebel against their parents due to this control? Nearly all of them. At one point or another we have all shown our independence and rebelled in one way or another.
We don't wear the clothes are parents want us to, we don't play the games our parents want us to etc...
So teens could vote differently than their parents.
Then there are all the other influences that are allowed. Should people who only watch FoxNews be allowed to vote? Should people who only watch CNN be allowed to vote?
There are hundreds of influencing factors pushed on people of every age. That doesn't make it wrong, it just make it normal.
I will agree we need better thinkers VOTING and better thinkers LEADING.
ie we need people to actually THINK when someone says "We are winning the war in Iraq, the Insurgency is in it's last throes, We will be greated as liberators" and instead of blindly saying "Uh, yeah, he must be right" actually questioning their leader.
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 20, 2006 16:09:08 GMT -8
Note: I never said that liberals are people that have smaller minds. Notice my disclaimer in there.
I said people that have smaller minds tend to be liberal, which means they join the other people who are liberals, many of which are extremely impressive thinkers.
Besides, it's got nothing to do with teens skewing the liberal vote, it's more that I don't think they're independent enough to form their own opinions, unbiased by family. It's not because it skews the number because by all means 50% of democrats don't even bother to vote. So really, the percentages of republicans and democrats who vote are about the same.
So perhaps setting an age requirement isn't good enough. Perhaps we should have to take a competency test to see if we are able to make solid, well informed decisions.
|
|
|
Post by ga on Dec 20, 2006 16:14:36 GMT -8
So perhaps setting an age requirement isn't good enough. Perhaps we should have to take a competency test to see if we are able to make solid, well informed decisions. isn't that what i said about a skill testing question?
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 20, 2006 16:19:53 GMT -8
Ah, so it is. Well then you'll get an exalt for thinking of it before me
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Dec 20, 2006 16:25:36 GMT -8
Note: I never said that liberals are people that have smaller minds. Notice my disclaimer in there. I said people that have smaller minds tend to be liberal, which means they join the other people who are liberals, many of which are extremely impressive thinkers. Besides, it's got nothing to do with teens skewing the liberal vote, it's more that I don't think they're independent enough to form their own opinions, unbiased by family. It's not because it skews the number because by all means 50% of democrats don't even bother to vote. So really, the percentages of republicans and democrats who vote are about the same. So perhaps setting an age requirement isn't good enough. Perhaps we should have to take a competency test to see if we are able to make solid, well informed decisions. So you're not saying that democrats are stupid. Only that stupid people vote democrat. Touche! Except that you are 1) Generalizing 2) Hypocritical and 3) Totally wrong. But you're probably too young to understand this. So I shall try and dumb it down for you. Are you making up stats or actually have read more than one unbiased report for the stats? Or did some teacher tell you the stats and you were Influenced into believing they were true? I myself don't have the stats and after a brief search couldn't locate much. I do recall that most of the southern states have the worst education system in the USA. So the dumbest of the dumb, would likely come from the southern USA. And what part do southerners almost always vote for. Lemme think for a nanosecond. Oh that's right. Republican. And where do the cultural elite work/live? The coasts? New York, California, Washington State. Hmm, and what party do those people usually vote for? Oh that's right Democrat. Of course the competency test would be excellent. Except that it would be extremely expensive and logistically difficult and would lower to voter turn out even more.
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 20, 2006 19:30:53 GMT -8
Alright, I can see how my post could have been misconstrued, and though I've already PM'd hawk about how it wasn't an attack against liberals, I figure I may as well post it here too.
This is not to say that Liberals are stupid. I've stated that I don't intend to say that liberals are stupid.
My statement was about the political tendencies of a group of less intelligent people, not about the intelligence of a political party. I have great respect for many liberals, including Bill Clinton, Obama, etc. I tried, in my original posts, to make it clear that it wasn't my intent to say liberals are stupid, and I thought I had, but I suppose I didn't cover myself quite as well as I'd thought.
I say again, my post was not meant in any way as an attack against liberals. I'm not retracting it or apologizing for it, because I believe it to be true, but I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea.
Edit: Did anyone else think this was an attack against liberals? Because I just realized it's completely irrelevent in this debate.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Dec 20, 2006 20:01:00 GMT -8
hmm i thought techno over-countered your post...i got what you were gettin at
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 20, 2006 20:02:52 GMT -8
Well his reaction was understandable given what he thought.
|
|