Is 16 years Old Enough To Vote?

[jacee]

Correction.

You have the right to vote for someone, who in turn, will make the decisions upon your behalf!

You have absolutely no right to vote on ANY DECISIONS that may effect you!

If you think a pile of crap is worth fighting for, then you have been brainwashed into thinking a pile of crap is the Taj Mahal!

WWWTT

You don't get around much do you?

.

[Queenmandy85]

You have influence in policy when you nominate your party's candidate. As a citizen, you have a responsibility to choose a capable candidate who shares your views, and the ensure that candidate is nominated and then work to:

a. identify the vote

b. get out the vote.

It is not enough to just get off your ass and vote.

If you don't campaign, you have no right to complain.

[Rue]

I am going to try focus a bit on some of the psychological issues with mid adolescence that I believe should give concern when considering whether 16 year olds should vote.

What we do know is that there is still a very wide range in variation in the physical, emotional, psychological and intellectual development levels of a 16 year old that are not as pronounced as with an 18 year old.

At the 13-16 age range, mid aolescence is a time where the young person is still dealing with changes to their body and thus body image is crucial.

Issues as to preoccupation with body image enable exploitation of young persons.

Its normal for people this age to feel insecure and therefore easily manipulated.

They have one foot in the door and one foot out the door. They test adulthood but they are not yet ready for it. Like say Quebec seperatists they talk a big game when demanding independence, but they still expect to be taken care of and have access to their parent's car, food and like separatists, their parent's (federal government's) currency.

Adolescents are experiencing a burst in size in their front lobe. This causes some tell tale effects such as the perception of very distinct black and white perspectives. Their brains are quick to pick up the difference between black and white but have difficulty perceiving the subtle shades of grey or the wide range of colours between the black and white. Their brains work in the here and now or immediate moment.

Teens are for this reason quick to pick up on the fact adults say one thing, but act out or do another. They see the world as hostile, two-faced, contradictory and unforgiving.

That can make for very compassionate young teens who want to change the world and make it more caring and it an also make for some very self centered cold selfish little pricks.

There is still also a remarkable range of physical maturity level between young teens. Some are still very much changing physically and some are emotionally much more naïve than others.

Then there is intellectual development. As Piaget proved a long time ago, children's intellectual capacity grows in uneven spurts not a steady flat line. This means some 16 year olds can be absolutely brilliant and well spoken while others can be as dumb as a door post.

What I am worried about is how Hitler showed and certainly other fascist, communist and extremist terrorist organizations and religious movements have shown, is how easy it is to control the minds of young inexperienced youth.

I personally believe having to deal with coming of age issues, sexuality, uncertainty over career, cause enough pressures without adding to it voting.

I do not doubt 16 year olds think they are adults and should do anything adults do but the fact is they are emotionally unstable, volatile, more prone to accidents, mistakes, anger outbursts, and over all anxiety.

They are in my opinion overloaded enough. Instead of adding to their burden I say give them a bit more time to breath and adapt.

To me lowering the voting age is interesting. If we do that why 16? Why not 14? Why not 12? Why have restrictions on what movies they can see, on drinking, smoking tobacco, going to war? Why treat them differently when they commit crimes?

Its interesting but when you mention those other rights that come with adulthood I don't see Dre or anyone saying yah yah, let's lower the age to go into the army, be bound by a contract, be put in an adult prison.

Its interesting there is a pick and choose from the adult menu type argument.

No sorry it does not work that way. You old enough to vote? Then guess what, you are old enough to work, pay bills, die in war.

Adulthood is not something you get to pick and choose from some fast food menu.

No I do not think a 16 year old is capable of entering into contracts, having consensual sex with an adult many years older than them or younger than them. No we should not sell booze or cigarettes to teens. No I do not know too many teens at 16 who can drive long haul distance trucks. Let's get real,

The discussion as to lowering the age gained traction because of monkey see and monkey do. There was discussion in the US about whether 16 year olds should vote and then in Britain with the Scotland referendum so some wannabees in Canada jumped on the bandwagon.

Interestingly there has been no grass roots movement of teens in the UK, U S or Canada demanding the vote.

Now finally someone tell me with a straight face, is a 16 year old capable of being a member of parliament, Primer Minister,a cabinet Minister, of course not. If they vote though we are saying they are capable of picking competent ones however and in theory any 16 year old who votes can also be elected. Just what we need, some teens in Parliament.

Like they won't be manipulated.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Rue

[Bob Macadoo]

Just what we need, some teens in Parliament.

You mean like him?

http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2011/05/03/dusseault_becomes_canadas_youngestever_mp_at_19/pierrelucdusseault.jpeg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpeg

[jacee]

You have influence in policy when you nominate your party's candidate. As a citizen, you have a responsibility to choose a capable candidate who shares your views, and the ensure that candidate is nominated and then work to:

a. identify the vote

b. get out the vote.

It is not enough to just get off your ass and vote.

If you don't campaign, you have no right to complain.

Not required.

And I still have rights.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Correction.

You have the right to vote for someone, who in turn, will make the decisions upon your behalf!

You have absolutely no right to vote on ANY DECISIONS that may effect you!

If you think a pile of crap is worth fighting for, then you have been brainwashed into thinking a pile of crap is the Taj Mahal!

WWWTT

Here's a couple of words to go look up: Plebiscite and Referendum. Do you think we working people really have time to vote on every bill that comes along? That's why we vote for people to do that work for us.

[WWWTT]

You don't get around much do you?

.

Is that the best you got?

Man that's pathetic.

Name a motion or a private members bill you last introduced.

I will also accept a resolution that you voted on.

The best chance you got of living in a democracy, is at the municipal/local level.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

That's why we vote for people to do that work for us.

You perfectly answered why you do not live in a democracy.

Actually, you have about a 1 in 50,000 chance of ever voting on or having the ability to introduce anything to do with government.

Try at the municipal level, your best odds are there.

Of and by the way, unless you actually write the check in your name and sign it, nobody works for you! Don't believe me? Go to Queens park/Parliament hill/local municipal offices and try to fire someone. If you do, you'll be kissing the pavement real fast buddy, or better yet, spending the night in jail!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

You have influence in policy when you nominate your party's candidate. As a citizen, you have a responsibility to choose a capable candidate who shares your views, and the ensure that candidate is nominated and then work to:

a. identify the vote

b. get out the vote.

It is not enough to just get off your ass and vote.

If you don't campaign, you have no right to complain.

BS!

If your candidate gets in, they are now a sock puppet for the leader of the party Guess you never heard of "towing the party line"

Possibly if you contribute thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours, and have many allies on the riding association executive, you may be able to squek out a rough private members bill. If it gets the leaders approval.

But is it worth it? Nope!

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

You perfectly answered why you do not live in a democracy.

Actually, you have about a 1 in 50,000 chance of ever voting on or having the ability to introduce anything to do with government.

Try at the municipal level, your best odds are there.

Of and by the way, unless you actually write the check in your name and sign it, nobody works for you! Don't believe me? Go to Queens park/Parliament hill/local municipal offices and try to fire someone. If you do, you'll be kissing the pavement real fast buddy, or better yet, spending the night in jail!

WWWTT

So I guess you believe then that in, say, the 2011 federal election that Micheal Ignatief just decided to quit politics on his own then and the Liberals just decided on their own to become the "third" party because they wanted to sit in a different spot in the house? Uh huh.

[jacee]

Is that the best you got?

Man that's pathetic.

Name a motion or a private members bill you last introduced.

I will also accept a resolution that you voted on.

The best chance you got of living in a democracy, is at the municipal/local level.

WWWTT

I assume you're referring to your idea of referenda for everything? I don't agree with that as people are often not well informed on every issue and easily manipulated by political propaganda, media, etc.

We have a parliament for open public discussion to air the issues, and representatives to contact to let our views be known.

We need PR for more diversity of views in those discussions.

I'm not sure about 16 year olds voting, but I think the shadow voting process is interesting and deserves more media attention. A shadow parliament would also be interesting to see what 16-18 year old fresh eyes and minds think about national, regional and local issues.

.

[WWWTT]

So I guess you believe then that in, say, the 2011 federal election that Micheal Ignatief just decided to quit politics on his own then and the Liberals just decided on their own to become the "third" party because they wanted to sit in a different spot in the house? Uh huh.

Ya that was just a side note.

Guess you rather argue the little side notes because you have nothing else.

Still waiting to see a copy of that cheque you write your MP every month.

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

Ya that was just a side note.

Guess you rather argue the little side notes because you have nothing else.

Still waiting to see a copy of that cheque you write your MP every month.

WWWTT

A verifiable side note. Which is a little more than you seem to have.

[WWWTT]

I assume you're referring to your idea of referenda for everything? I don't agree with that as people are often not well informed on every issue and easily manipulated by political propaganda, media, etc.

We have a parliament for open public discussion to air the issues, and representatives to contact to let our views be known.

We need PR for more diversity of views in those discussions.

I'm not sure about 16 year olds voting, but I think the shadow voting process is interesting and deserves more media attention. A shadow parliament would also be interesting to see what 16-18 year old fresh eyes and minds think about national, regional and local issues.

.

Guess you never heard of an omnibus bill and how that works for open discussion.

I also guess your mp calls you personally to ask you how to vote too right?

Oh ya, and where on that referendum can you forward your own bill????

You know what, you better quit now because you're just helping me prove why we don't live an democracy.

Like I said before, if you really believe voting matters, than allow younger voters. If you think that allowing younger voters will actually usher in a new government, then you're way in too far!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

A verifiable side note. Which is a little more than you seem to have.

Whatever buddy, keep voting.

If the government does something you don't like, vote even harder!

That'll teach em a lesson!

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

Whatever buddy, keep voting.

If the government does something you don't like, vote even harder!

That'll teach em a lesson!

WWWTT

And your alternative suggestion would be? Oer the ramparts or some such nonsense?

[Queenmandy85]

WWWTT, you seem to want some kind of pure democracy. We have a system where we elect someone to study the issues, hash them out in caucus and then in Parliament. What makes you think you could do any better? The House of Commons is a pretty good reflection of the electorate. If MP's are venal and dishonest, the you have to admit they are just like the rest of us. I've only known a few MP's, two leaders of the opposition, five cabinet ministers and one Prime Minister. They were a pretty good bunch. They work 80 hours a week, and get little or no thanks.

Sixteen year olds lack the life experience to understand that just about anything they suggest has been tried before. Classic definition of insanity- trying the same thing over and over and expecting the different results. That's why the ultimate decision is in the hands of the executive.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Queenmandy85

[WWWTT]

WWWTT, you seem to want some kind of pure democracy. We have a system where we elect someone to study the issues, hash them out in caucus and then in Parliament.

More BS!

Never said what kind of system was best or what I would suggest. Just pointing out that our system IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!

What we have is a system that is susceptible to corruption, manipulation and being/already has been commandeered!

All the orders come out of the PM's office. Don't like it, well then you will get kicked out of caucus, and good luck getting re elected as an independent.

Bet you can't name more that a handful of indi's!

Like I said before, try your luck at the local level. But even there, you will still need a 6 figure campaign expense smaller outer regions the only exception.

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

More BS!

Never said what kind of system was best or what I would suggest. Just pointing out that our system IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!

What we have is a system that is susceptible to corruption, manipulation and being/already has been commandeered!

All the orders come out of the PM's office. Don't like it, well then you will get kicked out of caucus, and good luck getting re elected as an independent.

Bet you can't name more that a handful of indi's!

Like I said before, try your luck at the local level. But even there, you will still need a 6 figure campaign expense smaller outer regions the only exception.

WWWTT

We are all ears to hear what your description of democracy would be. But don't spend a lot of time typing, it will probably be mostly ignored.

[WWWTT]

We are all ears - it will probably be mostly ignored.

LOL!

WWWTT

[Queenmandy85]

WWWTT wrote: "Never said what kind of system was best or what I would suggest. Just pointing out that our system IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!"

I guess we agree. I should pay closer attention.

In theory, of course, the PM serves at the pleasure of the Party Caucus. It is because Canadians have grown too lazy to get involved in the nomination and election process that we have ended up with sheep for MP's. It all comes down to the citizen doing due diligence in selecting quality candidates. That hasn't been happening;- witness the "orange crush" in Quebec.

The worst thing ever introduced in the process is the requirement that a party leader must sign the candidate's nomination papers. It places too much power in the hands of the party.

[Rue]

I am tempted to argue the concepts WWWT has expressed illustrate classic adolescent cognition, i.e.;

i-everything is stated in extremes;

ii-the world is seen as a hostile place;

iii-perceived differences of opinion are considered personally threatening.

I could go on but WWWT's concepts make an excellent argument for why it may be a bit problematic for a 16 year old to dettach sufficiently from their emotions when making decisions and why they still need some breathing room to allow their frontal lobes to complete their growth spurt and hormones and emotions to settle down just a bit more.

Teens tend to see in extremes and view most of which they disagree with as a threat. They certainly would add intensity of emotional reaction into political debate but whether it would be rational or not is another story.

Here have some fun. Just type onto google or yahoo, angry teen.

There is a reason teens are moody. There is a reason they are prone to gang violence, following gangs, vandalism, fighting, graffiti, forced sex without consent, drug and alcohol abuse, eating disorders, mood disorders, anxiety, depression, its a tough time. Its a tough time when feelings intensify perceptions of what's wrong with the world.

.

Just who is it in such a rush to make them start making world decisions and why? Who? The person in the picture Bob Mc produced in response to me? Is that the classic teen? Clearly that was the picture of a brain sucking alien zombie.

Or is it cynical adults looking to manipulate easily controllable teens?

If teens are mature enough to be involved in politics at 16 or 17, the fact they do not vote will not stop them. They will organize, get involved as party workers and provide their candidates of choice as much value as any one vote they would give.

I still argue, leave teens alone to catch their breath. Surely they have enough crap to deal with and inherit. 18 is soon enough to have the world shoved in your face when you might not be totally prepared for it.

As for that alien BobMc produced, what he needs is some Jack Daniels, a couple of hours of Janis Joplin, maybe some LSD, or some magic mushroom, and a sit down to watch the Popeye cartoons with Alice the Goon to lighten him up.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Rue

[Michael Hardner]

This is just another inane and pointless thread topic contribution. Well done again Big Guy condescending douche.

Bob - altering quotes in this way is considered an insult, so please don't do it.

[Moonbox]

Thank you for what appears to be a helpful and congratulatory post. As to what criteria one is supposed to use to start a thread or what makes it not inane or to a point - please share them with me so that I may learn.

Maybe go for quality over quantity. Bringing up relevant news, current events, or thoughtful topics is one thing, but a brief glance reveals this board is swamped with Big Guy thread topics, some of them interesting, some of them on the wrong boards, many of them complete duds.

Time for a nuclear Canada? Unpaid Internships = Slave Labour? Why are Charles and Camilla visiting Canada? Should Canada lower the voting age to 16? My favourite: India goes in a new direction (on Canadian Federal Politics board).

The proper response for most of these topics is some combination of *eye roll*, *yawn* or "lolno".

[Wilber]

What's the pont, 18 - 24 year olds already have the lowest voter turnout of any age group. Change it back to 21.