»

[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:

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:

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.

[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.

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.

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:

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?