The election is coming up in a matter of months (it will be here before you know it) and I realised: gosh darnit, I'm not going to get to vote this year.
So, here's the question: do you think that the right to vote should be limited to certain aged individuals? Should the age limit be raised? Lowered?
No, I listen to reason. You're saying that a teenager would be to easily influenced by his/her parents, and/or they are just too manipulated. I don't call that reason.
Indeed, throwing my vote for HahiHa. People do have their influences from some form or another, and that goes for both teenagers and adults.
And I would trust noone to have the power to decide who's to vote and who not.
This is his best point. If there is any limit as to who can vote, it should be the age at which a boy federally becomes a man aka age 18. Voting is all opinion. Whether or not these opinions are based on influence or from a news medium's opinion, NO ONE can say.
Teenagers can think for themselves. Big difference there.
Teenagers can think for themselves? That's a rather bold statement you're making without evidence.
Again, I doubt such a test would be credible at all. It's not grammar we're talking about, it's opinions. Political opinions. There's no right or wrong answer, there are stupid or intelligent answers at best. And I would trust noone to have the power to decide who's to vote and who not.
Right. So we're going to be tested on what again? Economics? International Relations? You can test ALL of that, and a 14 year old can easily regurgitate answers he studied previously, but that DOESN'T indicate whatsoever that he's mature enough to form decisions and vote.
Another point about testing that hasn't been brought up yet: Won't certain demographics have a better chance of passing the test? You say you want to make the test difficult. So, what's to stop rich parents from hiring a tutor for their children? I can easily see how wealthy people will be more likely to pass the test, giving more voting power to people with money.
The same thing happens with the SAT, scores are correlated with wealth. While some people don't have a problem with that happening in regards to the SAT, I think this is a huge issue when it comes to voting. Voting is something that should be spread out evenly among all demographics, because it effects all demographics.
Age doesn't count as a demographic in this case, because young people are not as effected as people of age. If they vote for a war-prone president, they don't have to serve. They don't have to pay their own taxes. Or pay for their own housing, or deal with employment issues. Social issues are less relevant as well. So, all of the policies that deal with these things won't have as big of an impact on young people.
Also, didn't someone say a while back that the tests would be made by the governor of the state? So... Rick Perry would make the test that determines if people are smart enough to vote? I know he isn't running anymore, but... really? Rick Perry?
Right. So we're going to be tested on what again? Economics? International Relations? You can test ALL of that, and a 14 year old can easily regurgitate answers he studied previously, but that DOESN'T indicate whatsoever that he's mature enough to form decisions and vote.
If there were to be a test (not saying I support the idea), Then it should contain questions like this: Name some of the canidates that you know are running this year? What do these canidates stand for? What political party are they in? Where do you stand on -such and such issues-? Which canidate are most likely to vote for this year (ask these questions to see if their beliefs and their canidates beliefs line up)? Also, the test would be given at a random and unsuspecting time so that the individual would have no time to "study" for the test. Now as for the maturity part, it would be hard to determine if a person was mature or not. I do not think there would be a test that could determine this factor. This is what a test might consist of, should it be admnistered.
So, what's to stop rich parents from hiring a tutor for their children?
You ninja'd me but I said in my previous post that tests would be administered at random.
...scores are correlated with wealth.
Is that not sterotyping? Just because my parents do not make onehundred grand a year does not mean I am stupid.
Age doesn't count as a demographic in this case, because young people are not as effected as people of age. If they vote for a war-prone president, they don't have to serve. They don't have to pay their own taxes. Or pay for their own housing, or deal with employment issues. Social issues are less relevant as well. So, all of the policies that deal with these things won't have as big of an impact on young people.
You are right. I did not think of it that way. In that case It would be wiser to limit the test (theoretically speaking, of course) to those 15 or older. That way they will be affected by those issues because they will be of age within that president's term.
Where do you stand on -such and such issues-? Which canidate are most likely to vote for this year (ask these questions to see if their beliefs and their canidates beliefs line up)?
Such questions are extremely subjective....how would marks even be given out? Not to mention that the graders themselves will probably be biased.
Knowing what the candidates stand for is useless, because that alone doesn't show maturity in thinking.
These questions simply find out if the person is going to vote for someone because they like them or if that person will vote for him because of what he stands for. There would not be any right or wrong answer. Its like: "How do you feel about this?" "Then you should feel the same about this person who feels the same way you do."
...because that alone doesn't show maturity in thinking.
I know it would not. That is why I said that knowing whether or not someone is mature would be difficult to determine.
Also, the test would be given at a random and unsuspecting time so that the individual would have no time to "study" for the test.
Umm... how would that even work? What, you go to someone's house in the middle of the night and make them take a test? What if people have jobs, or are out of the country, or have important plans? Where are you going to get an army of people to administer these tests? How are you going to pay for that?
Obviously, since you are testing for things like knowledge of political candidates, you can only administer this test AFTER it is clear who exactly is running. And some people drop out. For instance, why should I have to know about Rick Perry if he isn't even running anymore? Would that still be on the test?
Clearly, there would have to be some sort of known time frame for when the test would be given. Which would enable people to study for the test.
Then again, why do you not want people to study? Wouldn't studying politics make people more... knowledgeable about politics?
Finally, I don't agree with your standards of voting. For instance, you seem to dismiss the value of charisma. But a president is supposed to be a leader of an entire nation. For this, a high level of charisma is necessary to get people motivated about his/her policies. So, voting for someone because they are "likable" isn't entirely stupid.
So, voting for someone because they are "likable" isn't entirely stupid.
No, it's not. It is however stupid to vote for someone who you have little to no idea on what their policies are, simply because they look good or sound like they know something.
Umm... how would that even work? What, you go to someone's house in the middle of the night and make them take a test?
Since the test would only be for 15-17 year old teenagers. You would administer the test at school.
What if people have jobs, or are out of the country, or have important plans?
Adults do not need to take this test. They are already elegible to vote. Duh.
For instance, why should I have to know about Rick Perry if he isn't even running anymore? Would that still be on the test?
Of course he would still be on the test. If one did not know who Perry was, how could it be possible that he/she know who all the other canidates were. Espeacialy since everyone is all over the news.
Clearly, there would have to be some sort of known time frame for when the test would be given. Which would enable people to study for the test.
Absolutly not. Like Nicho has already stated, anyone can cram for a test. They should not be given time to study. They should have been paying attention the rest of the year.
For instance, you seem to dismiss the value of charisma.
I never totally dismissed the value of charisma. However, Jim Jones also had a crapload of charisma. Electing someone should not be based soley on his/her charisma.
I think 18 is the perfect age, well maybe not perfect but it is the best age because that is when you are starting to go to University, you can drive by yourself and you can drink alcohol. So sice you have so much responsibilities at age 18 you have enough responsibility to make a fair judge of who you want to be the President(USA) or Prime Minister (Canada). If younger than people would just vote for people for silly reasons like because they have cool hair or something silly like that. They wouldn't vote for the good of the country and people of that country. If older than not enough people woould vote for there to be able to be a majority government and it would be a minority government that would have to vote again in a short amount of time again and that isn't good for the country.
Making a test makes no sense in both ways of the argument. If you're administering a test, you could as well allow every minor to vote. Those who are interested (those who might pass the test) will vote, those who are not interested (who might not pass the test) will not vote. It's as simple as that.
But just think a moment about it.. isn't it actually a good thing that 16-17 can't vote yet? That's the time when some begin to show interest in politics, and that's the time where you should start interesting and informing them about politics. They'll be able to watch how it works by looking at votes and results, while not being directly involved. And when they're finally 18, they're ideally prepared, at least those who would have voted by then anyway. Instead of throwing them unprepared into politics at 16, you prepare them and throw them into it when they're adult.
