Should 16 years old be allowed to vote?

[fellowtraveller]

It should be set at the age where someone is legally able to enter into contracts.

which is 18 in Canada.

[wyly]

the ultimate contract is marriage and we allow teenagers to sign that contract at 16...the debate to allow voting at 16 is not unique to canada it's being considered in most countries...

[wyly]

In any event, it will be difficult for NDP MPs to support this bill and then turn around and say at 16 you're not old enough to know that murder is wrong.

you want to show where anyone has claimed that 16 you're not old enough to know that murder is wrong...you miss understand the issue criminal responsibility and age...

[eyeball]

I disagree with this, we have enough trouble getting people 18 and over to vote, let's work on getting those people to vote before he lower the voting age.

Start working on them when they're younger and maybe the habit will sink in a little deeper sooner.

Edited December 1, 2011 by eyeball

[William Ashley]

My devised social policy is to give every citizen a vote, in a citizens assembly - they can proxy this vote. Youth would proxy their vote to their legal gaurdian or power of attorney until they are of age of majority. This age is generally ruled by the courts to be equivolent to non young offender. They could however consult with their guardian to make thier wishes known, it would be up for the gaurdian to look out for their interests.

Individuals could also opt to arrange for a vote by proxy by assigning their vote to an individual.

Within my social system, the composition of representatives is determined by proxy - individuals vote always exists for every vote thus in essence every vote is a plebisite. For seating during discusion or submissions there is a formula to provide for high medium and low vote speaking rights, with groups of proxies able to pool their votes for speaking rights. Seating is also determined in the same manner.

But to answer your question - should they be given a vote YES, every full citizen should have a vote. Voting age however should be 19 since that is the line between adult and child at law for determining mens rhea.If they are independent and responsible at law, yes they should have a vote when they are in majority. Otherwise their vote should be passed to their guardian. AND everyone able to vote should be able to proxy that vote.

People under 19 however should be able to apply for majority status with the courts.

It is really against the constitution if fundamental justice is not involved to breach individuals charter right to be free from discrimination by age.

It is also important to note that individuals under youth age require friends of the court for representation and often parents are legally responsible for their childs action. As long as someone is a minor they are not legal persons in full, they are the charge of their guardian.

But geuss who can vote in 3 years.

Edited December 1, 2011 by William Ashley

[cybercoma]

What a terrible idea. Not only would you benefit people that have more kids by giving them more vote, but you're asking for a situation where people sell their vote or are conned out of them. It would also be insanely expensive to have a verification process in place to ensure that the votes were proxied legitimately.

[Moonbox]

the ultimate contract is marriage and we allow teenagers to sign that contract at 16...the debate to allow voting at 16 is not unique to canada it's being considered in most countries...

Yet that same 16 year old can't be held accountable for any other contract he/she signs. They can't sign a car loan on their own. That's a voidable contract right there. If they're not responsible/mature enough to do that, why are the responsible/mature enough to decide who leads the rest of the country?

[Moonbox]

What a terrible idea.

You can say that about all of William Ashley's ideas.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Moonbox

[dre]

We have such low quality voters in Canada that I dont really think 16 yearolds voting would cause any problems. Most people in their 30's and 40's could not sit down and articulate a coherent position on the issues of the day...

And more than half of our voters contribute nothing at all... they just go to the polls and make the same ideological choice every year. The only people really contributing are the ones that actually look at the issues of the day and have the potential to switch their vote from one party to another... the so-called "swing voters".

So no... even allowing fetus's to vote wouldnt really make much difference. ROCK THE WOMB VOTE!

Edited December 1, 2011 by dre

[cybercoma]

You say that about all of William Ashley's ideas.

I never noticed. I gave my reasons for thinking it's a terrible idea. It's not like I'm just saying it because it's William Ashley.

[Newfoundlander]

I disagree with this, we have enough trouble getting people 18 and over to vote, let's work on getting those people to vote before he lower the voting age.

Well if you allowed people to start voting at 16, the same age when they can start working and pay taxes, then there can be better education in schools on voting. If 16 year olds are educated about voting, and there are booths located in high schools for instance, there is a good chance they will vote. If they vote once they are likely to continue voting for he rest of their lives.

[William Ashley]

What a terrible idea. Not only would you benefit people that have more kids by giving them more vote, but you're asking for a situation where people sell their vote or are conned out of them. It would also be insanely expensive to have a verification process in place to ensure that the votes were proxied legitimately.

nonsense. Most politicians are conmen anyway.

Why is money for votes wrong? Buy them with cash or promises that give them cash... seems cash is a faster answer. fact is they don't have the money to pay until after they take it from your pocket. If people can get 5$ out of it rather than nothing more to them. If people sell their support that cheap that is that. People can also change their vote anytime.. so ta,e the 5 bucks and vote for someone else 2 seconds later. So much for being a dupe, then atleast you can change your mind once the baby kissing is done,

People with more kids should have more say - its them who are going to have to live with the choices made today, their interests should be looked out for, and the person who does that is their gaurdian, not somemfaceless chairperson of a party they don't even vote for.

sorry your arguments lack morality or insight,

sadly no proxy would be done by a cost effective built in systems.

most cost ineeficiencies are caused by lazy over priced public servants - while some are hard working others do nothing with their dead time.

I made an automated system that lowers the cost of elections.

Sorry try agao\in, the current system is corruot disenfranchising and representative of 150 year old beast that has never provided the universal rights of sufferage or provided for the constitutional rights of all citizens of canada.

Edited December 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[cybercoma]

Why is money for votes wrong?

Because the poor aren't buying votes from people and would be more likely to sell theirs away, which would concentrate not only economic power to the top 1%, but political power (which is the entire problem in the US right now).