Should everyone of legal age be allowed to vote?

[jerseydevil]

Anglorfin - your uncle is either wrong or you misunderstood him about political parties. First of all - you don't have to declare a politcal party at all. Second - you change political parties anytime you like (Ronald Reagan had been a Democrat). Third you can freely give your money to anyone you please - even if you do register a party.

As for requiring a test to vote - I disagree. It goes against the Constitution. it would also be very devisive. There are idiots all over the place - we can't have tests for everything. You can't legislate against people's ignorance.

Also AE - when I heard your idea I pictured Space Troopers. In the movie the only TRUE citizens and people who could vote were people who serve in the military.

I agree that there are people who have no concept of the issues - and people who vote who have no understanding of how our government works (checks and balances, what congress is and what is it's function, what the role of the Supreme Court is, or what the role of the President is, many people don't even know how a law is passed) - but that is a problem with the schools. The lack of people's understanding of the way elections work was made very clear in the 2000 election - "Electorial college, what the hell is that? You mean I don't vote DIRECTLY for the president? But he won the popular vote." Suggestion - read the Constituion - it's not too hard to understand. People would also then understand that the Constitution does allow for the Supreme court to handle that screwy election - but sadly - very few people understand the Constitution - or even know what is in there. The only thing most people know are a couple of Bills of Rights (which are the first 10 amendements, which the states required in order for them to approve the Constitution). Anyone who can comprehend the Silmarillian or even Lord of the Rings - can comprehend the Constitution - which isn't even that long.

I guess we'll see if the country learned anything about the way the election process works come 2004.

New Jersey was actually the first state to allow free blacks and women to vote in the US. They were able to vote from 1776 - 1807 when it was restricted. Basically the first New Jersey Constitution only specified land owners - and women and free blacks were land owners in NJ - so they automatically got to vote.

[afro-elf]

Afro-elf, I'm quite surprised to hear your support for a qualifications test for voters, given that in American history the main purpose of such tests has been to prevent black people from having the vote.

Sort of what I have been tossing around in the colored rags thread.

My self-identity or my out look is rarely based on the color of my skin.

As an example:

I think it is STUPID to lower standards to allow minorites in to school they can not make on there own merits.

If I go to a doctor I don:t care if they are red, green, or blue. I want know they are competent. I will feel a tad odd going to a doctor who passed because they had lowered standards.

Or to bring it back to a voting example, I would not for vote for Al Sharpton because he is black.

My fears as in the example below are not racial considerations for me.

We had a mock election in my school to see who would win the Presidential election of 2000. In history classes we were supposed to go online and research all the parties, basically ALL of us starting out as independants using our REASONING to pick who we thought had the best political platform. I voted green party and I got so pissed off because basically everyone in the school all of a sudden was like "Yeah you just did that because you want your freakin' weed legalized." That is not reasoning. I doubt if any of the other students actually took the assignment seriously and just voted for the popular parties or whoever their parents said they were voting for. Anyway, I find this high school example to be strikingly and disturbingly similar to what we have going on in the real elections.

[sun-star]

I don't think there should be any kind of test. Who decides what you're testing? It could become a test of political opinions (e.g. are you planning to vote for the BNP?), rather than political knowledge, and then it becomes dangerous. In Britain, everyone over 18 except lunatics, convicted felons and members of the House of Lords can vote, and I think that's restriction enough. It's not really possible to decide on an "acceptable" level of knowledge. I wonder what the minimum level of ignorance would be?

[GrayMouser]

As for researching the issues and then deciding, you very quickly run up against a problem known in political science as the Voter's Dilemma.

The more issues to be considered, the more difficult to find someone you agree with.

If there is one choice, say abortion, that can be decided with two candidates : one pro-, one anti.

If you have to consider capital punishment and abortion, then it takes four candidates to guarantee that there's someone you agree with.

A: pro-abortion, pro-capital punishment
B: anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment
C: Pro-abortion, anti-capital-punishment
D: anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment

Throw in one more issue- military spending, say,- and it takes eight candidates

Four issues , 16 candidates
and so on in an exponential growth.

Political parties exist so that you can find a position that you broadly agree with, without insisting that everyone else supports everything that you want. Politics is the art of compromise- annoying to purists, but then purists are the ones who end up as suicide bombers - (unfair of course-we need both, idealists and practical politicians).

[Ruinel]

I do not think that a test should be given to determine if someone should be allowed to vote or not. That was done in the US before. And it was done to keep some people from voting and keep the system status quo. It was wrong then and it would be wrong now.

SGH: I didn't know the voting age was ever anything but 18.

A.E.: I also agree that people should move up on their own merit. But there was a time (and in some places, it still occurs) where if you are not white and male (and in some places, of a certain religion), then you did not get the job or other opportunity. That is wrong also. Laws were put in place to make things equal. Perhaps now the laws are not necessary, and can be dismissed/changed. I don't really know.

Khamul: voting is not a priveledge, it is my right as a citizen of the US. This country was founded on the right for every citizen to have a say in their government. I have the right to that say.

GrayMouser: Many years ago, when I was still going to mass (and followed the Catholic Church), the priest stood up to give the Homily. Usually, this is some interpretation or expansion on the Gospell and or Readings that were just given. But instead, he talked about helping the poor in the community. Elections were that Tuesday, following. The Catholic Church makes a stand against abortion (although I always fought for the right for a woman to choose) and the Republican party was pushing an anti-abortion campaign. But the priest said to vote for what would be right for the poor, and not make a vote based on just one issue. He didn't mention names, he didn't mention issues, just ideas. It was very moving. I always respected him for that speach.

[Haradrim]

Now how would that letter go.
Hello,
We regret to inform you that you ae incompetant and therefore can not vote in this years election. Sorry but you are an idiot,
Your state government.

Voting is a right. Im fifteen and I feel that I am fairly well informed or am on the quest to be. But if I wasnt I would be enraged if someone took away my right cause I was stupid. That is segregation. It is unfair and morally wrong. I have the right to vote at 18 becaus eof the constitution. We start adding test in there and we become a totally different ntion. Tests for voting priveleges cannot happen.

Im really adamant about these things. I actually think 16 should be the age because then you can get any job and work any hours. And therefore you pay taxes. So there is taxation without representation. Its sad.

[Nurvingiel]

Lol Haradrim!

There have been two federal elections in Canada in the past four or five years that I have not been able to vote in, but that about which I was extremely well-informed. You could test me on the issues, candidates, government, or history and I would pass.

I couldn't vote in the first election because I was too young. I was seventeen, was about to start a full-time job with benefits, and could drive a car, but I was somehow not capable of choosing my leader. This really ticked me off and it still does. Women, Native people, and people with mental illness have had the vote rightly given to them. All that remains is to stop people discriminating against people due to their age. This may seem silly to you, but that's because age discrimination (in many forms) is perfectly acceptable in our society.

I don't think the legal age should be the same for everything. Voting is a right, and should belong to everyone, regardless of age. Driving, smoking, and drinking are priveledges. I think even the youngest children should be allowed to vote, if they care to. Obviously there are flaws in this idea. You might criticize this idea that parents could pressure their children into voting a certain way, but many people can't even be bothered to vote themselves, much less spend time trying to convince someone else. I don't think it would ultimately skew the results.

The reason I couldn't vote the second time, even though I was old enough, is because I was working in a small town in the middle of butt fuzz nowhere with questionable mail service. Since my permanent address is in a different city, I had to mail in my ballot. But there were two problems. One, there wasn't clear enough information about this process, so I thought that the day you could request the ballot to be sent to you was much later than it actually was. Two, I finally got my ballot on the day of the election, too late. It has to be in Ottawa on the day of the election.
Not being able to vote in this election was awful. There were elections in Afghanistan at the same time, and people were being attacked by the Taliban. People there were willing to face the Taliban and risk being killed so they could vote. I felt bad because the comparatively lame reason I couldn't vote was that I was misled on how (I did ask qualified people what to do in advance of the election), and that it was slightly awkward and difficult. Further, I had the fear the Stephen Harper would become Prime Minister, and it was totally outside my control.
This makes me want mandatory voting. If it was required to vote, the government would make it a lot easier to do so. This would be good for young people like myself who are rarely at their permanent address.

This is relevant to the test issue, because to introduce that, you have to decide if voting is a right or a priviledge. A priviledge you can test, a right you can give. I think it's a right, so I do not think there should be a test. As it stands, it is a priviledge in a way. Only those who live at one address for a fairly long time, and who are over 18 are priviledged to vote.

[Cirdan]

A test would be used just like gerrymandering; to manipulate the voting population and disenfranchise more people. It seems unconstitutional to deny anyone, except those incarcerated, the right to vote. States that deny ex-cons who've served their time are just proving that there is no rehabilition aspect of their prisons. "Okay, we'll let you free to commit crimes, but don't you dare try to vote." lol

There should, however, be a test for the people running for office. How do so many morons end up in power?

[Nurvingiel]

If we had a test for people in power... hm... actually that's not bad. All the politicians I like would probably pass.

But realistically, I think this thinking is flawed for the same reason I believe everyone has the right to vote. I think everyone also has the right to run for office. If people want to vote fore morons, that is their affair.

Why should criminals lost the vote? (If they haven't served out their sentence.) If you assault someone, you lose the right to move freely in society - this makes sense. But should you lose the right to choose your leader? This seems wrong.

What do you think about eliminating the voting age? At the very least it should be lowered to 13.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If we had a test for people in power... hm... actually that's not bad. All the politicians I like would probably pass.

But realistically, I think this thinking is flawed for the same reason I believe everyone has the right to vote. I think everyone also has the right to run for office. If people want to vote fore morons, that is their affair.

Why should criminals lost the vote? (If they haven't served out their sentence.) If you assault someone, you lose the right to move freely in society - this makes sense. But should you lose the right to choose your leader? This seems wrong.

What do you think about eliminating the voting age? At the very least it should be lowered to 13.

Probably right about testing the pols. I reminds me of a preview on the Hidalgo DVD. The is a Around the world in 80 days remake. Arnold S. is in it with this hilareous permed up wig (like something from flash dance). Getting a bit old to play the prince Valiant type. If his next opponent doesn't use it he don't deserve to win anyway.

Prisoners lose thier freedom so losing the vote during incarceration makes sense in that context. Howeevr, once punished or rehabiliated or what ever then they should be able to vote. Of course since they can't get jobs with felony records they drift back to crime and eventually end up back in prison anyway so it is a moot point.

I think that anyone that is a citizen should be able to vote if they want. 13 year olds are at least more concerned about the future than retirees. Maybe there should be an upper age limit. lol

[Nurvingiel]

Ah, but older people can use the wisdom of their years to benefit all of society.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Ah, but older people can use the wisdom of their years to benefit all of society.

Only up to a certain point. Then it's just one long story than has no end and makes no sense and has no point.

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

My oppinon on this matter is that age limitations should be raised and lowered. I feel that the age to smoke, to drive, to vote should be raised 20 years of age, and I feel that drinking and everything else after 21 should be brought down to 20. I don't agree at all that an 18 y/o kid can die for his country but he can not even go out for a drink with his army friends! I don't like that an 18 y/o kid can be tried in court as an adult and yet can not look at 21+ pornographic material, or drink alcohol for that matter. They give us the right to vote at 18, wow!? Now we have the choice to not really vote for our president. Even if the majority of the people vote for a candidate our popular vote means nothing! I think if your a child your a child, if your an adult your an adult! Simply Put!

*Edit: That in the United States by the way.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Halbarad of the Dunedain

My oppinon on this matter is that age limitations should be raised and lowered. I feel that the age to smoke, to drive, to vote should be raised 20 years of age, and I feel that drinking and everything else after 21 should be brought down to 20. I don't agree at all that an 18 y/o kid can die for his country but he can not even go out for a drink with his army friends! I don't like that an 18 y/o kid can be tried in court as an adult and yet can not look at 21+ pornographic material, or drink alcohol for that matter. They give us the right to vote at 18, wow!? Now we have the choice to not really vote for our president. Even if the majority of the people vote for a candidate our popular vote means nothing! I think if your a child your a child, if your an adult your an adult! Simply Put!

*Edit: That in the United States by the way.

The age of pornography is determined by state - so you incorrectly state that it's that way in the United States. Even the drinking age isn't actually a federal law. I am against the 21 year age drinking law - I think it should be brought down to 18 or at least have it left COMPLETELY up to the states again. The federal government got the states to raise the drinking age to 21 by holding them hostage. They threatened that any state that did not raise the age to 21 would have their highway funds cut. Federal government does not have the authority to dictate the age of consent and so congress found a way to enforce this "law" nationwide. Even the age a person can vote is not determined by the federal government. The only thing the federal government states through the constitution is...

Amendment 26
Section 1

Citizens of the United States eighteen years or older may not be denied the right to vote by the United States or any state on account of age.

States are free to allow 16 year olds to vote if they so choose, or even younger.

I feel that making the drinking age 21 did was push the immaturity level up. I agree that if you are an adult - you should be considered an adult in all respects. I think that age is 18 though- not 20 or 21.

If you want the age restrictions changed, you had better go to your state government though - because they are the one that determines the age restrictions. The only reason your state has a 21 year drinking age is because it wanted it's federal funding for it's highways.

New Jersey
Voting - 18
Casino gambling - 21
Lottery - 18
Pornography - 18
Drinking - 21
Smoking - 18
Driving - 16/17

While looking for the smoking age for NJ (Indiana's was/is 16) - I found out that the federal government took a similar route they did with the drinking age...

FEDERAL LAW REGARDING SALE OF TOBACCO TO YOUTH
The Synar Amendment

The Law

Federal law, Public Health Act, Section 1921 and, more specifically, Section 1926 addresses the requirements. It states "the Secretary may make a grant under Section 1921 only if the state involved has in effect a law providing that it is unlawful for any manufacturer, retailer, or distributor of tobacco products to sell or distribute any such product to any individual under the age of 18. In essence, this law says that if states want to receive federal grant funds for the provision of addiction services they must have and enforce a law which prohibits the sale and/or distribution of tobacco products to individuals under 18 years of age."

By the way - voting doesn't only deal with voting for the president - but also for your congressmen and local officials who ACTUALLY make these laws you seem to have the problem with. Voting enables you to get these things changed - so to me you should be even more concerned about what that voting age is than anything else.

As for the popular vote - it sounds like you were one of the people who never bothered to read the Constitution. The electoral college is there because the STATES vote for president and if you study the Constitutional Convention you will see why the founding fathers put in the electorial college. It has never even been a guarenteed right for the general population to vote for the president at all - that is left up to the states. In the first elections, many times the state legislatures voted for president (this was the way it was in NJ too) The electorial college protects the rights of ALL STATES - otherwise the presidents would only have to worry about the popular areas. The only reason the midwest is important right now is because of the electorial college - otherwise they would only be concentrating in the highly populated states. The only reason John Edwards made a last minute special trip out to NJ last week is because suddenly our 15 electorial college votes are up in the air. We are a nation of individual countries (states) which are REPRESENTED in the federal government. You know how much power the Northeast would have if it was by popular vote? 25% of the US population lives between Boston and Washington DC. California then has another huge chunk and Texas also. So unless you want those three areas being the overriding factor in determining the president - you should be glad we have the electorial college. I support the electorial college - because I understand it and I support state rights.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Hello kids.

I think your all missing a very large point, indeed the greatest point that is contained in the proposed question.

So you think that the "ignorant" and alike, those un-informed masses who have just turned 18, should not be allowed to vote? indeed.

Well who are you to say that? Who are you to decide if a young 18 year old kid is or is not properly informed to cast his vote?

What if we, by a case by case basis contend that 18 year old "A" is too stupid to vote. Whats to stop you saying that "A" is too stupid to vote Democrat or Republican, or what ever your flavour of Mocha is? And whats to stop you saying that because he's Black, or Hispanic, or a Woman, he or she cannot cast his vote responsibily? Because, children, gee, stuff like that has never happened before...

theres a reason while Universal Suffrage is called Universal. Everyones Vote counts, right down to the most bigoted, jew hating, wife beating bastard. The point is, kids, that the entire society dictates the social policy of a nation, and the majority rules. Thats it. If the above intolerant bastard gets enough numbers, and wins power, then so be it. But he doesn't.

Democracy is about what the MAJORITY of people want. So who are you to say that just because a person is young they cant vote. What? their uninformed? Tell me with a strait face that EVERY voter over 25 is quite informed and rational. you cant filter the voters people, thats just not how democracy works.

Oh, and its good to be back.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

I think your all missing a very large point, indeed the greatest point that is contained in the proposed question.

So you think that the "ignorant" and alike, those un-informed masses who have just turned 18, should not be allowed to vote? indeed.

Well who are you to say that? Who are you to decide if a young 18 year old kid is or is not properly informed to cast his vote?

I did point that out. I think there should be no voting age as I talked about earlier in the thread.

Are you all for eliminating the voting age?

How do you feel about a test for everyone, young and old alike? I am personally not in favour, and I suspect you are not as well.

Welcome back Fenir.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I did point that out. I think there should be no voting age as I talked about earlier in the thread.

Are you all for eliminating the voting age?

How do you feel about a test for everyone, young and old alike? I am personally not in favour, and I suspect you are not as well.

Welcome back Fenir.

Cheers for the welcome!

And I agree, there should be no elimination of voting ages. Society chooses a number at which it assumes that a person is responsible enough to vote, and then it assumes no more. Its the best the system can get, for as soon as you start getting into the little "oh, I dont like the way he votes, lets not let him" your half way to a dictatorship. And unless I'm the dictator, I want none of it!

And Should Dictator Fenir rise to power through a bloody coup, free beer for all!

[jerseydevil]

(This was supposed to go immediately below my previous post, this is NOT a respoonse to any of the posts between my previous post and this one)
I will add this in...

As Madison says in Federalist #39 concerning the ratification of the Constitution...

Each state, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a soveriegn body independant of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national constitution.

...the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.

....we find it neither wholly national nor wholly federal. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times...Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that be binding on all.

...The proposed Constitution...is...neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.

Hamilton in Federalist Paper #68 explains the initial reason for the electorial college, a lot of which has no meaning today because so much has changed in the way we vote for our president. But the underlying principal, as stated by Madison "The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters.", still remains and that is state rights as a federal government. Hamilton goes on to name several points the electorial college was designed to protect us from...

1) arbitary wills of the people and special interest groups
2) the influence and control by outside governments
3) unqualified people being elected to the presidency based on looks or charisma.

It was supposed to be learned men who were to vote for the president as stated here...

...the immediate elections should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation.

...The choice of several to form an intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

...Another and no less important desideratum was that the executive should be independant for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of this official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

...All these advantages will be happily combined in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be President. But as a majority of votes might not always happen to center on one man...the House of Representatives shall elect out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

The process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of President will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors, in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

As you can see in Hamilton's remarks - the convention was very concerned with special interest groups - nor did they want a president wholely under the constant sway of the people. People change their opinions with the wind and fads or the newest craze influence people's opinions. The founders did not trust government nor did they trust the complete will of the people. They wanted to protect the presidency from what we call today as "group think". Because of the changes which have occurred in the election process - much of this protection has been lost. The electorial process still protects the presidency from being elected from only the most populated parts of the US though such as the northeast, California and Texas.

By the way - in addition to the changes to the way we elect the President - the way the State Senators in Congress are elected has also changed in Amendment 17. Initially senators were not meant to be elected directly by the people, but by the State legislature, as laid out in Article 1 Section 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each senator shall have one vote.

The senate was to be made up of the most qualifed people hence the term upper house to describe the Senate, versus the House of representatives which is known as the lower house. That is also why there is an age difference on who can be elected as Senator (35 years) versus Representative (25 years). The Senate was to have the maturity, experience and knownledge to keep the younger, more impulsive House of Representatives in check. Today, because of changes in election process, etc, the only real difference between the two houses are the roles they play in Congress when it comes to bills. Yeah, the age limits are still there, but there is no real difference in the kinds of people elected to the House versus the Senate.

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

My oppinion is that all adults should be given the same rights as all other adults. I feel that there should be one limiting age, I don't care if its 10 or 50! I prefer equality! All people should be able to vote, drink, etc. at one central age! I think that every state should have the right to determine that age but i think every state should have 1 age. My 2 cents...

[QueenAnnesLace]

I think criminals shouldn't be allowed. I mean career criminals anyhow. If there is a person labeled as a career criminal that would basically mean that they have a tendancy to make bad discisions - really bad decisions. If you can't stay out of jail/prison you shouldn't be allowed to be part of making decisions that affect an entire state, country, etc.