Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So do I actually. :3 I just know that most people don't think so.
Like Stan said, everyone technically pays taxes whenever you buy something from a store.
Ok, challenge round... Should unborn babies who are taxed for check ups get to vote? Ok, yes that one was completely stupid, but I just had to.
But are you agreeing for children, easily influenced and pay no attention to politics children, should get to vote?
Sex, drinking, voting, driving should all be decided on age, nothing else. It's not a perfect system but it is the best system we have. If you start deciding on other factors like whether the guy pays taxes or not, or whether this person is mature enough, then it becomes too complicated and ambiguous.
I see alot of should's, but not alot of whys. Why exactly should everyone get the right to vote keeping in mind that when you vote, your giving your approval/disapproval for policies and national direction that effcts everyone in your nation.
No. Teenagers who are least 16 AND hold a job AND their records show they have passed a Government or American History class.
Well, what are your thoughts on this...
I look at it like free speech. Sure--some speech is hateful, offensive, maybe even harmful. But the answer is not to restrict bad speech, but to encourage even more speech. And we trust that the good speech will counteract the bad.
Some people don't or can't use their vote responsibly. But the answer is to encourage even more people to vote. And we trust that the intelligent votes will outweigh the uninformed.
We don't live in a perfect world, and there's not a perfect answer to every question. It's reasonable to set admittedly arbitrary but objective criteria for voting. Like being a citizen of military age. And possibly not an incarcerated felon. Anything else is too subjective. I just think the benefit of having more people vote will outweigh the drawback of some voters not being as qualified as others.
I don't like the idea of placing restrictions on who can vote if that means that such people will be completely prevented from influencing the political system.
But perhaps one alternative, which would be quite radical, is to have a two tier system of voting. My idea, which I am just toying with and not advocating, is to have a bicameral legislature where one house passes laws, and the other house can only repeal them.
The house that passes laws -- let's call it the Senate -- would be voted in by adults age 30 or over who pass a challenging exam that tests for knowledge of civics, economics, and liberal arts. I'm thinking that maybe only 10% of the population would actually be able to vote for representatives in the Senate.
The house that repeals laws -- let's call it the House of Representatives -- would be voted in by any adult age 18 or over. No test required. Anyone can vote for representatives who will remove onerous laws.
I have little idea if such a system would actually work. It's just a fun idea.
eudaimonia,
Mark
An exam is agreeable (and the lack thereof to some extent), but why the ages? If an 18 year old can pass the really challenging exam, why shouldn't he be allowed to vote (assuming a really good and thorough exam).
Also, will the removing laws house have a chance to remove the laws before they go into effect?
While 18 year olds can be very intelligent and educated, they are not wise. I was smart, but not wise, at 18, although I wouldn't have believed it then.They have not yet really lived out in the "real world" for a while.
At one time the minimum voting age in America was 21, but this was lowered to 18 because 18 year olds could be drafted into war. In my proposed system, 18 year olds would be able to vote in the house that repeals laws, which would still give them some protections.
eudaimonia,
Mark
But with all this freedom of speech, I still can't say some things. Fire in a theater. A threat to kill someone. Call 911 and lie about an emergency.
We have laws on our freedom of speech, should we remove those laws?
And the same with voting.
Wisdom is a very abstract thing to base laws off of. I know of some 18 year olds, while not the wisest, they sure beat others who are over 30 more times than not.
You're talking about specifics. I was talking about general philosophic principles. It's better to have more speech than less. It's better to have more people voting than less.
But if we must have specifics, I think 3 criteria for voting are reasonable:
1) A citizen
2) Of military age
3) Not currently incarcerated or on probation for a felony.
Simple and objective.
Then why the high minimum ages for the President and Vice-President? Those were based on the need for wisdom.
I completely agree with you that 18 years olds can be very sensible people. However, statistically, 30 year olds are wiser.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Statistically, looking at the 18 year olds who can pass the test and care enough to even try... how about just those 18 year olds?
Passing a test does not make one wise, only knowledgable. While I intend knowledge to be a requirement, wisdom is also a statistically hoped for quality.
eudaimonia,
Mark
2. Why?
3. More understandable, but shouldn't they have some say at least in the laws that concern them, or is that also taken away from them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?