Children's Suffrage?

[Varkoth]

Snuff, issue number one, I'm not a minor. It's not an "everybody's doing it, so why can't I" attitude.

Issue number two. Men, in actualiity, refers to MALE adults. Why should women be included in that? If women are included, why shouldn't minors be?

Think before you post again.

[Xenojjin]

If women are included, why shouldn't minors be?

OMFG ....

You are kidding ? Right ?

[TheOracle]

Varkoth,

Just when I thought my post may have been a bit harsh, along you come and prove my theory correct.

[Fenris]

If women are included, why shouldn't minors be?

*Sigh*

Another 'parrallel drawn from a lack of experience!

It doesn't matter if someone is male/female, black/white/yellow/purple. Straight/gay/transgendered/whatever....... It does matter if they have enough experience to base the use of any political franchise on!

Don't try to draw paralells to groups that have been oppressed in the past (And to some extent still are), those are ADULTS being denied equal treatment WITHOUT just cause..... Kids aren't oppressed, they are (in the main) protected until they can get the life experience needed to take on the role of adult.... Political franchise REQUIRES that experience in order to be used sensibly.

[snuffypuffer]

Snuff, issue number one, I'm not a minor. It's not an "everybody's doing it, so why can't I" attitude.

Issue number two. Men, in actualiity, refers to MALE adults. Why should women be included in that? If women are included, why shouldn't minors be?

Think before you post again.

How old are you, then? Because you sound like a minor to me. Or a chauvinist, are you a chauvinist? I think maybe you are.

Suffrage being extended to women or minorities is completely different than suffrage being extended to minors, you're incredibly naive to think otherwise.

I do think before I post, maybe you should start taking your own advice.

[Druidus]

It's not an exact science, granted, but just look at the vast majority of youth culture and giving sixteen year olds the right to vote just stops making sense.

Hmmm.... Soooo.....

Let's look at the vast majority of say... people like this (or other retarded people, no offence to any mentally or physically disabled person anywhere) http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/ .

Now, I wonder... Seeing as the vast majority of children are smarter then the vast majority of people as retarded, shouldn't the children be allowed to vote, as the retarded people can?

Also, say a majority (type of adult) looked at a minority (type of adult). If the majority looked at the minority and said, "Wow, their culture is different. No voting for them." Wouldn't that be wrong? The same applies to this situation. A group in power (The Adults) looks at the culture of a group with no power (the minors) and says "Wow, their culture is different. No voting for them.". It is the exact same thing. Just because we think differently from you, does not mean we are wrong. Each succesive generation has always thought differently then it's predecessor.

[Fluffybunny]

Now, I wonder... Seeing as the vast majority of children are smarter then the vast majority of people as retarded, shouldn't the children be allowed to vote, as the retarded people can?

Druidus,

I have avoided this thread for some time now as it is obvious that no amount of logic or reason is going to change your mind. You want what you want regardless of the consequences or implications. Your posts in this thread as well as the veggie thread make that very clear.

That is fine; you as a human being are entitled to your thoughts and opinions.

Reading over this thread it is painfully obvious to me that you aren't ready for the responsibility of voting. Neither would a vast majority of those your age.

The methods and techniques that you have used to justify your stance in this issue (and others) as well as your inability to consider (and give value to) others points of view in a given matter are clear indications to me that you are still immature. You are still young, so that isn't an attempt by me to be derogatory by any means; it is simply stating that you have not matured in your thinking yet.

You are giving a great deal of thought to the threads that you participate in here. You are obviously smart. Smart does not necessarily equal mature, and in my opinion maturity is a major consideration in giving people the right to participate in democracy. The age of 18 was chosen as it is a period of time when most people are responsible for themselves; (legally as well as physically) and in that self responsibility have gained a degree of maturity. It isn’t an arbitrary line in the sand…

Your arguments of tests to determine voting capability, voting for minors that aren’t counted at first, third party evaluations to determine eligibility, and some of the other interesting ideas you have come up with tell me that you haven’t matured enough to consider the implications of your decisions. At a certain point maturity should kick in and the realization that your plans are flawed, that the huge sums of money required to plan, construct, test, implement and maintain your concepts would be so detrimental to the society at large that it simply isn’t fair to burden so many in society for the benefit of so few.

[Druidus]

You know, basically what you are saying is that I am not mature, based on what you define mature as. You are saying that because I don't make decisions the same way or come to the same conclusion as you, that I am inferior then you.

In the veggie topic (which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic) I am merely stating opinions and facts. In no way am I trying to persuade people to think what I think. The way I see it, freedom is the most important thing in any creatures life, including humans, and so, I value freedom of thought and expression a great deal. I think that for one group to take away rights of another simply because they group in power believes that they are "immature" is utterly wrong. Why then, do retarded people get to vote? If they can vote then minors (most of which have higher mental capabilities then the mentally disabled people) should be able to as well. The retarded people obviously are not "mature", the way most adults see it. I believe that having restrictions on the age of voting is only another way to discriminate against those with who are considered "inferior".

Your arguments of tests to determine voting capability, voting for minors that aren’t counted at first, third party evaluations to determine eligibility, and some of the other interesting ideas you have come up with tell me that you haven’t matured enough to consider the implications of your decisions. At a certain point maturity should kick in and the realization that your plans are flawed, that the huge sums of money required to plan, construct, test, implement and maintain your concepts would be so detrimental to the society at large that it simply isn’t fair to burden so many in society for the benefit of so few.

Why should money be a consideration in freedom? If, during the crusade for women's suffrage or coloured suffrage, it would have cost a lot of money to let them vote (for some hypothetical reason). Would that mean that they should not extend their voting rights? Ity seems to me that the government puts a sizeable sum of money into the army. If that was cut back a little (wouldn't hurt, the U.S. Government already spends more on it's military then any other country) we would have enough money to spend on any of my examples, with a good deal of surplus.

[Fluffybunny]

You know, basically what you are saying is that I am not mature, based on what you define mature as.

Yes I am.

You are saying that because I don't make decisions the same way or come to the same conclusion as you, that I am inferior then you.

If you read what I said, I said that you were immature. Immature and inferior are not equal, and inferior implies a connotation that I have never stated in this matter.

The way I see it, freedom is the most important thing in any creatures life, including humans, and so, I value freedom of thought and expression a great deal.

I too value freedom of thought and expression so much that I joined the Army before my 18th birthday and served for the better part of a decade to defend the freedoms of this country. As as minor you are entitled to all of the freedoms of thought and expression due an American citizen.

The right to vote however is reserved for those most capable of understanding the implications of that which they are voting for. The age of 18 was decided upon as a point where a person is physically and legally responsible for themselves and therefore more likely to understand the implications of their decisions.

I think that for one group to take away rights of another simply because they group in power believes that they are "immature" is utterly wrong.

We are not taking away any rights. Minors never had the right to vote to begin with, for good and legal reasoning. Your faulty logic could be used to argue the right to vote for 2 year olds and my pet cat.

I believe that having restrictions on the age of voting is only another way to discriminate against those with who are considered "inferior".

"Inferior" again is what you inferred, not what I said, or implied.

Why should money be a consideration in freedom?

This is a statement that demonstrates you immaturity very well. Money is always a factor in the world we live. Again the extreme burden that would be placed on society in order to put into place the systems of youth voter testing is to extreme to be warranted by the miniscule number of minors that would prove themselves capable of the responsibility of voting.

If, during the crusade for women's suffrage or coloured suffrage, it would have cost a lot of money to let them vote (for some hypothetical reason).  Would that mean that they should not extend their voting rights?

Problem is that it didn't, and the argument is moot as both women and colored adults are legally responsible for themselves and therefore entitled to vote in matters that concern themselves. Minors are not.

Why then, do retarded people get to vote?  If they can vote then minors (most of which have higher mental capabilities then the mentally disabled people) should be able to as well.  The retarded people obviously are not "mature", the way most adults see it. 

"Retarded People" as you put it get to vote only at a legal age. Like all US citizens. Having worked in a hospital that had physical and occupational therapists I knew that were dedicated to preparing "retarded people" for life on their own, I can assure you that the voting issue would only be discussed with a very small portion of the mentally handicapped that were capable of living on their own and being resposnible for themselves legally and physically. If a "retarded person" wasn't capable of understanding and striving for their ability to vote, it wasn't pushed. It is a non issue in this argument. Again your logic is faulty.

Ity seems to me that the government puts a sizeable sum of money into the army.  If that was cut back a little (wouldn't hurt, the U.S. Government already spends more on it's military then any other country) we would have enough money to spend on any of my examples, with a good deal of surplus.

Again your immaturity is showing. Cutting back on military spending does have major implications to the US, both in the drastic effects it has on the economy, as well as the security of the country. Where do you think that the billions of dollars of military spending go to? ultimately it goes into the pockets of citizens in this country that are either directly or indirectly employed by the military infrastructure. Our US economy is drastically effected by defense spending trends, as is the security of our country and it's interests. Is it worth upsetting the US economy and displacing gainfully employed tax paying citizens as well as weakening the security of our country in order to impliment your plans? No it isn't. Not for the miniscule number of minors that might prove themselves capable of the responsibility of voting.

As I said before, no amount of logic and reasoning is going to get you to understand others points of view, and that alone is proof enough that you are immature in your decision making process and unprepared for the responsibility of voting.

[snuffypuffer]

Glad that's over, now we can all move on with our lives.

[Walken]

I know this topic is long dead but I feel I can inject something worthwhile into it.

The problem with sufferage for Children is that they are too easily influenced by external factors.

Put it this way - If you're 8 and your parents don't stop complaining about stealth taxes under labour rule, you're going to vote for conservative.

You fail to understand anything not within the media spectrum - therefore you ignore issues like health and schools and would vote conservative simply because you have read about the Iraq war.

Take Bush - We can all agree that 95% of people my age and below hate Bush. Why? Because the media tells them too. People are influenced by propaganda too easily at this young age.

In that respect, their vote becomes not their own, but the vote of their parents, there favourite newspaper, even their school teachers.

If i had my way you could scan a person and decide whether they had the mental capabilaties to form and justify an opinion, despite their age. However, this then deprives people deemed less intelligent of their right to vote, and subsequently we develop into an eliteist societey.

Therefore I would stay with the status quo. :yes

[riotboy555]

I don't agree with this, and I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned, but if children were given the right to vote they could easily be manipulated by politicians and celebrities. Like what happened with the whole Bush thing. Many kids who were into mainstream "punk rock" would bash George Bush with the only excuse that "he's an idiot". They didn't know anything he did while in office, just what "punk" musicians were saying or their opinions on him. I went to the Warped Tour last year, and that was the one thing that all bands did- in one way or another, they would bash Bush. I thought it was really lame.

Edited June 19, 2005 by riotboy555

[SnakeProphet]

I don't agree with this, and I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned, but if children were given the right to vote they could easily be manipulated by politicians and celebrities. Like what happened with the whole Bush thing. Many kids who were into mainstream "punk rock" would bash George Bush with the only excuse that "he's an idiot". They didn't know anything he did while in office, just what "punk" musicians were saying or their opinions on him. I went to the Warped Tour last year, and that was the one thing that all bands did- in one way or another, they would bash Bush. I thought it was really lame.

Are the parents not influenced by politicians and celebrities?

[about:blank]

Children should not have the right to vote. There are three main problems with giving a child the right to vote.

1. The decision factor: Having the right to vote is a responsibility, and very few children would be able to understand the concepts and consequences when voting. The situations that are controlled by voting are directed to adults. A child is not going to know how to make an educated decision about Taxes, Gay marriage, Abortion...

2. The manipulation factor: As sad as it is, children are very easy to manipulate. The see most adult figures as someone with wisdom and guidance. Parents could force their children to vote a certain way, and political parties targeting children would be hell for kids. When someone turns 18 they are more likely to be able to make an intelligent decision about political issues, and not be so easily persuaded by politics.

3. The similarity factor: Children can't vote, and can't get into R-rated movies, can't buy alcohol or tobacco, can't buy a fire arm. Why? For their own protection. That is all America needs is a bunch of drunk, cigarette smoking, gun toting nine year olds to add to the madness. Its a ludicrous request. If kids want to vote, then they can also register for the draft.

[marduk]

Are you seriously asking us to consider womens suffarage as a reason.

listen here buddy any woman that wants to chain herself to my railings is Fine by me

OK ?

[Walken]

If kids want to vote, then they can also register for the draft.

Not changing sides but the same thing could be said about woman. Woman don't register for the draft, but don't they have the vote.

[JohnnyBoyC]

OMG im sorry i clicked the wrong button and i voted no I am a minor.

I vote YES AND I AM A MINOR

I think that we should be able to vote because adults make the wild accusation that people under 18 are stupid. What? When you turn 18 you are all of a sudden smart! The age limit of 18 is stupid too! At 18 you are allowed to drink in some places but at 17 and 364 days you cant! People should be able to vote no matter what race gender or AGE!!

[+Link of Hyrule]

Edit: Redundant posting

Edited June 29, 2005 by BFG

[Walken]

Thats why the voting age was changed to 18. At 18 you could be drafted for vietnam but couldn't vote, so it was lowered.

[Super Pancake]

Ahhh let em vote

I did not read all the pages but i think they should if they pay taxes, if you are 16 working minimum wage and part of your check goes out to the goverment, God Dammit you should have the right to vote.

[Walken]

That is true, Super Pancake. If you're giving money to the goverment, you should be able to decide what it's spent on.

[Gabriel]

if u could show me that they understand everything maybe, but this country panders to children too much. children are swayed to easly.

[Seraphina]

Man, I can't believe someone brought this topic back to life...

I think that we should be able to vote because adults make the wild accusation that people under 18 are stupid. What? When you turn 18 you are all of a sudden smart! The age limit of 18 is stupid too! At 18 you are allowed to drink in some places but at 17 and 364 days you cant! People should be able to vote no matter what race gender or AGE!!

This post is a good example of why minors shouldn't get the vote...clearly, if this particular youngster is setting the tone, minors in general lack the capacity to properly understand even something so mundane as WHY they're not allowed to vote.

Mr Johnny, it has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. It's about life experience...As hard as you may find it to believe, a person who is eighteen, has left school, has started work, is likely to be far more mature than a person who is sixteen or seventeen, and more fully understand the implications of voting (and, more importantly, understand the policies of the party they're voting for).

Aside from that, there's the obvious fact that few minors show any inclination towards politics, and inherit all their veiws from authority figures such as parents and teachers. Giving children the vote isn't giving them the right to vote, it's giving their parents extra votes. All you'd end up with were election results that did not in any way reflect the beliefs of the average working person.

The 18 watershed for voting is a perfectly sound and reasonable one. In fact, the minors that accept those reasons, and understand why the limit is in place, show a certain maturity that makes them far more deserving of having a vote than the immature people who complain about how they can't have it.

The vote isn't a toy, it's an obligation to democracy. You cannot, and should not, have it thrust upon you before you even know the slightest thing about what life is like outside the nest.

[Elite]

No child should be able to vote, they are too susceptible to peer pressure and can't yet totally think for themselves. We have enough trouble with people who vote strictly according to party lines already. Could you imagine the shape we'd be in when we give political power to a bunch of 13 year olds who are simply following the clique?

i agree with snuffy if we give voting rights to kids were gonna end up with major issues being taken the wrong way nukes would probly be mass produced cus all the 13 yr olds thought they were cool there fore voting for the legilazation of them

[gabe]

I know this might be slightly off-topic, but I think it might be related to why OP started this thread

I don't beleive it's a good idea to give minors the right to vote, I really think their voice should have more value in issues that concern them (mainly school issues). I know that when I went to junior high the only ones that with influence were parents and teachers, and in alot of cases they would just disregarded everything the pupils had to say. The problem with this is that those that made these decisions wouldn't be impacted by it themselves, but rather they choose how another group should be treated.