Voting Ages: How high should they be set, if at all?

Where I live, the voting age is 18. Some people feel that it should be lowered, others feel that people should have to pass some sort of test to gain suffrage. A few people feel that any citizen capable of toddling up to a voting booth should be allowed to vote.

Discuss.

Originally Posted by Garrett Petersen

Where I live, the voting age is 18. Some people feel that it should be lowered, others feel that people should have to pass some sort of test to gain suffrage. A few people feel that any citizen capable of toddling up to a voting booth should be allowed to vote.

Discuss.

I think a test would be better than any voting "age". Being 50 years old would not make you exempt from the test, either. It would be a difficult test, as well.

Twenty-one.
I would never trust an 18-year-old to carefully chose the most powerful nation's leader.

16.
We need young people to participate in a democracy. Young adults are losing interest in politics because they feel they can't make a difference, perhaps lowering the voting age could help increase the number of voters.
However care should be taken since some young people are very impressionable so that could be a problem; but who isn't?

OK, now it's time for MY radical opinion. I believe in universal suffrage. I think that any citizen capable of toddling up to a voting booth and filling in a bubble should be allowed to vote.

1) If young people truly are incapable of making decisions, then their voting patters can be thought of as random. If this is the case, the final outcome of the election will be unchanged. The same is true if they simply don't vote.

2) If young people vote with their parents, it will amount to people with more mouths to feed getting a larger say in government.

3) If young people advocate for themselves, then we can expect to see the most marginalised group in our society getting more freedom.

I see it as a breach of justice that a segment of the population is disallowed from participating in the electoral process, especially when that same segment is subjected to stricter regulations than the others.

Voting shouldn't be based on age; it should be based on competency and the ethos of the voter. Think about it: when a citizen of another country wants to immigrate legally to the U.S. and become a U.S. citizen, they have to pass a civics test Sample INS Citizenship Questions . The same thing needs to apply to voting. Take a look at the link I just posted. What I'm proposing is that we take about 50 or so of these questions and if you answer 70% or more of them correctly, then and only then can you vote.

There are brilliant, highly informed high school students who are deeply passionate about truth and justice (see my thread on high school valedictorian Erica Goldson's graduation speech). At the same time, there are middle-aged professional with large salaries who I wouldn't trust for a second with politics. In the U.S., we have Mormons who voted for Mitt Romney in 2008 because he's Mormon. We have black people who voted for Obama because he's black. No one should be allowed to vote if they have some shallow, simple reasons like that.

You wouldn't let someone have a drivers license if they didn't know how to drive a car, right? Why is voting any different? Knowledge of civics is necessary so that we don't end up with an electorate of fools. Remember, the United States are a Republic, not a democracy. Making voting more restrictive is the patriotic thing to do.

Originally Posted by Stars

Voting shouldn't be based on age; it should be based on competency and the ethos of the voter. Think about it: when a citizen of another country wants to immigrate legally to the U.S. and become a U.S. citizen, they have to pass a civics test Sample INS Citizenship Questions . The same thing needs to apply to voting. Take a look at the link I just posted. What I'm proposing is that we take about 50 or so of these questions and if you answer 70% or more of them correctly, then and only then can you vote.

There are brilliant, highly informed high school students who are deeply passionate about truth and justice (see my thread on high school valedictorian Erica Goldson's graduation speech). At the same time, there are middle-aged professional with large salaries who I wouldn't trust for a second with politics. In the U.S., we have Mormons who voted for Mitt Romney in 2008 because he's Mormon. We have black people who voted for Obama because he's black. No one should be allowed to vote if they have some shallow, simple reasons like that.

You wouldn't let someone have a drivers license if they didn't know how to drive a car, right? Why is voting any different? Knowledge of civics is necessary so that we don't end up with an electorate of fools. Remember, the United States are a Republic, not a democracy. Making voting more restrictive is the patriotic thing to do.

I don't know exactly how the voting system in US is but here voting is personal and secret, you are free to vote for whatever reasons you believe are right. What you are saying is basically to control who votes and why, which makes freedom of opinion an illusion.

Originally Posted by Krou

I don't know exactly how the voting system in US is but here voting is personal and secret, you are free to vote for whatever reasons you believe are right. What you are saying is basically to control who votes and why, which makes freedom of opinion an illusion.

My issue is that it would be impossible to make a totally unbiased test, leading to some groups being underrepresented.

I don't think it's wrong to vote for Obama because he's black if racial politics are what matter to you.

However, I prefer the test to any age-based system.

Young people should definitely have a say in what leader should be of their country.
However, their lack of wisdom, lack of guidance, maturity and full understanding of politics may lessen the chance of getting a real, good, knowing, and proper leader and representative of the country.
Now, I think a lot of people will tell me that I'm against freedom of speech, freedom of voting, etc... I'm not.

I'm just saying that people should have a full understanding of politics, and what's best for their countries. A lot of children are intuitive and provide a lot of insight but their mind may still be clouded and misjudge a candidate and his or her beliefs and moral values, and representation for the country.

Originally Posted by Garrett Petersen

My issue is that it would be impossible to make a totally unbiased test, leading to some groups being underrepresented.

I don't think it's wrong to vote for Obama because he's black if racial politics are what matter to you.

However, I prefer the test to any age-based system.

Yes it would be impossible that's why I completely disagree with that idea, who is going to determine what makes you capable of voting and why? You may have your own silly or not reasons to vote someone why would that be questionable and under which political view someone will determine if your reasons are stupid?
Why do you prefer the test since you agree that it can't be unbiased?

Originally Posted by Conscience

Young people should definitely have a say in what leader should be of their country.
However, their lack of wisdom, lack of guidance, maturity and full understanding of politics may lessen the chance of getting a real, good, knowing, and proper leader and representative of the country.
Now, I think a lot of people will tell me that I'm against freedom of speech, freedom of voting, etc... I'm not.

I'm just saying that people should have a full understanding of politics, and what's best for their countries. A lot of children are intuitive and provide a lot of insight but their mind may still be clouded and misjudge a candidate and his or her beliefs and moral values, and representation for the country.

That could happen to older people (and it does happen) who are clouded by the image of the candidates by their perfect, emotional speeches. I was watching a documentary the other day about body language and how it affects the audience and it showed how Obama was able to move the crowd using the tone of his voice instead of talking about things he has to improve. That seems to happen in America more than here...