Push to lower age to vote.

[Halicia]

Didn't know we still have an active draft.

Assuming you're in America, you do.

[May90]

I think, rather than age, people should have to pass a test to get a "voter's license" (just like there is driver's license). No matter at what age they pass it, as soon as they do, they gain the right to vote. Imagine how much higher quality the voting decisions would be, if no one could vote based solely on "He is sooooo cool, I liiiiike him!"

[Torto]

I think, rather than age, people should have to pass a test to get a "voter's license" (just like there is driver's license). No matter at what age they pass it, as soon as they do, they gain the right to vote. Imagine how much higher quality the voting decisions would be, if no one could vote based solely on "He is sooooo cool, I liiiiike him!"

I'd agree that rather than an arbitrary age, people should be only allowed to vote if they pay taxes. Why should people who do not pay tax be allowed a say in how taxes are spent?

[urasim]

I think, rather than age, people should have to pass a test to get a "voter's license" (just like there is driver's license). No matter at what age they pass it, as soon as they do, they gain the right to vote. Imagine how much higher quality the voting decisions would be, if no one could vote based solely on "He is sooooo cool, I liiiiike him!"

No, because then either side can twist the requirements to pass the test and only have one side be able to vote... We've already seen this shit in real life with the bullshit racist quiz that was impossible to pass.

Even with a test it will always boil down to a popularity contest.

[Uncensored]

16 - Why? Because you can fight and die in a war at 18 years old, but not have 1 word about it beforehand. That does not sit well with me at all.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Proud deplorables we are. Better than fragile snowflakes

Trump supporters are some of the biggest crybabies on the planet.

[mickybrighteyes]

They should push it to 16.
It's nonsense that people should live such a long time under a government they never elected.

*looks at who posted it*
Okaaay.

damn one post in and we get a flag.


edit:

IMO voting age doesn't matter. Most people would be too busy ignoring everything and not bothering to actually learn about what's going on politically.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

They know what would be best for future generations because of their long lives. Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to vote because of their age?

They can also sell the younger generation out.

[Bapestar]

Age doesn't make you a better voter, as thousands of elderly morons voting for Trump proved.

Hahahaha yup.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Not sure what this has to do with the fact that 16 year olds don't know what's good for the future.

A test to vote would be more effective especially with tricky wording which requires critical thinking to get around. Your making choices for people while discriminating based on age which is bullshit. There are plenty of adults who make shit tier decision. If this was really about a more informed populist. We would be targeting older people as well because of mental decline.

If we're gonna do something like this I would only support a test a blanket ban on voting is discriminatory and bullsht.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The issue is honestly complex. You can drive at 16, you can have sex at 16. You cannot drink before 21 (in the US, which is absurd but hey). You can vote at 18. What makes 18 more magical than 16? What makes 21 more magical than 16?

Obviously if you think someone can drive and have sex, they can vote. It's the next logical step.

On the other hand, this raise the issue of driving age. Should you be able to drive at 16? I don't think so. I do not think that the people who are 16 years of age are proportionately mature to have this privilge. The same goes for voting.

It's not much of a political problem more than a psychological problem. 16 is directly during development, you're not ready to jump in.

[Sunseeker]

I'm from a European country where the age is 18, too, and honestly, I agree with you. 20 would be a step in the right direction, 25 probably a better threshold. The vast, vast majority of people are effectively still teenagers from 18 until their mid-twenties.

Perhaps, but the larger issue is that the decisions of elected representatives begin to much more substantially affect your life directly once you hit the age of 18. When you're young the decisions are indirect, usually affecting your parents and then you, your school and then you, and so on. When kids reach voting age is also around when they start getting legitimate employment (discounting earlier employment by friends and family), when they start paying taxes, when they start driving a vehicle, when they start signing contracts, when they start using banking institutions (loans, credit cards, etc...).

Suddenly all these things elected representatives are doing now directly affect you. Your ability to afford higher education, your ability to buy a home, get access to money, get drafted into the armed forces. There is no longer a buffer of mom & dad between you and your government.

If we're not going to let "young adults" have a say in a government that is making, often drastic, decisions that affect their lives, then to use an Americanism: "No taxation without representation." You must accept that you must essentially demote "young adults" to "children" status. If you're telling a portion of the population that they aren't allowed to have a say in their leadership then reasonably speaking you cannot treat them like "full" adult members of society.

In any case, noone's going to raise the voting age anyway. Because soldiers don't like being told they don't have a say in who's sending them to war.

[mickybrighteyes]

If we're gonna do something like this I would only support a test a blanket ban on voting is discriminatory and bullsht.

bu then you're doing a blanket ban on stupid people and those who can't take tests

[May90]

No, because then either side can twist the requirements to pass the test and only have one side be able to vote... We've already seen this shit in real life with the bullshit racist quiz that was impossible to pass.

Even with a test it will always boil down to a popularity contest.

You can say that about anything: any attempt to fix an issue will be twisted due to politicians' hunger for power. Doesn't mean we should stop trying to fix anything, it just means that we should approach fixing issues in a way that doesn't leave a room for seizure of power.

[Vynny]

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-george-soros/



Personally I think the age of 18 right now is far to low. Lack of critical thinking and easy to manipulate into the "what do they give me" arena.

Almost everyone votes based on the "what do they give me" arena. Why do you think Republicans who are for deregulating and lowering taxes get most of their votes from business owners and upper-middle class to the upper class while Democrats who are for pro-social policies and better safety nets get most of their votes from the poor and working class to the lower middle class?

It's basically "I lose a lot of what I make due to taxes, what will you give me?", Republican: "lower taxes"
"I'm barely getting by, what will you give me?", Democrats: "more welfare and higher wages"

[Sunseeker]

You can say that about anything: any attempt to fix an issue will be twisted due to politicians' hunger for power. Doesn't mean we should stop trying to fix anything, it just means that we should approach fixing issues in a way that doesn't leave a room for seizure of power.

There's a saying: "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Giving everyone the ability to vote at 18 ain't broke. Younger people don't really participate in the electoral process anyway, but this is countered by the fact that there's more of them. Older people participate more regularly and more consistently because they've had 50 years to understand how the system affects them.

This wouldn't change if you lowered the voting age to 5 or raised it to 40. Unless we are going to vastly and drastically improve the civics education our children receive, it is only experience that will teach them the value of voting.

[Schmeebs]

But it's perfectly fine if they go up when old people want to retire at 65 and still get 95 years old with free healthcare?

Yeah... No one currently working gets to retire at 65 if they don't make it into the upper class.

[anaxie]

Ironically that the most fragile egos I ever seen seem to be Trump and his followers. *Shrugs*

Thats why everyone was crying and shitting the bed when trump won. not fragile. sure thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump supporters are some of the biggest crybabies on the planet.

back in reality I think we all know what really happens.

[May90]

There's a saying: "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Giving everyone the ability to vote at 18 ain't broke. Younger people don't really participate in the electoral process anyway, but this is countered by the fact that there's more of them. Older people participate more regularly and more consistently because they've had 50 years to understand how the system affects them.

This wouldn't change if you lowered the voting age to 5 or raised it to 40. Unless we are going to vastly and drastically improve the civics education our children receive, it is only experience that will teach them the value of voting.

Personally, I think this is a very lousy saying. One can look at North Korea and say, "Well, it works, it ain't broke, people survive (most, at least). Why fix it?" In reality, every situation can always been improved, and it is this constant, gradual improvement, that make countries like the US or France so much better in the end than, say, Iran or Russia.

"Raw" democracy has always been a pretty unstable system, as it relies on people making reasonable voting decisions - which isn't always the case, as we can easily see from, pretty much, any period in history. That is why the founding fathers came up with a two-level system, but that system too had been twisted in the end, making the second level practically obsolete.

I think some quality control is necessary. After all, a poor voting decision can result in much more drastic consequences than, say, a gun sold to a wrong person, or a car handed over to an unqualified individual. At least, some basic test on the dictionary definition of political terms, some historical quiz, something that can be measured objectively, without the ruling party's bias affecting the questionnaire. And I totally agree with you that overall improvement of the education is necessary as well; however, even with the best education in the world, a country cannot guarantee informed voting of the majority of the population.

---

Or, if we really are to give everyone above the age of 18 the right to vote, then the system should be changed to smooth the extremes. For example, Australia offers a good system, where the voter chooses not one, but multiple candidates, ranking them in order of preference. This way the candidates which half the population loves and half hates are less likely to win than those with whom everyone is, in general, okay.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Thats why everyone was crying and shitting the bed when trump won. not fragile. sure thing.

- - - Updated - - -



back in reality I think we all know what really happens.

Trump supporters were literally ready to over through the government if he lost. There lis nothing wrong with protesting it's called making your voice heard. The rioters were in the wrong though.

The amount of cucking and brown nosing that surround Trump on this forum is fucking sad. It's fucking fun but holy fuck it's sad.