3 ms·

At some level this has to bring up the issue of voting age into the fold. I'm sorry but I know few 18 year olds who could be trusted to run their lives, much l

At some level this has to bring up the issue of voting age into the fold. I'm sorry but I know few 18 year olds who could be trusted to run their lives, much less make sensible, informed and intelligent voting decisions. They simply don't have enough education and life experience to understand what they are voting for. Is there an argument for producing better vote quality by raising the minimum voting age to somewhere in the 24 to 30 range?

megablast 13y ago
And I know lots of older people who vote for what I consider stupid reasons, they vote for who there church tells them to, or because they are being lied to or can't understand how taxes work. But certainly the most enthusiastic voters to me are the young ones. They are the ones who would actually protest, and put themselves in danger for what they really believe in.
- robomartin 13y ago
  Absolutely right. That's an entirely different problem. One of education. Not implying college as a requirement but rather an understanding of the issues. It's really easy for politicians to snow voters with statistics, percentages, factoids, contortions and all manner of lies and manipulative tools in order to get their votes. Few people really have command an understanding of all topics that come into play in an election. At some level allowing everyone to vote might be a romantically attractive feel-good idea but it sure creates a situation where you have a lot of really ignorant voters (probably a majority) voting on stuff they simply know nothing about. While I consider myself a well-rounded and reasonably educated person I would gladly welcome a scenario where, for example, the general public (including myself) is not allowed to vote on, say, medical laws or policies where medical knowledge is paramount to the understanding of the issues at hand. I am not exactly ignorant about these things but compared to my wife, who is a doctor, I am the equivalent of a moron. Her vote ought to have hugely more value than mine when medical knowledge is key to understanding what you are voting for or against. Now, I can see a scenario where if I wanted to have a voice in such a vote I could take a test (and maybe a class prior to that) in order to receive qualifications to vote. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. I really don't see why we insist that everyone's votes are equal for every single issue in front of us. I don't think it makes any sense. I am not, even for a millisecond, trying to be elitist here at all. I include myself with the millions of "ignorant" when it comes to a myriad of topics. Two hundred years ago people didn't have to deal with the complex array of knowledge domains we have in our hands today. You could make an argument for voting being open to everyone. Today, well, nobody knows everything. Why is it that everyone can then vote on everything? I mean, people vote on matters of economic impact and, if you dig, they don't even know how to balance their checkbook or are "uncomfortable with math". Really? I really think voting age ought to be increased significantly and voters ought to qualify to vote in areas that require having an understanding of the topic at hand. This would definitely prevent politicians from manipulating the masses into voting based on utter bullshit arguments designed to guide them by the nose.
ars 13y ago
That would make it worse. Instead they should lower the voting age to 14. The only way to get the life experience you are looking for is to DO it! Despite the common belief, it does NOT automatically come with age. The earlier you start, the better the results are (since younger brains learn faster and are more flexible), and the longer a person has to gain experience. The earlier people get used to participating in government the more likely it will become a lifelong habit.
- robomartin 13y ago
  You got me wrong. I am not talking about learning to participate in government at all. I am talking about learning about life's realities. A random example would be that there's a huge difference between an 18 year old kid and a 25 year old who has been working, going to school and managing his/her life. An 18 year old is bound to make voting decisions without any real context grounded in having lived a little. They are naive and tend to be innocently dumb. There are exceptions, of course, but I have trouble calling an 18 year old an "adult" other than under the legal definition.
  - ars 13y ago
    You got me wrong too :) The only reason you don't consider an 18 year old an adult is that we don't give a person adult duties and responsibilities until 18 - so it takes till 25 till they are a "real" adult. I say, give them those duties and responsibilities at 15. Then they will be an adult earlier. If we did like you say, and wait till they are 25, then all that will happen is that you will not consider 25 years old adults, and you'll want to wait till 30.

megablast 13y ago

And I know lots of older people who vote for what I consider stupid reasons, they vote for who there church tells them to, or because they are being lied to or can't understand how taxes work. But certainly the most enthusiastic voters to me are the young ones. They are the ones who would actually protest, and put themselves in danger for what they really believe in.

robomartin 13y ago
Absolutely right. That's an entirely different problem. One of education. Not implying college as a requirement but rather an understanding of the issues. It's really easy for politicians to snow voters with statistics, percentages, factoids, contortions and all manner of lies and manipulative tools in order to get their votes. Few people really have command an understanding of all topics that come into play in an election. At some level allowing everyone to vote might be a romantically attractive feel-good idea but it sure creates a situation where you have a lot of really ignorant voters (probably a majority) voting on stuff they simply know nothing about. While I consider myself a well-rounded and reasonably educated person I would gladly welcome a scenario where, for example, the general public (including myself) is not allowed to vote on, say, medical laws or policies where medical knowledge is paramount to the understanding of the issues at hand. I am not exactly ignorant about these things but compared to my wife, who is a doctor, I am the equivalent of a moron. Her vote ought to have hugely more value than mine when medical knowledge is key to understanding what you are voting for or against. Now, I can see a scenario where if I wanted to have a voice in such a vote I could take a test (and maybe a class prior to that) in order to receive qualifications to vote. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. I really don't see why we insist that everyone's votes are equal for every single issue in front of us. I don't think it makes any sense. I am not, even for a millisecond, trying to be elitist here at all. I include myself with the millions of "ignorant" when it comes to a myriad of topics. Two hundred years ago people didn't have to deal with the complex array of knowledge domains we have in our hands today. You could make an argument for voting being open to everyone. Today, well, nobody knows everything. Why is it that everyone can then vote on everything? I mean, people vote on matters of economic impact and, if you dig, they don't even know how to balance their checkbook or are "uncomfortable with math". Really? I really think voting age ought to be increased significantly and voters ought to qualify to vote in areas that require having an understanding of the topic at hand. This would definitely prevent politicians from manipulating the masses into voting based on utter bullshit arguments designed to guide them by the nose.

ars 13y ago

That would make it worse. Instead they should lower the voting age to 14. The only way to get the life experience you are looking for is to DO it! Despite the common belief, it does NOT automatically come with age. The earlier you start, the better the results are (since younger brains learn faster and are more flexible), and the longer a person has to gain experience. The earlier people get used to participating in government the more likely it will become a lifelong habit.

robomartin 13y ago
You got me wrong. I am not talking about learning to participate in government at all. I am talking about learning about life's realities. A random example would be that there's a huge difference between an 18 year old kid and a 25 year old who has been working, going to school and managing his/her life. An 18 year old is bound to make voting decisions without any real context grounded in having lived a little. They are naive and tend to be innocently dumb. There are exceptions, of course, but I have trouble calling an 18 year old an "adult" other than under the legal definition.
- ars 13y ago
  You got me wrong too :) The only reason you don't consider an 18 year old an adult is that we don't give a person adult duties and responsibilities until 18 - so it takes till 25 till they are a "real" adult. I say, give them those duties and responsibilities at 15. Then they will be an adult earlier. If we did like you say, and wait till they are 25, then all that will happen is that you will not consider 25 years old adults, and you'll want to wait till 30.