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?
Is that not sterotyping? Just because my parents do not make onehundred grand a year does not mean I am stupid.
No, it is just a general trend. It has nothing to do with intelligence.
Since the test would only be for 15-17 year old teenagers. You would administer the test at school.
So people who are homeschooled, or drop outs, or studying abroad, just don't get to vote?
Adults do not need to take this test. They are already elegible to vote. Duh.
I got a job when I was 14. People travel with their families abroad. Schools often take people to foreign countries. The list goes on...
Of course he would still be on the test.
Why? He isn't even running. So every person who expresses interest in running, no matter if they aren't actually running, would be on the test? Or just the important ones? Who determines who is important?
I could watch one Rick Perry ad and know I would never vote for him. I don't need to know anything besides the fact that he is a bigot. And you don't have the right to prevent me from voting because you think otherwise.
I know phyctic I know. Just pointing it out to Zaky.
Ah, Ok.
So people who are homeschooled, or drop outs, or studying abroad, just don't get to vote?
I would suppose you could give a scheduled time to meet at a school for those students. Only giving them maybe a few days notice so they have little time to study.
I got a job when I was 14. People travel with their families abroad. Schools often take people to foreign countries.
It doesn't matter what age you got a job at. You were still attending school, therefore you can still take the test. If people are traveling, then they can find a school to take the test at. For those in a foreign country, the test should be limited to people in the USA, just to play it safe.
The list goes on...
Yes?
Why? He isn't even running.
He was at one point, and he was within the top 5 too. He was important.
Or just the important ones?
Just the main ones.
Who determines who is important?
Ever heard of Jimmy McMillan ("The Rent is too D*mn High" party). He ran this year. And since you had no idea, he is obviously not very important.
Also on a coincidental note. Another lesser know candidate this year was Fred Karger. He wants to lower the voting age to sixteen or seventeen.
No matter what the voting age is there will always be idiots who dont deserve to vote voting, there will always be people that should be voting not doing it out of lazyness and there will always be informed people not allowed to vote. Thats democracy and things like this will always happen and it is so easy to focus on the negative
If people are traveling, then they can find a school to take the test at.
Um... What about local elections? Or other voting actions, like on ballot measures. I mean, those are going to be the things that have the largest direct effect on a young person, not the presidential election.
Which brings up another point: how could this possibly work? Leaving the question of how you can objectively write a such a test aside (for now), and granting that you will somehow be able to administer this test to every single person in that age group on a few days notice, how are you going to grade this in time?
You can't have teachers grade the tests, because that would violate students' rights to political privacy. I'm assuming this test is handwritten, so you can't get around this simply by hiding the names. Nope, you would have to send all these tests to some out of state site. Where they would have to be graded multiple times, because you can't leave voting rights up to human error.
Then, these scores would have to be recorded and sent to some sort of database, while still keeping everything anonymous somehow. Then, every single person in this age group in the country would have to be located (again) and informed of their score before voting day.
And you would have to do this for every election, every policy.
Where do you get the money to pay for this?
It takes over a month to get the SAT scores back, and that is a mostly multiple choice test that can be graded by a computer. AND not everyone takes it. And the grading cost is covered by a fee you have to pay each time you take the test.
You can't charge people to take the voting test, because that would be like charging people to vote.
Um... What about local elections? Or other voting actions, like on ballot measures. I mean, those are going to be the things that have the largest direct effect on a young person, not the presidential election.
In the OP, It was implied that this was about the presidential election voting age not the local mayoral voting age. Seeing, however that you brought it up... In my personal opinion, just let them get involved in things that will not directly impact their future so they don't screw up with something that will. You said that the local election will have a greater direct impact than the presidential election.
...how could this possibly work?
I already stated what generaly would be on a test should there be one. Thats about as unbiased as you can get. Never did I metion that the test would be administered to every person 15-17 years of age. Only the ones who got up off their lazy behinds and went to get the test taken. The ones that want to take the test, will. Therefore, there is likely to be a difference in the amount of teens taking the test.
...students' rights to political privacy.
Woah, you got me there. This test probably would be hand written. Why couldn't you get by by hiding peoples names?
Then, every single person in this age group in the country would have to be located (again) and informed of their score before voting day.
Once again, not everyone would be taking this test, thus making it a whole lot easier in all areas of the test handling. If a person wanted to know thier grade, he/she would have to find out for their own selves. If they wanted to vote so badly they cannot wait 3 years, then it is their perogative to get their scores.
You can't charge people to take the voting test, because that would be like charging people to vote.
Yes you can. They have no right to vote thus far. If they want the early right to vote then they can pay for their test, simple as that.
Also, I am not in full support of the idea of a test, I am just pointing out that it is a fine idea.
Also, I am not in full support of the idea of a test, I am just pointing out that it is a fine idea.
I already stated what generaly would be on a test should there be one. Thats about as unbiased as you can get. Never did I metion that the test would be administered to every person 15-17 years of age. Only the ones who got up off their lazy behinds and went to get the test taken. The ones that want to take the test, will. Therefore, there is likely to be a difference in the amount of teens taking the test.
That's still not fair isn't it? If you're going to aim to make it fair and partial, you'll have to force everyone to sit for it, lest some candidate bribes, or coerces, or cajoles his likely supporters into doing the test, skewing the whole result.
Also, a test doesn't really ascertain whether you are mature enough, or eligible to vote. As said earlier, if a test is to be as objective as can be, all it can ask are objective questions, such as the stances of the candidates, or who is running.
It has to be stressed that, that in no way is a litmus test for voting credibility. I can easily study for the questions, yet my analytical and thinking skills aren't fully developed to pick out the candidate I should vote for, with adequate reasons.
Yes you can. They have no right to vote thus far. If they want the early right to vote then they can pay for their test, simple as that.
So now, we're inevitably going to discriminate against people who can't afford to do the test?
If people in the teens or younger could pay to vote then that is not good.
People that are young don't follow politics therefore they won't know who to vote for. Also they don't know how to judge what is good for the country because they are just focused on their own lives. They would know if the economy is bad if there live isn't poor.
That's still not fair isn't it? If you're going to aim to make it fair and partial, you'll have to force everyone to sit for it, lest some candidate bribes, or coerces, or cajoles his likely supporters into doing the test, skewing the whole result.
Why force some people who could not care less about politics into taking a test on politics? If a candidate gets his likely supporter to take the test, better for him! If they were to support him anyways, what is the difference in them voting for him?
Also, a test doesn't really ascertain whether you are mature enough...
True. I cannot give you a definnitive solution to that.
So now, we're inevitably going to discriminate against people who can't afford to do the test?
Surely, there could be a sponsorship program for the people who fall below a certain income rate.
[quote=44Flames]People that are young don't follow politics therefore they won't know who to vote for. Also they don't know how to judge what is good for the country because they are just focused on their own lives. They would know if the economy is bad if there live isn't poor.[/quote]
You really have not been paying attention to the thread.
Why force some people who could not care less about politics into taking a test on politics? If a candidate gets his likely supporter to take the test, better for him! If they were to support him anyways, what is the difference in them voting for him?
If you're allowing it to be flexible, such that people do not need to vote, then it would leave a lot of room for manipulation by candidates.
there could be a sponsorship program for the people who fall below a certain income rate.
If you're allowing it to be flexible, such that people do not need to vote, then it would leave a lot of room for manipulation by candidates.
How so?
In this economy? Really?
Yes, in this economy. The gov't will not be paying for every single test, just those who can't afford it. Besides how much could a single test cost? I doubt any more than $15.
