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?
Mainly because the political system is already well developed; throwing in the various factors why we do not require people who are minors to have their opinions heard and acted on through the democratic process, and you get the answer.
Only the ones who got up off their lazy behinds and went to get the test taken.
I thought this test was supposed to be during school? And, seeing how such a test couldn't possibly be timed since you need to account for learned disabilities and whatnot, I'm sure many "lazy" kids would have no problem getting out of class to go twiddle their thumbs for as long as they please.
. 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.
I hardly see how this justifies allowing kids to vote in just the presidential election. I mean, isn't the point of the test to weed out the kids that will "screw up"? If you have any faith in your test, you would have to allow them to vote in all cases.
Which means, you are now charging them 15 bucks each time they vote. The SAT, by the way, costs about 50 dollars, and is probably run much more efficiently than this test would be. I think 15 dollars wouldn't even begin to cover it. But moving on:
Why couldn't you get by by hiding peoples names?
Because if it was graded by teachers, or by anyone who might know you, they could recognize the handwriting. To be on the safe side, all tests would have to be sent out of state.
Even if that wasn't the case, I highly doubt there are enough teachers at most schools who would be qualified to objectively grade such a test. I know I wouldn't trust most of my teachers to determine whether or not I could vote.
So, I still have the following issues, in addition to all the other issues that have been raised: 1) How will this test be financed in a why that does not encourage coercion or discourages impoverished people? 2) How do you justify which things can be voted on AND justify the effectiveness of the test at the same time? 3) How do you find enough people to grade this test on time?
Disagree. It's in no way a good criteria in judging whether people are mature enough, astute enough, well-informed enough to vote. I would suppose the only reason it's 18, is because 18 is the age you become an adult legally.
Democracy is not perfect; the best we can do is to make it as fair as possible, and letting everyone have the vote at a certain age does so.
I thought this test was supposed to be during school? And, seeing how such a test couldn't possibly be timed since you need to account for learned disabilities and whatnot, I'm sure many "lazy" kids would have no problem getting out of class to go twiddle their thumbs for as long as they please.
If they want to take the test, right after school would be the best time. Bingo, problem solved.
I hardly see how this justifies allowing kids to vote in just the presidential election. I mean, isn't the point of the test to weed out the kids that will "screw up"? If you have any faith in your test, you would have to allow them to vote in all cases.
Hey, wait a minute, we are not talking about kids, we are talking about those who will vote in the next election. About the screwing up part, it is a suggested possibility and even grown adults make mistakes.
Because if it was graded by teachers, or by anyone who might know you, they could recognize the handwriting. To be on the safe side, all tests would have to be sent out of state. Even if that wasn't the case, I highly doubt there are enough teachers at most schools who would be qualified to objectively grade such a test. I know I wouldn't trust most of my teachers to determine whether or not I could vote.
These will not even be seen by teachers. Only by gov't officials.
1) How will this test be financed in a why that does not encourage coercion or discourages impoverished people?
Already covered.
2) How do you justify which things can be voted on AND justify the effectiveness of the test at the same time?
I would suppose the first year could be a "test run". Besides, how would you justify the uneffectiveness of such a test.
3) How do you find enough people to grade this test on time?
Honestly, people rule the United States. Not Kids. Not to say that teenagers aren't people, but if you are some political prodigy then good for you. You can vote at the age of 18, when most people graduate from high school, buy an apartment and move on with life, as an adult. If you are that political prodigy or whatever, then you can become a senator, governor, lawyer. etc etc etc when you get older. Not to sound like a brat but alot of kids will just vote for what their parents will vote for, because their parents could pretty easily persuade their kids into their political views. The voting age at 18 is pretty fair.
@FaunBard Read the thread please. All your statements have been discussed and answered in the last few pages. We have been discussing a test. Also the age group this test is intended to reach is 15-17, not a bunch of kids.
Also the age group this test is intended to reach is 15-17, not a bunch of kids.
Those are kids.
right after school would be the best time. Bingo, problem solved.
Umm, no, because of the already mentioned "work" problem. I, and many other kids in high school, have jobs right after school. Actually, my senior year in high school I was actually able to leave school a couple hours early because I had done very well in classes*, so I would already be at work when school got out for most people.
You can't write me off as an exception, because there are many people like me, and we deserve an equal opportunity to vote.
If this test would be given, I think the only logical time would be right in the middle of the school day.
You have two years, use your brain.
This test has to be collected, graded, and processed in at most one month. That gives people enough time to learn about all of the relevant candidates, and get their scores back in time to vote. This would require a large number of (paid) government officials.
Already covered.
And both me and nicho pointed out why that wouldn't work.
I would suppose the first year could be a "test run". Besides, how would you justify the uneffectiveness of such a test.
What I mean is, if you think your test works, then why not use a similar test for other voting practices? If don't think your test is good enough for other elections and whatnot, then what makes it good enough for the presidential election? It seems like you are contradicting yourself.
Numerous people have already said why the test probably would not be very effective. I think the burden of evidence lies with you.
*the full explanation behind this is actually more involved, but not really relevant.
[quote]Umm, no, because of the already mentioned "work" problem.
How about before school?
This test has to be collected, graded, and processed in at most one month.
Why in one month? The testers should know who the candidates are and who they stand for before they take the test.
And both me and nicho pointed out why that wouldn't work.
Nicho pointed out why it would be not a very good idea, but not why it would not work.
What I mean is, if you think your test works, then why not use a similar test for other voting practices? If don't think your test is good enough for other elections and whatnot, then what makes it good enough for the presidential election? It seems like you are contradicting yourself.
You stated earlier that a presidential election will not affect them as much as the local one will. So, if in theory the test did not work then not as much damage has been done.
I typed up a full analysis of your post yesterday and when I submitted it it told me I was not logged in, so I said, screw it. Sorry for the delay.
