Should 'everyone' be allowed to vote?

[lawtonfogle]

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?

 

[stan1980]

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.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

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?

No. Teenagers who are least 16 AND hold a job AND their records show they have passed a Government or American History class.

 

[lawtonfogle]

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'm not talking about better solutions or not, I'm talking about what the questions asked.

Do we say a 12 year old is not old enough to vote/have sex/drink/drive/ect. just because they are 12? In suddenly we forged their Birth certificate to make them 18, though we may feel bad about the birth certificate, we should have no problems letting them run wild with all these things. Age is used because it can act, though poorly, as an approximation for many other factors, namely maturity.

And if we should have it based on age, why 18, why not 12 or 40?

 

[jayem]

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.

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.

 

[lawtonfogle]

No. Teenagers who are least 16 AND hold a job AND their records show they have passed a Government or American History class.

Now we're getting somewhere. While I have a basic understanding as to why, do you mind elaborating on these requirements and answering a few questions?

Does the quality of the class matter?
By pass, are we talking C or D?
In South Carolina, they use a 7 point scale compared to other states using a 10 point scale, aka 7 pnt states A = 93+, 10 pnt states A = 90+. Do we need a national standard to make sure it is all fair (at least for national elections). What about homeschooling where it the education they received can be questionable (P.S. I was homeschoolled an know is works, but just because it works most of the time doesn't mean it works all the time... kinda like public schools).
Would you say "hold a job, pass a bio and a sex ed class" are good standards for having sex, and "hold a job, and pass a bio and health class" are good standards for drinking and smoking? If not, why not?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, what are your thoughts on this...

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

 

[lawtonfogle]

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.

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.

 

[lawtonfogle]

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?

 

[Eudaimonist]

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).

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.

Also, will the removing laws house have a chance to remove the laws before they go into effect?

One idea is that bills would have to pass both houses to become laws, just as today.

Another idea is the house that repeals laws would have a set amount of time, say two weeks, to challenge Senate bills before they go into effect.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[lawtonfogle]

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

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.

 

[jayem]

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.

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.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

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

 

[lawtonfogle]

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.

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.

 

[DeathMagus]

I will need to consider this topic for quite a long time before reaching any conclusions, but I would like to congratulate Lawton for the excellent and thought-provoking OP.

 

[lawtonfogle]

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?

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

 

[lawtonfogle]

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

While I agree that the average 18 year old isn't wise enough, exactly how many average 18 year olds are going to go though it all to be able to vote for the other house.

 

[cantata]

If you were selective about which adults were allowed to vote, who gets to decide who gets to vote? An elected representative? Er...

(Tests are a bad way of choosing, incidentally. Not everyone's good at tests.)

 

[jayem]

2. Why?

Based on general philosophy. If you're old enough to give the maximum sacrifice for your country--your life--then you should be old enough to vote.

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.

Again, a philosophic view. If you've been sentenced for a serious criminal offense, you lose certain priviledges. Like your freedom. I think voting is one such priviledge. But it may not be lost forever. Once you've paid your debt by completing your sentence, (or being pardoned) then your priviledges will be restored.