Is 16 years Old Enough To Vote?

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe not land ownership, but there should be something that in some even distant way implies a voter has a vested interest. My suggestion would be those that pay taxes. Not sales taxes, since even non-citizens pay those, but actual taxes (income or property). Something that implies you have a more substantial connection to the governance of the country beyond just choosing whoever promises to make everyone else give you the most free money and stuff.

Sounds like you're saying the more money you have in your pocket, the more right you should have in influencing government. Isn't that already enough of a problem?

[Argus]

The thing is you dont seem to understand the whole point of democracy. The main point is making the electorate feel like they are part of decisions made by government.

And when was the last time people felt that?

The real, practical purpose of democracy is to ensure that when a government displays too much incompetence or arragance for the citizenry to stomach it gets booted out.

Quite frankly your idea is so ludicrous that its laughable. You would be taking the right to vote away from millions of adults...home owners, business owners, people raising families etc... it would do nothing to improve the quality of our system and it would disenfrachise millions of people and create a huge backlash.

Well, first of all it wouldn't remove the vote from business owners and home owners since by definition they own property. Second, people value their votes so much that if you changed the rules and made them drive across town to vote the vote percentage would plunge. Even with everyone able to vote within a few minutes of their homes only half do. Make people drive across town and fill out a form ahead of time to register to vote instead of using automatic registration and sending people door to door and I bet the vote would drop to 25%.

[jacee]

What is wrong with making the vote an incentive to graduate high school as well? Being a right/privilege and incentive are not exclusive.

You can't withhold a right.

.

[dre]

Why not say you have to graduate from college or university first?

Because the entire point of democracy is to create stability by make people feel that they have representation. People get upset when they dont have that and the only way to keep them in line is through the use of force. So the most important thing is that the process is as inclusive as possible. Its never been about an informed electorate making policy decisions... at least not since ancient Greece.

Less than 30% of Canadians have a higher education degree. To implement your idea you would disenfranchise most of the population, and you would immediate be facing massive civil unrest. It would be almost impossible to come up with a worse idea.

[Argus]

I think it makes more sense to allow kids to vote, and build a class in civics around it.

The fact is your average Canadian adult is a very low value voter. They either vote ideology, or party, or they make up their minds based on 30 second sound bites and political attack ads. Kids in school could be taught to really research important issues, and given time to do so.

When I was a teenager I was one of the few who really followed politics. Looking back on myself, I was incredibly unsophisticated in my beliefs. Talk to a teenager some time and you'll find they believe very strongly in all kinds of things they've put virtually no thought into. You claim they could research things in civics classes, but that means someone is guiding their research and answering their questions, someone they would trust. But that someone will have their own biases and prejudices.

Who would be the most influential person in elections? Pop stars and celebrities. Do you want Bieber controlling a milion votes?

Edited June 18, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Because the entire point of democracy is to create stability by make people feel that they have representation.

But they don't feel that. They feel politicians are pretty much all in it for themselves and their parties and lie like rugs.

People get upset when they dont have that

I wonder. I think if the government worked pretty well most people wouldn't care. But I'm fine with providing a means to enable people to vote. They'd just have to work at it. Do something useful. Graduate from college or university or own a business or property or pay a reasonable amount in taxes or be a master electrician or something.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Argus

[dre]

When I was a teenager I was one of the few who really followed politics. Looking back on myself, I was incredibly unsophisticated in my beliefs. Talk to a teenager some time and you'll find they believe very strongly in all kinds of things they've put virtually no thought into. You claim they could research things in civics classes, but that means someone is guiding their research and answering their questions, someone they would trust. But that someone will have their own biases and prejudices.

Who would be the most influential person in elections? Pop stars and celebrities. Do you want Bieber controlling a milion votes?

It doesnt really matter who influences voters. Adults are subject to all kinds of influence as well. What matters is that the system is inclusive as possible, and that people feel like they have a say. Thats why when western democracy was created, it was decided that a person toiling in the fields should get the same voting power as an industrialist.

Youre trying to suggest reforms to a system that you dont even understand.

You claim they could research things in civics classes, but that means someone is guiding their research and answering their questions, someone they would trust.

Thats no better or worse than adults being guided by Rush Limbaugh type pundits and fire similar firebrand ideologues from both sides the political spectrum.

Edited June 18, 2014 by dre

[hitops]

Sounds like you're saying the more money you have in your pocket, the more right you should have in influencing government. Isn't that already enough of a problem?

No you wouldn't get more votes with more money, anyone paying income or property tax gets the same vote. Those who contribute nothing but only take from the country, would not get to vote.

In other words, you get a say if the government is using your money. If you are not contributing any money to gov, you shouldn't have a say over how other people's money is used.

[dre]

No you wouldn't get more votes with more money, anyone paying income or property tax gets the same vote. Those who contribute nothing but only take from the country, would not get to vote.

In other words, you get a say if the government is using your money. If you are not contributing any money to gov, you shouldn't have a say over how other people's money is used.

But voting isnt about giving a say to people that contribute to the government. Its about giving people representation into authorities they are subject to. In the absense of that the only thing the authority has left is force.

So if you want to take the vote away from young people or stupid people, or poor people fine... just dont expect them to be subject to any of the rules or laws that government makes.

You guys need to go back and do even a cursory review of the history and conditions modern democracy emerged from.

[Argus]

But voting isnt about giving a say to people that contribute to the government. Its about giving people representation into authorities they are subject to. In the absense of that the only thing the authority has left is force.

So if you want to take the vote away from young people or stupid people, or poor people fine... just dont expect them to be subject to any of the rules or laws that government makes.

How often are elections about laws? They're about money, about how much is collected and who and what it gets spent on.

[Bob Macadoo]

How often are elections about laws? They're about money, about how much is collected and who and what it gets spent on.

Ummm Bills for: Truth in Sentencing, Digital Privacy, Nadon Appointment End-run. I'm pretty sure those debtor jail wannabes care about some of these non-money things. ...if you're going to continue.....please at least put brain motion before finger.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[Argus]

Ummm Bills for: Truth in Sentencing, Digital Privacy, Nadon Appointment End-run......if you're going to continue.....please at least put brain motion before finger.

And these were big election issues, were they?

[Bob Macadoo]

And these were big election issues, were they?

Well since those economy drainers don't pay public salaries like you.......they'll care about their court sentence for 5 plant pot possession.

[jacee]

How often are elections about laws? They're about money, about how much is collected and who and what it gets spent on.

Elections are always about who's making what laws. That's what legislators do.

(edit) dre made a really good point and you haven't addressed it Argus:

So if you want to take the vote away from young people or stupid people, or poor people fine... just dont expect them to be subject to any of the rules or laws that government makes.

Make me an offer: Maybe I'll give up my vote if I no longer have to follow the government-imposed laws! You can't expect me to follow laws when I have no say.

.

Edited June 20, 2014 by jacee

[Remiel]

As long as the Government has the authority to force me to join the military and kill or be killed for them I better God damned well get the vote.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think it makes more sense to allow kids to vote, and build a class in civics around it.

The fact is your average Canadian adult is a very low value voter. They either vote ideology, or party, or they make up their minds based on 30 second sound bites and political attack ads. Kids in school could be taught to really research important issues, and given time to do so. Contrary to what people here are claiming if we did as I suggest they would probably be the best informed voting demographic that we have. And with voter turnout dropping and political apathy increasing I dont see how it can hurt to try to get kids interested in the process earlier.

I cannot agree with this for a number of reasons.

1. There is no guarantee that these kids will pass the course or pay attention, yet you would still give kids a vote regardless of if they engage themselves in the class or not.

2. You will still have some ageist line that determines who is eligible to vote, you would only lower it.

3. You wouldn't have as much an incentive for people to complete high school. The drop-out rate is poor enough as it is.

4. Such civics classes can be used as political propaganda platforms by various teachers to promote their political ideology. Many secondary schools already waste enough time on propaganda and indoctrination (the way Canadian history is taught, the choice of books used in literature classes, civics classes, playing the national anthem every day, over emphasis on remembrance day ceremonies, etc.) and are starting to waste time on other useless stuff (discovery math, feminism, etc.). High schools need to concentrate on giving the kids useful skills & knowledge that make them productive & knowledgeable members of society not institutions of indoctrination. If they wasted less time on all the other nonsense then maybe young Canadians would have a better understanding of Calculus, Algebra, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Economics, World History, Arts, Geography, Computer Programming, etc.

[-1=e^ipi]

Why not say you have to graduate from college or university first?

That is a very reasonable question.

I would argue for a HS diploma over university diploma for a number of reasons:

- HS diploma is mostly standardized, where as university diplomas are not. Many university degrees are useless while others have immense value. A degree in gender studies is not the same as a degree in theoretical physics.

- It wouldn't really be politically feasible to implement a university degree based on political backlash.

- Based on HS drop-out rates, it is probably better to add the additional incentive to the HS diploma over the university diploma.

- Given that HS is funded by the government, but it is expensive to go to university, many people might claim that they cannot afford to get the diploma to vote.

- Many people find success without getting a diploma and it isn't that hard to become educated in other ways (especially with internet availability). So a high school grad can be more informed than a university grad.

[-1=e^ipi]

You can't withhold a right.

Well apparently we can since we have a voting age... Your point is moot even if I agree with your premise that a vote is a right.

[-1=e^ipi]

But voting isnt about giving a say to people that contribute to the government. Its about giving people representation into authorities they are subject to. In the absense of that the only thing the authority has left is force.

Yes, this is very true. The primary benefit of democracy is that it discourages riots and rebellions.

[jacee]

I cannot agree with this for a number of reasons.

1. There is no guarantee that these kids will pass the course or pay attention, yet you would still give kids a vote regardless of if they engage themselves in the class or not.

How did you qualify to vote?

2. You will still have some ageist line that determines who is eligible to vote, you would only lower it.

Are you suggesting all children should be allowed to vote - ie, no "ageist line"?

3. You wouldn't have as much an incentive for people to complete high school. The drop-out rate is poor enough as it is.

Hunh? That makes no sense to me.

4. Such civics classes can be used as political propaganda platforms by various teachers to promote their political ideology. Many secondary schools already waste enough time on propaganda and indoctrination (the way Canadian history is taught, the choice of books used in literature classes, civics classes, playing the national anthem every day, over emphasis on remembrance day ceremonies, etc.) and are starting to waste time on other useless stuff (discovery math, feminism, etc.). High schools need to concentrate on giving the kids useful skills & knowledge that make them productive & knowledgeable members of society not institutions of indoctrination. If they wasted less time on all the other nonsense then maybe young Canadians would have a better understanding of Calculus, Algebra, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Economics, World History, Arts, Geography, Computer Programming, etc.

I think civics is important, understanding the basics of how our democracy is structured.

.

[jacee]

Well apparently we can since we have a voting age... Your point is moot even if I agree with your premise that a vote is a right.

We have age requirements for adult functions, true, and voting rights can't be withheld.

Again, are you suggesting that children should vote?

Do you think before you type?

.

[dre]

How often are elections about laws? They're about money, about how much is collected and who and what it gets spent on.

I never said elections are about laws... I said that democracy is about civil order and political stability. That is why we dont means test voters or IQ test voters or knowledge-test voters.

[On Guard for Thee]

No you wouldn't get more votes with more money, anyone paying income or property tax gets the same vote. Those who contribute nothing but only take from the country, would not get to vote.

In other words, you get a say if the government is using your money. If you are not contributing any money to gov, you shouldn't have a say over how other people's money is used.

Perhaps you and Harper should get a primer on our constitution.

[On Guard for Thee]

That was the condition for being allowed to vote back in the old times in England. In large part becaues it was only property owners who paid taxes. For the most part, that's still true.

Well then go back to England. I started working in Canada when I was 14 and did so for over 20 years before I put a downpayment on a house. so prior to that I shouldn't have been able to cast a ballot? sheesh

[Queenmandy85]

In 2005, I conducted a poll of 100 first year students at the University of Saskatchewan. Eight out of one hundred could name Canada's Head of State. None could correctly identify Canada's independence day. I have to wonder if low turnout might be a good thing.