Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/12/10 03:15 PM, thedo12 wrote:

At 6/12/10 01:49 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 6/12/10 01:26 PM, thedo12 wrote: Were talking about teens not children , and if go down this route why don't we just have an required iq test before you vote?

Combining a monopoly on information with the power to disenfranchise is dangerous as fuck?

If your saying that teenagers can't vote because there not intelligent enough then your already discriminating who can vote based on intelligence, this would just be doing it more openly .

How openly one discriminates against another for their intellect is not the sole distinction between age-ism and iq-ism. An actual test requires explicit questions - explicit information.

There's more to the "not mature enough" argument...
There's the fact that teens can't enter a legally abiding contract, the laws are applied differently to them in general.

It's a trade off, really--
They may do an adult crime, but at the same time, they don't do adult time (because they didn't vote in the politicians who pass the laws, or the judges who dispense the rules...)

Young people are also more easily affected by things such as catch phrases, slogans and that sort of things, they're easier to influence in general, more then adults ( not in all cases obviously ).

I think a official test should be taken for one to be allowed to vote, not an I.Q test or something like that, but a decent set of questions that test if the person knows something about the country's history, culture and laws, rather then just age.

At 6/13/10 12:58 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:
How openly one discriminates against another for their intellect is not the sole distinction between age-ism and iq-ism. An actual test requires explicit questions - explicit information.

But if you think that teenagers shouldn't vote because there not intelligent enough , then you already have criteria that determines who is intelligent and who is not. From that point it shouldn't be hard to develop a test based on those criteria .

I'm not saying it doesn't have flaws, but it's better then not allowing a large portion of society to vote when there are extremely intelligent people in that group.

we could cuase ww3 if voted for the wrong person

At 6/13/10 09:19 AM, thedo12 wrote: But if you think that teenagers shouldn't vote because there not intelligent enough , then you already have criteria that determines who is intelligent and who is not.

A criteria not defined by an explicit knowledge-set.

From that point it shouldn't be hard to develop a test based on those criteria .

"
NAME_______
SSN ________

1. How old are you? ____

DO NOT WRITE ON THIS AREA.
"

I'm not saying it doesn't have flaws, but it's better then not allowing a large portion of society to vote when there are extremely intelligent people in that group.

Yeah. And I'm more or less using a slippery-slope argument. :P

It reminds me about one time I was in school and the teacher said that he could see the voting age be lowered from 18 to 15 in our lifetime, perhaps. The reason we can not vote is because we lack the brain capacity to fully understand what is truly important in our world. I would not take a scientist's word on this, but brains most likely fully mature around the age of 18 at the height of our intelligence.

At 6/13/10 03:38 PM, Ericho wrote: The reason we can not vote is because we lack the brain capacity to fully understand what is truly important in our world.

Or that minors don't pay taxes.

I would not take a scientist's word on this, but brains most likely fully mature around the age of 18 at the height of our intelligence.

Be honest. Are you making this shit up?

At 6/13/10 03:57 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Be honest. Are you making this shit up?

Pretty much. I call bullshit with this article.

Ironically, not only does it have applications to the topic, but to this poster as well.

Generally, that majority of young people and teenagers don't really give a damn about politics, it's not like they are talking about tax management and trade issues with their friends, rather they talk about American Idol, or their tricked out whips, etc.

Personally, I would have raised the voting age to 21 and the drinking age to 18, but hell no, that makes too much sense for our government, by and by, that shit won't fly. And don't give the old "our veterans fight and die for your right to vote" excuse, if I remember correctly, our veterans also fought and died to keep our government from being corrupt and all too powerful, but I digress.

At least for the US, if a person votes, they now can be selected for jury duty.

Now, would you really want a 13 year old be the determining factor if you are sent to jail or not?

At 6/13/10 04:05 AM, fli wrote: There's more to the "not mature enough" argument...

I would say that, it's NOT a matter of the 'not mature enough' argument at all, because maturity is unquantifiable and does not magically increase overnight when you turn 18.

I do believe however that it is everything you said after that.

Non-adults are not subject to the same legal consequences as adults, and hence they aren't granted the same rights; voting being one of them

At 6/12/10 01:26 PM, thedo12 wrote: I was making a point that nobody was truly independent and using an analogy to clarify my point , I don't see the issue here.

Yes, no one is independent. However some people directly rely on their own abilities to survive. We call these people (drumroll)... adults.

Being productive is not exclusive to adults and should not be a requirement to vote.

Adults actually interact with all of the laws and their livelihood is affected by them. Children & teens get their livelihood through their parents or guardians. They do not directly interface with the system, they should not vote.

Sounds good on paper but in reality it only extends the power the older generation has over the younger generations .

Yes, older generations think of nothing else but turning the children into subservient slave labor. This is the TRUE problem in America.

Were talking about teens not children , and if go down this route why don't we just have an required iq test before you vote?

IQ isn't a measure of rationality. And yeah, I was still talking about teens.

"BUT I WANNA GO TO THE CONCERT" *SLAMS DOOR* *sobbing* "FUCK YOU I'M GETTING A NOSE RING1111"

I prefer it that Teenagers cannot vote, of course i would prefer it if no one was allowed to vote, but regardless. To those politically savvy teenagers who want the right to vote, consider this, If your age group was permitted the right to vote, for every intelligent teenager that voted, how many more ignorant teenagers would be added to the voting population and simply vote with their parents. (I'm sure some kids would accept 50$ from their parents to go in a voting booth and select names of people they know nothing about)

What infinitesimally small say you have in the selection of your wise overlords would be that much smaller, so you're better off waiting till you are 18.

we may as well just raise the age limit of voting to 25 then , and no one who is unemployed or lives with someone else shouldn't be able to vote either .Also minority's and poor people shouldn't be able to vote then they are usually less intelligent and educated .

(yeah I've given up on being serious in this topic)

I think the only reason why anyone should vote is if they're tax payers.

Coz it makes no difference they'll be able to vote soon enough it's jsut a few years stop being such losers.

I think that you should be able to vote until you have had to live through the adult affects of what gets voted on for as long as you've been a child so like 32 or somethign minimum age. Otherwise people are voting and they havent even had many years of it yet so they got no clue. Like even when your twenty you've probably only just started a career, so why u think ur voting on stuff?

But then why not take it further. How about only I can vote? I think that that would like sovle everything just leave it 2 me guys.

I am going to kill this thread with logic... Now.

1.) Adults are idiots. Most of them don't know past freshman level academics in high school. This is not exclusive to America. Children are smarter if not just as smart as their adult counter parts.

2.) In my opinion, that's right, I used the word opinion, hey dipshits, OPINION! Now that that's out of the way... only a very few people are qualified to vote. Most people are unaware of politics in general and can only understand let alone vote on what pertains to them, yet they STILL have the right to vote on other things.

3.) Kids are impulsive and just as lazy as adults. They will most likely not care or wish to look up the issues in which they vote on, and will listen to slogans and advertisements that are boiled down as "simplistically" as possible, and then vote.

4.) As stated prior to this post, kids live off of their parents (majority) and them voting to change what doesn't pertain to them makes no sense.

/thread.

Letting teenagers vote would be a horrible idea. Teenagers typically know even less about current events than adults do.

At 6/17/10 11:09 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Letting teenagers vote would be a horrible idea. Teenagers typically know even less about current events than adults do.

so why letting adults that don't know about the currect events vote?

At 6/18/10 12:10 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 6/17/10 11:09 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: Letting teenagers vote would be a horrible idea. Teenagers typically know even less about current events than adults do.

so why letting adults that don't know about the currect events vote?

Because adults are at least smarter on average and actually might know shit about how things work. They're at least capable of taking care of themselves, and there's no way to gauge whether someone knows enough to be able to vote. You wouldn't even be able to legally verify if a given adult was intelligent enough to vote.

Teenagers shouldn't be able to vote because they're immature. It's the same reason why they can't legally enter contracts on their own. Minors are generally immature.

I seriously think that you'd have to be a moron to think that teenagers under 18 should be able to vote. I've been following politics since 6th grade, and I never thought that I should be able to vote before turning 18 because that would mean that all of the stupid people my age would be able to do so as well, and that would be disastrous.

At 6/18/10 01:54 AM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: I seriously think that you'd have to be a moron to think that teenagers under 18 should be able to vote. I've been following politics since 6th grade, and I never thought that I should be able to vote before turning 18 because that would mean that all of the stupid people my age would be able to do so as well, and that would be disastrous.

and the situation now isn't disastrous? if you let any stupid adult vote you should let any stupid teenager vote. equality can't be one-sided.

At 6/11/10 01:48 PM, thedo12 wrote: Most adults are naive to real world circumstances as well , actually I could make the counter argument that teenagers know more about politics then adults

Generally, no. The majority of adults can easily cite old political cases which they learned at school as well. And while teenagers might be told about current political events and their implications, adults are the ones actually experiencing it.

At 6/13/10 07:21 PM, kidray76 wrote: At least for the US, if a person votes, they now can be selected for jury duty. Now, would you really want a 13 year old be the determining factor if you are sent to jail or not?

As "To Kill a Mockingbird" demonstrated, adults can screw you over too. Anyway, I'd trust a 13 year old a lot more than a 21 year old.

At 6/18/10 11:41 AM, ohbombuh wrote:

At 6/13/10 07:21 PM, kidray76 wrote: At least for the US, if a person votes, they now can be selected for jury duty. Now, would you really want a 13 year old be the determining factor if you are sent to jail or not?

As "To Kill a Mockingbird" demonstrated, adults can screw you over too. Anyway, I'd trust a 13 year old a lot more than a 21 year old.

To Kill A Mockingbird is fiction.

As for trusting a 13 year old more than a 21 year old to make politically relevant decisions, that's pretty ridiculous. How many 13 year olds do you know that are versed in current events, or even watch the news?

At 6/18/10 02:05 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

At 6/18/10 11:41 AM, ohbombuh wrote:

At 6/13/10 07:21 PM, kidray76 wrote: At least for the US, if a person votes, they now can be selected for jury duty. Now, would you really want a 13 year old be the determining factor if you are sent to jail or not?

As "To Kill a Mockingbird" demonstrated, adults can screw you over too. Anyway, I'd trust a 13 year old a lot more than a 21 year old.

To Kill A Mockingbird is fiction.

It was used to prove a point. Are you sure the death penalty was never once used on an innocent person? How about lifelong jail sentences?

As for trusting a 13 year old more than a 21 year old to make politically relevant decisions, that's pretty ridiculous. How many 13 year olds do you know that are versed in current events, or even watch the news?

Several. Political discussions are taken pretty seriously when we have free time at my school. I'd support Barry-Fanilow's suggestion of a merit-based voting system. There could be tests over awareness of facts surrounding major political issues required with each vote cast, and votes with less than a certain awareness score (the percentage required would be an issue for another time) could be discarded. I don't think we should have people of any age running the country, but I also detest people of any level of political awareness having a say in our policies. Earning your voice seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me.

At 6/18/10 10:38 PM, ohbombuh wrote: It was used to prove a point. Are you sure the death penalty was never once used on an innocent person? How about lifelong jail sentences?

Several. Political discussions are taken pretty seriously when we have free time at my school. I'd support Barry-Fanilow's suggestion of a merit-based voting system. There could be tests over awareness of facts surrounding major political issues required with each vote cast, and votes with less than a certain awareness score (the percentage required would be an issue for another time) could be discarded. I don't think we should have people of any age running the country, but I also detest people of any level of political awareness having a say in our policies. Earning your voice seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me.

Sorry, but if the idea of a test required to vote doesn't bring up two words "Jim Crow" in your mind, I think you have become a perfect example of why young'ns shouldn't vote.

When I was a wee lad in high school, I though I was mature enough to vote. Oh boy was I wrong. I was prone to rash generlizations on little or no info. I also was overly willing to join what others said on the sole idea of being liked and cool. That isn't to say that adults do not do either, but with age comes at least some semblence of maturity and those two tendencies both are reduced by maturity and age.

For all of you little people who say "there are stupid adults out there" as if it were a rational argument fail to realize that every stupid adult was once a stupid teenager. Even the smartest teenagers, while they may be educated enough in most cases just are not composed and independent enough to vote.

1. 18 is the age in which you can be tried as an adult and therefore, you should have a say in this system.

2.18 is the age where you are required to sign up for the selective service act. If you are old enough to take up arms for your country you should be able to become a part of that country

3. 18 is the age where some people will go straight into the work force after High School. These people are members of society that contribute and pay taxes, but would not be represented if the age limit for voting were higher. (no taxation without representation anyone?

You are under the age of 18 and therefore the system has decided to hold your hand until you turn 18. (No child left behind, juvenile justice system) enjoy it.

Also have u read the Constitution? IMO there should be a voters test in which you have to study the constitution.

Also anybody know if the 27th amendment was established by liberals? Seems like a great political strategy to target a new liberal pool of voters.

also yes Jim Crow does come to mind when i proposed a test to prove the mental competence to vote, however, we have a test for citizenship and plenty of people still pass that.

Also it would be easy to do a test were segregation is impossible

If teenagers could vote justin bieber would live in a white house =_=