INternational Election Monitors in Florida

[FluffyMcDeath]

And why is this not a good idea?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4521972

Jeb says it's insulting and Dumbya says its "some politically motivated thing that tries to scare people".

You'd think, after the last debacle, they would welcome observation to show to everybody how fair and accurate the elections now are. Unless they aren't. And they don't want them to be.

Figure the observers will get detained at the airports on suspicion of terrorism until after the election? Sounds about right.

[Fade]

Gosh Fluffy, I posted THIS LINK (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/gov/pd120501f.html) in another thread, but it sure seems to belong in your thread. It points out the need to watch a certain political party.

[Fade]

Wow, when you start looking, you can find all kinds of GOOFY (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/03/08/national2139EST0788.DTL&type=printable) things they are doing. Send more monitors to California. Fast.

[Tigger]

Fade wrote:
Gosh Fluffy, I posted THIS LINK (http://www.ncpa.org/iss/gov/pd120501f.html) in another thread, but it sure seems to belong in your thread. It points out the need to watch a certain political party.

Fade, I've personally pointed that out before, he doesnt care about what really happened in the 2000 election, he want to whine about Gore not winning. Florida allows poll watchers, its funny that only Republican (and one Green party) poll watchers reported issues in the polls at Dade County during the actual voting process. After Gore loses the democrats find lots of problems with the polls and methods they not only approved but ran in their democratic party dominated counties. Jesse is all about the votes being denied to the blacks until he finds out their Republican then he is gone from real investigating in Florida and back talking about the Evil Republicans.
-Tig

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
And why is this not a good idea?


Technically its illegal in the state of Florida, is that good enough, or should we break state laws because Fluffy the US hating Canadian says so???


Jeb says it's insulting and Dumbya says its "some politically motivated thing that tries to scare people".


I believe that poll watchers in the state of Florida (as in most states) must be registered to vote in the state they are poll watching in, in addition, since each political party (or candidate if independent) can only have 1 poll watcher per location, they would have to declare for a candidate. Given they are a catholic organization that has endorsed Kerry, I'm guessing who they would declare for. I have nothing against poll watchers, I organized the ones in the Alabama 5th district for 6 years, so I'm real familiar with how they work, and the positives of having them, these people however are not trained as poll watchers and are being brought in as a political move. Its funny the Democrats think they have bring outside countries to poll watch at locations they are once again running.


You'd think, after the last debacle, they would welcome observation to show to everybody how fair and accurate the elections now are. Unless they aren't. And they don't want them to be.

Watchers for the Democratic party found not a single issue with the election until the results were announced last time, every issue was brought up by non-Democratic party poll watchers. Its crazy to think that this group of Democratic Poll watchers will be any better in the 4 most democratic counties in Florida.


Figure the observers will get detained at the airports on suspicion of terrorism until after the election? Sounds about right.

Unless they get special dispensation (which they shouldnt), I dont think they will be allowed in the polling area, given that, I dont know why you think democrats sitting outside a democrat ran polling place are more likely to catch cheating then the democrat sitting inside the polling area was last time.
-Tig

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
Wow, when you start looking, you can find all kinds of GOOFY (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/03/08/national2139EST0788.DTL&type=printable) things they are doing. Send more monitors to California. Fast.

This isn't so goofy. A quarter vote is a bit stingy, but the idea of letting younger people vote is not itself nuts.

Of course 14 year olds are not adults, but that is by legal definition. On the other hand, they are citizens and they will be subject to the dicisions made by the government, and for longer than an 80 year old will be, so it's unfair not to let them vote.

As for whether they "are easily deceived by political charlatans", so what. You and Tig like Bush, so adults are just as susceptible.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
And why is this not a good idea?


Technically its illegal in the state of Florida, is that good enough,


Things being legal or illegal in Florida is not an indication of whether or not they are good ideas, is it.

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Things being legal or illegal in Florida is not an indication of whether or not they are good ideas, is it.

Yeah I think it is. I dont think any good comes from the idea based on "lets go down to Florida and do something illegal".
-Tig

[KennyR]

Tigger wrote:
Yeah I think it is. I dont think any good comes from the idea based on "lets go down to Florida and do something illegal".

Remember that the next time you want to send an encrypted email.

[Tigger]

KennyR wrote:

Remember that the next time you want to send an encrypted email.

1) I dont need to send encrypted mail, for several reasons

2) If I wanted to send encrypted mail, I can send encrypted mail if I want.

3) Why exactly do you think its a good idea to break the voting laws of Florida? How is that going to make the election more accurate in your mind??
-Tig

[KennyR]

Tigger wrote:
2) If I wanted to send encrypted mail, I can send encrypted mail if I want.

As long as its not strong encryption. SSL is banned for private use, isn't it?

3) Why exactly do you think its a good idea to break the voting laws of Florida? How is that going to make the election more accurate in your mind??

It's not. I was pointing out how laws aren't always in the best interests of the common people.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
Tigger wrote:
2) If I wanted to send encrypted mail, I can send encrypted mail if I want.

As long as its not strong encryption. SSL is banned for private use, isn't it?


I thought that was in the UK?

[Tigger]

KennyR wrote:

As long as its not strong encryption. SSL is banned for private use, isn't it?


No, RSA owns the encryption algorithm used in 128 bit SSL, so you need a license (and software using it cant be exported) but you are free to make your own encryption, use PGP for example etc. Its basically a patent/copyright issue nothing more. With several open source alternatives, I surely dont have an issue if I want to do it, and its perfectly legal.


It's not. I was pointing out how laws aren't always in the best interests of the common people.

By giving an example that isnt accurate??
-Tig

[iamaboringperson]

As for whether they "are easily deceived by political charlatans", so what. You and Tig like Bush, so adults are just as susceptible.


:lol: Oh! I'll have to remember that comment!

I'll add that to my "STRONGEST arguments from fluffymcd ever" list...

YES! Let 14 year olds vote, they must be as wise and as capable of forming their own unique opinions as your average adult!

[FluffyMcDeath]

iamaboringperson wrote:

YES! Let 14 year olds vote, they must be as wise and as capable of forming their own unique opinions as your average adult!


Pretty much. Saying that they're not is not too much different from the reason that black people and women aren't allowed to vote. Oh, wait, they changed that.

If you look at giving each 16-18 yr old a half vote, and 14-15 a quarter vote, the number of actual votes you are adding is not much of a percentage. Saying that they haven't the wisdom to vote at that age is, if you look at it the other way around, like saying that on their eighteenth birthday they suddenly acquire, in totto, all the requisite wisdom.

The flipside to the question "should 14 yearolds be allowed to vote?" is "should certain classes of citizens be forbidden the right to vote?". That second question doesn't sound very democratic.

[Glaucus]

The flipside to the question "should 14 yearolds be allowed to vote?" is "should certain classes of citizens be forbidden the right to vote?". That second question doesn't sound very democratic. Over all, I see where you're comming from - although "quarter" and "half" votes do complicate things a little and you know what havoc that could cause in Florida (okay okay, that was a cheap shot, couldn't resist :-D ). But I think that's still a valid point, voting should be kept as simple as possible.

If I were to argue against giving the vote to those under 18 I would most likely point out that in some (if not most) families the parents practically "own" the kids. One could then argue that children voters will be too heavily influenced by their parents - either voting in compliance or defiance. Further more, can someone really be trusted to vote in the best interests of the country when they have a curfew and are otherwise without responsibility and accountability?

Perhaps I should end this with a question: If young teenagers are denied the vote on account of their inexperience, should elderly people be denied just as well on account of their irrelevance?

- Mike

[KennyR]

As long as its not strong encryption. SSL is banned for private use, isn't it?

I thought that was in the UK?

Hell no. We're a free country, unlike some.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Fade wrote:
Wow, when you start looking, you can find all kinds of GOOFY (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/03/08/national2139EST0788.DTL&type=printable) things they are doing. Send more monitors to California. Fast.

This isn't so goofy. A quarter vote is a bit stingy, but the idea of letting younger people vote is not itself nuts.

Of course 14 year olds are not adults, but that is by legal definition. On the other hand, they are citizens and they will be subject to the dicisions made by the government, and for longer than an 80 year old will be, so it's unfair not to let them vote.

14 year olds arn't even legally capable of making decisions that effect themselves, why the hell should they be allowed to make decisions that effect others?

Goofiest thing I've ever heard :-P

[Fade]

@ FluffyMcDeath
This isn't so goofy. A quarter vote is a bit stingy, but the idea of letting younger people vote is not itself nuts.
-------------------

Fluffy, that is the typical liberal response when they see their political power base slipping away.
"We are losing, so let's change the rules and maybe no one will notice."

Nevermind that people 14 and 16 years old don't contribute to the general output of a country or to the tax base. What the liberals are saying is, they (the youth) are consumers of services, and therefore should be allowed to vote on how someone else's tax money is spent and who should be in charge of spending it. As it is right now, most people in the US don't contribute a proportionate amount to the tax base until they are in their 30's.

Using this logic, the same could be said of all the illegals who steal into the US to work, don't pay taxes, and then take their pay home to Mexico. They did use the state highway services to get to their jobs, so they should be allowed to vote on the next highway improvement bill.

If I remember correctly, some California Democrats were pushing to allow illegals to be able to vote on statewide issues on a limited basis.

Maybe this type of thought should be called fluffylogic.:crazy:

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
As long as its not strong encryption. SSL is banned for private use, isn't it?

I thought that was in the UK?

Hell no. We're a free country, unlike some.

Then what's this encryption key escrow (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22key+escrow%22+uk&btnG=Google+Search) stuff we keep hearing about?

"Today Britain became the only country in the world to publish a law
which could imprison users of encryption technology for forgetting or
losing their keys."

"after trying and failing to push through mandatory
key-escrow, then voluntary key-escrow, it now looks like the
government is resorting to key-escrow through intimidation."

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:


Nevermind that people 14 and 16 years old don't contribute to the general output of a country or to the tax base. [...] As it is right now, most people in the US don't contribute a proportionate amount to the tax base until they are in their 30's.



So you're saying that people shouldn't get a full vote until they are in their 30's. Interesting.

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

14 year olds arn't even legally capable of making decisions that effect themselves, why the hell should they be allowed to make decisions that effect others?



They already do, every day. Just like "people".

Since they're approaching the age of majority, what's wrong with breaking them into their role as responsible citizens gradually.

Driving permits are graduated, are they not. They are here. You can get your learners at 14 which allows you to drive accompanied. Then you get your license at 16. Then you get to drink and be legally responsible at 18 (except in some states where you are legally responsible but not able to drink until 21).

The age at which people are developmentally able to do things isn't all just one age, and the age at which people become legally entitled/responsible isn't all one age. Why is "18" so important.

Is it that you think most 14 year olds are too ill informed to have a 1/4 vote? Don't you think that many adults are too ill informed to have a whole one?

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
[quote]
The age at which people are developmentally able to do things isn't all just one age, and the age at which people become legally entitled/responsible isn't all one age. Why is "18" so important.


Because at 18 you are legally responsible for your actions, and are no longer a dependant. At 14 they may not even be allowed to date, or choose their own bedtime, or watch any movie they might want to.

This is rediculous.

[Fade]

@ FluffyMcDeath
"So you're saying that people shouldn't get a full vote until they are in their 30's. Interesting."
-----------------

No, I'm saying that the cheer leader squad does not get to tell the football squad how to play football.

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Is it that you think most 14 year olds are too ill informed to have a 1/4 vote? Don't you think that many adults are too ill informed to have a whole one?



Fluffy just so you can "inform" us, how old do you have to be to vote in Canada?? Do 14 year olds get 1/4 votes there?? Do 16 year olds get 1/2 votes??? If not, why aren't you campaigning for that?? Have you written your Prime Minister and told him of this great idea??
-Tig

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

Because at 18 you are legally responsible for your actions,

And being a law, can be changed.
At 18 you are not legally entitled to vote, which being a law, can be changed.

A 14 year old may not be "legally" responsible for their actions, yet they are subject to consequences for their actions in reality. Legality is an artificial construct, the set of rules that we agree to abide by. But it does not say that we can never question and/or change those rules.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"So you're saying that people shouldn't get a full vote until they are in their 30's. Interesting."
-----------------

No, I'm saying that the cheer leader squad does not get to tell the football squad how to play football.

You would perhaps prefer to go back to the good old days when only land-owners could vote. But make that - business owners, I guess.

[KennyR]

T_Bone wrote:
Then what's this encryption key escrow stuff we keep hearing about?

"Today Britain became the only country in the world to publish a law
which could imprison users of encryption technology for forgetting or
losing their keys."

I've never heard of it. But I know one thing - any case the government brought against anyone would soon collapse if the defendant went for help from the Court of Human Rights. Their petty laws aren't worth trade embargoes.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Is it that you think most 14 year olds are too ill informed to have a 1/4 vote? Don't you think that many adults are too ill informed to have a whole one?



Fluffy just so you can "inform" us, how old do you have to be to vote in Canada?? Do 14 year olds get 1/4 votes there?? Do 16 year olds get 1/2 votes??? If not, why aren't you campaigning for that?? Have you written your Prime Minister and told him of this great idea??
-Tig


Gosh, are you "asking" me because you "don't know"? Golly Tig, I would have thought you'd have looked that up.

I, myself, am not campaigning for this (and I'm not campaigning for this in the US either, am I), but I know people who are.

What I'm saying is, it isn't rediculous. Seriously, go back to when folks were discussing black people getting the vote. They're to ignorant, too dumb and too irresponsible to get the vote, why should they be allowed? Huh, why? Anyone?

Why don't you tell me how letting 14 year olds get 1/4 vote would bring democracy tumbling down.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"So you're saying that people shouldn't get a full vote until they are in their 30's. Interesting."
-----------------

No, I'm saying that the cheer leader squad does not get to tell the football squad how to play football.

You would perhaps prefer to go back to the good old days when only land-owners could vote. But make that - business owners, I guess.

Of course at that time, only land owners paid any taxes. That's no different than anywhere else really, the votes always follow the shoulders carrying the burden of paying for the government, well, unless you have a King.

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

Of course at that time, only land owners paid any taxes. That's no different than anywhere else really, the votes always follow the shoulders carrying the burden of paying for the government, well, unless you have a King.



Well, I don't know how things are where you live, but in Vancouver, a 14 year old can work. And when they do, they pay taxes.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Why don't you tell me how letting 14 year olds get 1/4 vote would bring democracy tumbling down.

Do we make changes based on "It wouldn't hurt" or do we make changes because we think the change will do good?

Why don't you tell us what it would do to improve things?

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

Of course at that time, only land owners paid any taxes. That's no different than anywhere else really, the votes always follow the shoulders carrying the burden of paying for the government, well, unless you have a King.



Well, I don't know how things are where you live, but in Vancouver, a 14 year old can work. And when they do, they pay taxes.

Of course, that's income tax. When land ownership was a requirement for voting, there was no income tax, only property tax.

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

Why don't you tell us what it would do to improve things?

It would help instill in the youth of the nation a sense of responsibility towards and participation in the process of democracy, without giving them undue or disproportionate power. It would give them a chance to enter into civics while they are still unburdened by all the responsibilities of adult life and thereby let them learn about democracy at a time in theior lives when they have more time and energy available for studying the issues. It will help future voters to learn how to become informed voters, giving the motivation to learn by offering the chance to participate.

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Gosh, are you "asking" me because you "don't know"? Golly Tig, I would have thought you'd have looked that up.

I, myself, am not campaigning for this (and I'm not campaigning for this in the US either, am I), but I know people who are.

I already knew, and I notice you still didnt say that like the US its 18. There is some effort in Canada to take the age down to as low as 12, yet like your comments, no reason this would be better then 18.


What I'm saying is, it isn't rediculous. Seriously, go back to when folks were discussing black people getting the vote. They're to ignorant, too dumb and too irresponsible to get the vote, why should they be allowed? Huh, why? Anyone?

Because they were slaves for the most part. Black people got the vote in 1870 in the US as part of 3 amendments involving the Civil War. If you want to use an arguement that might have some merit, you should go back to the 70s when both the US and Canada reduced the voting age from 21 to 18. However that was largely based on 18 being adulthood and there was no good reason for adults to not be allowed to vote. Now I am sure you aren't suggesting that 14 year olds be considered adults or 12 year olds be considered adults, but you think they should be given the right to vote as an adult?? How about drinking, legal to drink at 12 or not??
-Tig

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

Why don't you tell us what it would do to improve things?

It would help instill in the youth of the nation a sense of responsibility towards and participation in the process of democracy, without giving them undue or disproportionate power. It would give them a chance to enter into civics while they are still unburdened by all the responsibilities of adult life and thereby let them learn about democracy at a time in theior lives when they have more time and energy available for studying the issues. It will help future voters to learn how to become informed voters, giving the motivation to learn by offering the chance to participate.

Allrighty, let's start in Canada, and see if things improve there first, then we'll asses the situation.

http://www.canada.com/national/features/democracy/story.html?id=124B2052-5834-4FC7-AFB0-10F9F0C4A690

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:

[...] go back to the 70s when both the US and Canada reduced the voting age from 21 to 18. However that was largely based on 18 being adulthood and there was no good reason for adults to not be allowed to vote.

An arbitrary number. It was formerly 21 because 21 was considered adulthood. The voting age changes to recognise the legal fact that the age of majority has changed.

Now I am sure you aren't suggesting that 14 year olds be considered adults [...]


Nor was the legislation suggesting such. It was, however, trying to recognise the fact that adulthood doesn't actually happen at 18. Adulthood is grown into. Saying below 18 you are not an adult and above 18 you are is a legal construct. Nothing magical happens on your 18th birthday to turn you into an adult except the legal slight of hand of defining you as such. In reality you are not a great deal different on the morning of your birthday than you were on the evening before.

[Glaucus]

Fluffy just so you can "inform" us, how old do you have to be to vote in Canada?? Do 14 year olds get 1/4 votes there?? Do 16 year olds get 1/2 votes??? If not, why aren't you campaigning for that?? Have you written your Prime Minister and told him of this great idea??Why do you always have to turn it into a US vs Canada, or the US vs the World argument? Perhaps we're just speaking philosophically here as to how best to introduce responsibility and voting to our children.

- Mike

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:
Because at 18 you are legally responsible for your actions, and are no longer a dependant. At 14 they may not even be allowed to date, or choose their own bedtime, or watch any movie they might want to.That's an argument...


This is rediculous.That is not!

It's always a good thing to challenge the norm. If the "norm" can withstand the challenge then it doesn't need changing, does it?

- Mike

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

Allrighty, let's start in Canada, and see if things improve there first, then we'll asses the situation.

http://www.canada.com/national/features/democracy/story.html?id=124B2052-5834-4FC7-AFB0-10F9F0C4A690


Thanks for that. It supports the argument quite well. If 18 year olds don't vote because they don't have the time or the interest, then obviously we should be starting them younger when they are still teachable!

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Thanks for that. It supports the argument quite well. If 18 year olds don't vote because they don't have the time or the interest, then obviously we should be starting them younger when they are still teachable!

Of course, because telling teenagers they should do something, makes them want to do it more. Yep, you've got child psychology down pat. :lol:

[the_leander]

T_Bone wrote:

Of course, because telling teenagers they should do something, makes them want to do it more. Yep, you've got child psychology down pat. :lol:

Could ANYONE of any western country in this thread explain the differences between the different political parties of their country with a reasonable amount of accuracy. (By this I mean something other then group X is evil and destroys the country and Group Y are perfection itself, my dad told me so)?????????

What good is a democracy if no one understands what the concepts involved are when they get to voting age?

What fluffy is suggesting isn't so far fetched in as much as you might think... Just because it came from him doesn't automatically make it an idea so bad that you must trounce it and him on principle.

I want talkabout back, it was friendlier then the current setup. Or perhaps its just that the people are getting nastier in here... either way, people need seriously to cool down.

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:


Of course, because telling teenagers they should do something, makes them want to do it more. Yep, you've got child psychology down pat. :lol:

Your fundamental objection, then, is that it won't make any difference. Is that a good enough reason to deny a group of citizens the oppurtunity of participating in democracy?

[T_Bone]

the_leander wrote:

What good is a democracy if no one understands what the concepts involved are when they get to voting age?


How does lowering the voting age address that? That's like saying young drivers don't know how to drive very well, so we should lower the driving age.

What fluffy is suggesting isn't so far fetched in as much as you might think... Just because it came from him doesn't automatically make it an idea so bad that you must trounce it and him on principle.

It's not "because it came from him" I simply disagree with it. I'm sure the things he disagrees with me about, arn't because they came from me, either.

I want talkabout back, it was friendlier then the current setup. Or perhaps its just that the people are getting nastier in here... either way, people need seriously to cool down.

Nasty? Who's nasty? It was just sarcasm, nothing personal.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:


Of course, because telling teenagers they should do something, makes them want to do it more. Yep, you've got child psychology down pat. :lol:

Your fundamental objection, then, is that it won't make any difference.

My fundamental objection is that they are dependants, they are apprentices who are learning what's required to participate in government, and they arn't the ones who for the most part will be the ones that have to live by decisions you are saying they should participate in making.

You brought up the point that not everyone reaches adulthood at a "certain age", and while that's a good point, changing one set age for another set age isn't supported by that point. Some teenagers support themselves, sure, I wouldn't have a problem with letting non-dependant teenagers have the vote, but moving a set age doesn't do anything to reconcile a persons competancy.

Is that a good enough reason to deny a group of citizens the oppurtunity of participating in democracy?

The "age 18" rule is the best thing we've found. It's the age where you become legally responsible for your own actions, and the age where you are considered non-dependant and an adult, and is the most logical place to put the cutoff. What else would you propose? A competancy test that one would have to pass first?

[Glaucus]

Could ANYONE of any western country in this thread explain the differences between the different political parties of their country with a reasonable amount of accuracy. Don't they all just steal from the poor and give to themselves? :-?

- Mike

[aardvark]

What else would you propose? A competancy test that one would have to pass first?
That might not be a bad idea. Unlike those born in most countries, immigrants usually have to pass a citizenship test. It might be a good argument that native born citizens should have to pass a similar test before becoming franchised. And if they can pass such a test at the age of 16, why not? The voting age for electing candidates is 16 within the Liberal Party in Canada. Not sure of the other parties.

Don't they all just steal from the poor and give to themselves?
Now, now. An honest politician is not _always_ a contradiction in terms. There's always a few in all parties that stink up the place, giving the others a bad name. Same with businessmen in companies like Enron, etc.
Overall, my guess is that politicians as a whole are much more honest than the public. (which probably doesn't say too much about the public :-D )

[Fade]

Careful Aardvark, by suggesting someone should be tested to see if they are qualified to perform a certain task, risks being labeled right wing, or racist.

You might even be asked to leave Canada or at least told to keep your mouth shut. Liberals can't stomach such impure thoughts.

[Glaucus]

Nasty? Who's nasty? It was just sarcasm, nothing personal. Nah, face it T_Bone, you're a meanie! You should be more humble, like moi. :-P

- Mike

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:


My fundamental objection is that they are dependants, they are apprentices who are learning what's required to participate in government,

And as with apprentices, you don't just train them up and then let them have a go at the whole enchillada all at once. Apprentices have graduated entry into whatever they are apprenticing for. You can't take a kid and apprentice him as an electrician for two years just telling him what to do and then one day say, "OK, go wire this house". Apprentices get practical experience. That's what makes it different from book learning. Apprenticeship is guidance plus practiucal application with the risks kept low. That is exactly what a graduated voter age program like the one mentioned is all about.
and they arn't the ones who for the most part will be the ones that have to live by decisions you are saying they should participate in making.

If a 14 year old makes a decision that will effect 18 year olds, that 14 year old will be effected by that decission in 4 years. In fact, a 14 year old will have to live with a decision (all else being equal) for 16 more years than a 30 year old.

Is that a good enough reason to deny a group of citizens the oppurtunity of participating in democracy?

The "age 18" rule is the best thing we've found. It's the age where you become legally responsible for your own actions, [/quote]

Even in the world of legal responsibility the margin is moveable. There are plenty of instances where minors have been "tried as adults". If 18 was such a hard and fast rule, this would never happen.

[FluffyMcDeath]

aardvark wrote:
Unlike those born in most countries, immigrants usually have to pass a citizenship test. It might be a good argument that native born citizens should have to pass a similar test before becoming franchised.

I've always been fond of that idea. It doesn't seem right that just because you were born in a place, you become a citizen. Citizenship should always be actively persued. If you treat it as a birthright, you might not value it as highly.

The other part about an opt in citizenship, is that those who don't want to pay taxes can then choose to not be citizens. On the flip side, they would not be elligible for health care, pensions, use of the roads, legal protection of property or person, right to trial, etc.

The voting age for electing candidates is 16 within the Liberal Party in Canada.

Yes, I'd forgotten about that.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
Careful Aardvark, by suggesting someone should be tested to see if they are qualified to perform a certain task, risks being labeled right wing, or racist.

You might even be asked to leave Canada or at least told to keep your mouth shut. Liberals can't stomach such impure thoughts.

You're not too clear on the concept of liberalism, are you?
Fortunately, there are online dictionaries.

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=liberalism

Take a read and see if liberalism sounds terribly un-American to you.

[the_leander]

T_Bone wrote:
[quote]
How does lowering the voting age address that? That's like saying young drivers don't know how to drive very well, so we should lower the driving age.


I was refering more to what he suggested afterwards rather then the first point, simply changing the voting age I agree would do bugger all to help. But on the same token, would not some form of education in what all the various bits of the political makeup of a given democracy be at the very least the correct thing to do, to repeat my first point, what good is democracy if no one understands it?

It's not "because it came from him" I simply disagree with it. I'm sure the things he disagrees with me about, arn't because they came from me, either.


Nasty? Who's nasty? It was just sarcasm, nothing personal.

The whole tone of these threads is nastier then was in talkabout. Remember I left for about 2 months and returned only recently, quite frankly reading some of the vitriol spewing forth in some of the threads, I'm debating whether or not I should simply have asked for my account closed and had done with it.

[T_Bone]

the_leander wrote:

The whole tone of these threads is nastier then was in talkabout. Remember I left for about 2 months and returned only recently, quite frankly reading some of the vitriol spewing forth in some of the threads, I'm debating whether or not I should simply have asked for my account closed and had done with it.

A forum by any other name would be just as bipartisan ;-)

(besides, Fluffy knows I love him ) :-)

[the_leander]

T_Bone wrote:

the_leander wrote:

The whole tone of these threads is nastier then was in talkabout. Remember I left for about 2 months and returned only recently, quite frankly reading some of the vitriol spewing forth in some of the threads, I'm debating whether or not I should simply have asked for my account closed and had done with it.

A forum by any other name would be just as bipartisan ;-)

(besides, Fluffy knows I love him ) :-)

TBH I wasn't thinking of you when I made the above comment, you at least tend to be polite, and your sparring matches with Fluffy are generally good natured, even if I often disagree with your points. That I do respect, but some others on here... they do not think through this stuff as well as you do. (hey man, comming from me this is about as big a compliment you will ever likely see from me)

[iamaboringperson]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

iamaboringperson wrote:

YES! Let 14 year olds vote, they must be as wise and as capable of forming their own unique opinions as your average adult!


Pretty much.
So, even though the human brain is not fully developed until about the age of 20 (on average), and most people havn't completed their primary+secondary education until about 18/19, and as impressionable as a 14 y/o's mind is, you think they should vote.

Saying that they're not is not too much different from the reason that black people and women aren't allowed to vote. Oh, wait, they changed that.

No. There are scientific (psychological & biological) reasons for it. There is logic.
... like saying that on their eighteenth birthday they suddenly acquire, in totto, all the requisite wisdom.
No, it's not like that at all.
It's more like the government recoginzes that most don't have the psychological(and biological) maturity required until about the age of 20ish on average.

I think what you want is to indoctrinate Marxist ideas into these KIDS and they will vote for whomever you want them too (i.e. left-wing).

[FluffyMcDeath]

iamaboringperson wrote:

I think what you want is to indoctrinate Marxist ideas into these KIDS and they will vote for whomever you want them too (i.e. left-wing).


Well, that's just paranoid babble. Rural and religious populations tend to be the ones that have the most children and they don't tend to be so Marxist.

[Fade]

@ FluffyMcDeath
You're not too clear on the concept of liberalism, are you?
-----------------

Fluffy, I guess I should be more careful when I use the word "Liberal" when in a discussion on an international forum. Of course you are right about the word itself, nothing wrong with it, and it does express a good concept for a lot of modern thinking.

But here is the problem. In the United States, the word has been stolen, modified, redefined, and stashed in the corner of a political party. That's right, the Democrats now own the word and use it liberally (Ha) to define the Democratic Party.

As example:
Wealth redistribution is Socialism, but in the US it means Liberalism.

Saving the environment is conservation, but Democrats think only Liberals care about it.

Abortion is murdering the unborn, yet the Liberals (ups! excuse me) the Democrats are against capital punishment. Phooey, let me reword that last sentence. Abortion is a womans choice, yet the baby is still dead. There, that's better. An aside to this last thought; If it was required that an aborted baby be buried, like most dead animals, there would probably be less abortion. Having to buy a plot and tombstone and all that. If you wanted the baby, you would bury it after death, but if you don't want the baby, you get to throw it in the garbage bin. Somehow that doesn't seem quiet fair to me. But I digress.

In the US, 56% of the total taxes collected come from the top 5% of wage earners, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 3% of the total taxes collected. In other words half the people get almost® a free ride and the Liberals think this is fair; as long as that half vote Democratic.

So you see, in the US the word Liberal and the word Democrat are synonymous. I will in the future try to be more precise in my wordology, for the benefit of those who think of the word Liberal in different terms.

Next time class, we will discuss the difference between the word Democrat and the word democracy.

Thank you, and goodnight.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
Abortion is murdering the unborn,And war is murdering the enemy.
So if we renamed abortion into war and the unborn into the enemy, no-one would make a point of it.

[Fade]

Speel, a country can choose to be your enemy, a fetus has no decision making power.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Oh yes? Oh yes? Well, why was my country attacked by the Germans during WW2, while we were stricktly neutral????

And all these ppl who died when cities were being bombed, or being nuked, did they have a choice?

[Fade]

I didn't say a country gets to choose its enemy.

I said a country can choose to be your enemy.

I would say, those who chose to attack my country, chose poorly.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

You're a lousy b*stard :-x :-x :-x, you're obviously twisting with words

[Fade]

Didn't mean to. I thought I was speaking clearly. :-o

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I would say, those who chose to attack my country, chose poorly.

I would say, those who chose me to abort me as being a fetus, chose poorly.

[Fade]

So would I. I'm glad your around.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I would say, those who chose to attack my country, chose poorly.

I would say, those who chose me to abort me as being a fetus, chose poorly.

Fade wrote:
So would I. I'm glad your around.

But:


Fade wrote:
Speel, a country can choose to be your enemy, a fetus has no decision making power.

:-?

-edit- And if I say the mother can choose to be the fetus' enemy (as she, in fact, is)?

How can you, as a country, choose to engage war (or not) while other countries choose to engage war with you? How can you choose while the other country has a far far far superior army?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Yet another question: Did the fetuses of Hiroshima, Tokyo and Nagasaki have had any chance?