Voting Age

[ChubbyChecker]

In most (all?) western countries people are allowed to vote when they turn 18.
Question is, is this right? Should the voting age be higher? Lower?

Personally I think it's fine as it is. Don't want those young scalliwags choosing my leader!

[Ragnarak]

er you started a thread to say "leave things as they are"

?

[Deepflow]

lower... i mean you might as well.

everything should be legal at 16 really imo... except for sex, you should need to be over 70 for that. 'twould be a laugh. If someones an idiot at 16 he is probably going to be an idiot at 18. Also, discussions of politics in school would probably have more relevance.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I don't really give a care although I am of the opinion that if you charge 16 year olds tax they should be allowed to vote.

But you can be charged tax at any age.

[Dante Hicks]

I'd let people vote from 12. In fact, I don't think it'd matter about voting from any age to be honest, but you could get people getting their kids to vote a specific way, and so forth.

Anyone who is at working age and above should be able to vote. Since 14 year olds can work, I don't see the justification for denying them the vote.

Younger children can pay tax, but it's less likely since most products they'll purchase will be VAT exempt, or the money will be gifted by parents, etc.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Are you sure, I thought under 16's were exempt, I have to admit to being fairly unknowledgeable on such matters. Certainly school children only pay National insurance, they don't pay income tax. I don't know what the issue is with capital gains/inheritance etc.

I paid tax on dividends before I was 16.

It was only about 50p but it was still tax.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Are you sure, I thought under 16's were exempt

'Value Added Tax'

[Proteus]

The main reason people say children can't vote is that they don't understand the issues and aren't mature enough.

However if this is the case, we should also deny the vote to immature and stupid adults.

[Dante Hicks]

Since we're in a country with an seriously ageing population, and a low voter tunrout amongst the young, the actual statistical difference of letting (say) 13+ year olds vote would be minimal.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Proteus

The main reason people say children can't vote is that they don't understand the issues and aren't mature enough.

However if this is the case, we should also deny the vote to immature and stupid adults.

Okay, but how do you decide who's not suitable to vote?
You could impose a compulsory test on everyone who chooses to vote just before / during an election. But that would be very expensive and is it worth it?

[Marilyn Manson]

Personally, if it was in any way feasable or realistic, then I'd abolish an age altogether and base it on intelligence and/or political awareness.

As it is, there should be some logic to the whole thing. It seems slightly absurd that you can be married, be working, and not have the vote to me.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

Okay, but how do you decide who's not suitable to vote?
You could impose a compulsory test on everyone who chooses to vote just before / during an election. But that would be very expensive and is it worth it?

No.

So we should abolish this absurd minimum age nonsense and let everyone vote.

Obviously very young children will be incapable of voting, but we shouldn't stop them.

[ChubbyChecker]

Abolishing the minimum age altogether seems like a bad idea to me. Then you'd just get parents taking their 6 month olds to the polling stations and demanding two votes because the other vote is for the little nipper. Hardly seems democratic to me since a 6 month old can't even speak, let alone tell you what party they want to vote for.
In this case I'd prefer just to stick to the current minimum age.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Obviously very young children will be incapable of voting, but we shouldn't stop them.

Why?!? What monstrous logic is this?!?

Incidentally, who would you disqualify, if anybody?

[Dante Hicks]

As far as I'm aware, your vote is discounted if someone is in the voting booth with you (I'm not sure how this works with disabled people). So I don't see what advantage bringing a six month old to the booth would be, since at best, they would randomly scribble on the paper.

If it isn't a rule, it'd be easy to make it one, that the person has to mark the paper themselves (unless they're paralysed or somesuch) thus making it pointless to bring infants along.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Why?!? What monstrous logic is this?!?

Not being able to read, write, walk or talk would make filling in a voting form rather difficult, I feel.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Incidentally, who would you disqualify, if anybody?

Peers of the Realm.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Hardly difficult to legislate for, also you aren't supposed to have someone with you when you vote, so 6 month year olds would be disqualified.

Children would still be incapable, and open to undue pressure and manipulation from parents or guardians. It would be a sort of equivalent of abolishing the secret ballot.


You may as well extend the franchise to people's pets, if you're going to give it to all children.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Why?!? What monstrous logic is this?!?

It seems fairly sound logic. It's like barring stupid people from obtaining Maths PhDs. If they're incapable of getting the degree, why bother legislating to stop them?

And I wouldn't really discount anyone. The amount of seriously mentally ill people (for example, currently barred from voting) isn't (generally) large enough to influence voting outcomes. I don't really see the justification for any barring from voting. Even people serving prison sentences should have some sort of say in elections.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Peers of the Realm.

heh, why? Why not lunatics, Paul Daniels, etc?

[Deepflow]

10 is the age when you become criminally responsible isnt it?

that seems fair... and you cant be that intimidated by your parents really... thats kind of the point of a secret ballot.

being INFLUENCED by your parents is another thing, but there are so many other influential things in peoples lives i don't believe that parents could make them vote a certain way. And if they did just because of thier upbringing, i think we can apply that to most 18 year olds as well. Im still probably going to vote lib dem at least for a while, and im fully aware thats because i have had a biased upbringing, my parents are both members and my mums a lib dem councillor. I did like to argue for the tories "just for fun" at the dinner table though.

on another note, im sure i was more politically aware (even in an objective sense) than nearly all of the adults who can vote from the age of about 14. So I agree with MM on the political awareness/intelligence thing, of course it would probably lead to despotism and fascism... but its never going to happen anyway so im not too bothered.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Children would still be incapable, and open to undue pressure and manipulation from parents or guardians. It would be a sort of equivalent of abolishing the secret ballot.


You may as well extend the franchise to people's pets, if you're going to give it to all children.

So we should educate children in basic politics, tell them that their vote is secret and that they can vote for whomever they want, and get politicians to produce circulars that explain their policies in simple terms.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

heh, why? Why not lunatics, Paul Daniels, etc?

Peers should be in the House of Lords, and so shouldn't be able to vote for the House of Commons.

The other disqualifications (lunatics, bankrupts and those in prison, I think) are not really valid, in my opinion, as everyone should be represented in Parliament.

Saying that someone cannot vote for their representatives because they are in prison is a but absurd, really.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It seems fairly sound logic. It's like barring stupid people from obtaining Maths PhDs. If they're incapable of getting the degree, why bother legislating to stop them?

I was refering more broadly to the point of children, etc.

My brain has not yet started running today. I had a night shift last night, and I got woken up by some tart that had chipped her tooth or something and was demanding an ambulance.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And I wouldn't really discount anyone. The amount of seriously mentally ill people (for example, currently barred from voting) isn't (generally) large enough to influence voting outcomes. I don't really see the justification for any barring from voting. Even people serving prison sentences should have some sort of say in elections.

Personally, I believe people should be qualified about a particular issue before they are given the ability of binding judgement about it.

Currently we have a right without any accompanying duties, or at least incentives for people to excercise this right in s sensible fashion. Opening it up to anyone would simply make this situation far worse.

[Deepflow]

the whole point of being in prison is a loss of rights.

e.g movement, also, funnily enough, the right to vote.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

the whole point of being in prison is a loss of rights.

e.g movement, also, funnily enough, the right to vote.

The point of being in prison is to protect society from you and to punish you.

Somehow I doubt that many criminals consider the removal of their vote a punishment.

And prisoners definitely have rights, otherwise prison guards could beat them up and rape them as much as they wanted.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So if parents interefere in your voting behaviour it's wrong, but when you have massive advertising campaigns that's OK.

Errr, the points of comparison between those are, what, exactly?

We are assuming that children are much more likely to be much more open to suggestion, and much more stunted in their capabilities, aren't we?

Incidentally I would have a cap on election spenditure if that makes you feel any better.

If children display adequate knowledge and expertise about the issues, then I'm not in favour of barring them, either. I just baulk at the suggestion that rights can't operate effectively without people having duties to accompany them.

[Deepflow]

ok... not ALL your rights... and its only a part of the punishment...

better?

bloody hell, that was so OBVIOUSLY the only sane interpretation of my statement, but the damn nitpicking on these forums...

edit : ok... maybe i shouldnt have put the whole point

[Dante Hicks]

Well, I think making judgements as to people's "capability" to vote is an entirely dodgy road to go down. Aside from being open to abuse, I'm not sure where it'd end.

I mean, I have a degree in a political field, so therefore I can vote on most issues, I suppose. But my understanding (say) of the former Exchange Rate Mechanism is hazy at best, as is a lot of economics. Do I get barred from these referenda? My views are generally described as either crazy or extreme (or both) - I'd probably fail any such test on "sensible views".

As for prisoners, I don't agree with most punishment aspects of sentencing. People are put into prison because they can't be trusted to not commit crimes if they're granted their liberty. I don't see how that invalidates their view on issues which might affect our nation indefinitely.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

That's a bit elitist, wtf do you know about anything which makes you more qualified to vote then anyone else.

Information, education, and awareness. It's what all qualification is based on, I thought.

People's views are irrelevant, and have nothing to do with qualification. But when we have views founded on ignorance, we have a problem.


OH AND GOLLY GOD, ME BEING ELITIST!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

ok... not ALL your rights... and its only a part of the punishment...

better?

bloody hell, that was so OBVIOUSLY the only sane interpretation of my statement, but the damn nitpicking on these forums...

edit : ok... maybe i shouldnt have put the whole point

The whole point of your point was that as people are deprived of rights in prison, they should be deprived of the vote. If you acknowledge that some rights are retained, then your point doesn't make any sense. Why should they still have the right to life and not the right to a vote?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

People's views are irrelevant

What a charming democratic slogan.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Peers should be in the House of Lords, and so shouldn't be able to vote for the House of Commons.

Why?

Originally Posted by Proteus

The other disqualifications (lunatics, bankrupts and those in prison, I think) are not really valid, in my opinion, as everyone should be represented in Parliament.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPPP.

If you don't vote, you're still represented by your MP.

An MP is not there just to repesent the people in his/her constituency that voted, just as they are not there to represent just those people that voted for him/her.

Originally Posted by Proteus

Saying that someone cannot vote for their representatives because they are in prison is a but absurd, really.

I agree.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What a charming democratic slogan.

What a charming example of somebody taking something completely out of context.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Proteus

The whole point of your point was that as people are deprived of rights in prison, they should be deprived of the vote. If you acknowledge that some rights are retained, then your point doesn't make any sense. Why should they still have the right to life and not the right to a vote?

or... why should they not have the right to freedom and keep the right to vote?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

The point is that your mum saying you should vote Labour is much more valid then mass advertisng which happens to everyone essentially narrowing the issues to sound bytes.

Errr, heh, why?

Your mum has both power and responsibility over you. 'You' are also almost certainly very easily influenced.

This is a tad different from an adverstising campaign targeting people that are presumably a lot more relatively mature and sensible.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

No one can ever be ripe for freedom without having it first.

Doesn't that sort of invalidate all progress, ever?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Why?

Why should they be in the House of Lords or why should being in the House of Lords mean they shouldn't be able to vote for the House of Commons?

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPPP.

If you don't vote, you're still represented by your MP.

An MP is not there just to repesent the people in his/her constituency that voted, just as they are not there to represent just those people that voted for him/her.

The whole point of democracy is that everyone has a chance to choose their representatives.

If you are going to argue that an MP represents convicts even though they didn't have a chance to vote, you might as well disenfranchise everyone except one person in each constituency, and that person can choose an MP to represent everyone.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Similar to what Dante said, who would decide who was smart enough to vote?

It's not a question of being smart; it's a question of qualificaiton.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

There is no reason why you should have an intellectual dictatorship.

There is no reason why people should have the ability of judgement over issues they know nothing about.

I can't think of anything else in society you would operate on that basis, so why should you operate society on it?

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

It is often intellectuals who are the most ignorant about what is going on in society, they lie not only to other's but to themselves. The secualr preast hood serve merely to back up the policies of the bourgeoisie.

Again, confusing intelligence with qualification.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Based on your criteria I think you should be banned form voting, I am better qualified then you and have a high level of political experience, also I think many of your opinions are insufficiently informed and ill considered.

I'm not taking about formal qualification, and I've never even mentioned political experience, so I don't know where you got that from.

Unless you're some sort of post-modernist arsehole, can we at least agree that there should be a factual and empirical basis for decision making?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Why should they be in the House of Lords or why should being in the House of Lords mean they shouldn't be able to vote for the House of Commons?

I don't understand what your argument for barring members of the Lords is yet, and as you proposed doing so, I'm still waiting for it.

I have no idea why you should bar a person in office from voting in elections for another office within the state, so long as their vote is equal to everyone else's, simply on the basis that they hold said office.

Originally Posted by Proteus

The whole point of democracy is that everyone has a chance to choose their representatives.

I'm not excluding anyone. Everyone has the ability to vote, or attain the vote under my system - very easily, I might add.

Originally Posted by Proteus

If you are going to argue that an MP represents convicts even though they didn't have a chance to vote, you might as well disenfranchise everyone except one person in each constituency, and that person can choose an MP to represent everyone.

Eh?

The MP has a duty over everyone with their constituency. This does not mean that low turnouts should be encouraged, merely that The MP should not disregard anyone.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I don't understand what your argument for barring members of the Lords is yet, and as you proposed doing so, I'm still waiting for it.

I have no idea why you should bar a person in office from voting in elections for another office within the state, so long as their vote is equal to everyone else's, simply on the basis that they hold said office.

The basis of our Parliamentary system is that there are two classes of people: Commoners, who elect representatives to the House of Commons, and the Lords, who sit in the House of Lords.

The Lords aren't Commoners, and so shouldn't be able to vote in elections to the House of Commons.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Eh?

The MP has a duty over everyone with their constituency. This does not mean that low turnouts should be encouraged, merely that The MP should not disregard anyone.

You said (or I interpreted you as saying - if I am wrong, please correct me) that even though convicts do not have the vote, they are represented in Parliament because MPs represent their whole constituency.

I think that everyone should not only be represented, but should be able to choose their representatives, unless they are unable to (babies for instance).

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Proteus

The basis of our Parliamentary system is that there are two classes of people: Commoners, who elect representatives to the House of Commons, and the Lords, who sit in the House of Lords.

The Lords aren't Commoners, and so shouldn't be able to vote in elections to the House of Commons.

That does kind of assume that our system is "right". which it obviously isnt.

Also... even in some small way that may have been correct in the past, but now lords have markedly less power than they did in the past, shouldnt they be given the vote to compensate in some way?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

The Lords aren't Commoners, and so shouldn't be able to vote in elections to the House of Commons.

This is not an argument; it's an observation.

Originally Posted by Proteus

You said (or I interpreted you as saying - if I am wrong, please correct me) that even though convicts do not have the vote, they are represented in Parliament because MPs represent their whole constituency.

Yus.

Originally Posted by Proteus

I think that everyone should not only be represented, but should be able to choose their representatives, unless they are unable to (babies for instance).

I'm not exactly denying that.

If I was saying everyone should have a mother called Hilda before they can vote, I can imagine people having a case, but I don't see why asking people to know about the area they are deciding on before they commit themselves is a denial of their political rights or anything.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

This is not an argument; it's an observation.

It's a simple consequence of our system of government.

You couldn't change it without fiddling with the Constitution, and I don't like fiddling with the Constitution, unlike certain Prime Ministers I can think of.

I like tradition, and I see no reason to abolish it.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

If I was saying everyone should have a mother called Hilda before they can vote, I can imagine people having a case, but I don't see why asking people to know about the area they are deciding on before they commit themselves is a denial of their political rights or anything.

I wasn't arguing against your system - I was arguing for the right of convicts to the vote under a system of universal suffrage.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I like tradition, and I see no reason to abolish it.

Tradition in on itself has no basis as a real value.

Originally Posted by Proteus

I wasn't arguing against your system - I was arguing for the right of convicts to the vote under a system of universal suffrage.

Oh, well rightio then.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Tradition in on itself has no basis as a real value.

Well, there are many different systems of government around, and none of them seem to work as well as our constitutional monarchy and House of Lords.

Granted, we seem to be in trouble at the moment as Tony has kicked out most of the hereditary peers and appointed cronies in their place who will do anything he says, but hopefully someone will fix that at some point.

[JonnyBGood]

Same you hold people responsible for their actions at, I think that's 12 or 13 in most places.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Unless you're some sort of post-modernist arsehole, can we at least agree that there should be a factual and empirical basis for decision making?

Yes, the rational way people should make decisions is on facts interpreted by informed theories. But I don't see how this is relevent. People base their shopping decisions on all-sorts of silly ideas (brands being cool, certain products being “environmentally friendly” and such). These decisions have impact on everyone else (one company gaining in value, investment decisions being shifted around, etc). So what? Yes, we can appeal to reason, but we don’t arbritrarily revoke people’s rights on the basis they don’t meet our lofty ideals.

People are expected to pay for government, to be affected by it’s decisions, and potentially to die in a war based on their government’s decisions. Yet they’re not allowed to make a decision on these same rulers because they don’t meet your guide of qualified?

Yes, it would be silly if the head of a (say) professional association was chosen by people who had no idea about that profession. But this is the state, which (unfortunately) occupies a very special place in society.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

But this is the state, which (unfortunately) occupies a very special place in society.

Perhaps that's the problem.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Well, there are many different systems of government around, and none of them seem to work as well as our constitutional monarchy and House of Lords.

That's rests on what you consider to be a good working system.

Personally, I'd say that our system was no more democractically or accountably superior than any other democracy. In fact, I'd say that ours was probably one of the most backward.

I don't consider having a hugely powerful executive - which is about the only really prominent feature of the system - to be a good thing, personally.

Originally Posted by Proteus

Granted, we seem to be in trouble at the moment as Tony has kicked out most of the hereditary peers and appointed cronies in their place who will do anything he says, but hopefully someone will fix that at some point.

The hereditary peers are effectively irrelevant to this, but they are an objectionable anachronism that I am pleased to have seen done away with. The main problem is the power of the government, or more precisely, the Prime Minister's to appoint life peers. This is an enduring and totally indefensible nonsense. The fact that The Tories have only started banaging on about it now, when they were quite happy to use it for their own purposes for many decades without a squeak is shamelessly hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well if you are asking someone how much tax they should pay, what sort of social services they should have and so forth then their opinion is valid as anyone's.

I fail to see why one persons opinion, with benefit of knowledge and insight, and anothers, mired in ignorance could in anyway be counted as being equal on a matter.

Of course, this does not neccesarily mean that the knowledgable person will act totally rationally and without prejudice - but it ensures the best grounds for a good opinion based on the facts.

Saying otherwise is a gross nonsense. You may as well say that my opinion on physics is as valid as Jenny's.

Originally Posted by Proteus

If they don't know enough it is the duty of the state to educate them.

Why, when people can educate themselves as a result of a carrot/stick method?

Oh, and state education will not sustain a knowledge of the issues throughout life, even if such an education existed. My system will.

Toccata & Fugue I think you are assuming that peopel are uniterested in the issues,

Well, it's not so much that. I merely don't see the basis for claiming that everybody can form an equally valid view on something, when clearly people cannot. This is not merely the case with political issues, but with every subject known to man.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

but most peoel are. If peopel are turned off by politics it is possibly because many issues are tivialised, deliberatly made over complicated by politicians, given woeful coverage by the media and framed in the wrong terms.

Surely the belief that the system is buggered is an argument in favour of more interest and action in the political sphere, not less?

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Just because you may consider yourselve as having the wherewithall to understand politics, that doesn't mean you should deny it to others.

I don't understand this bit. I'm not sure if I've denied anybody the ability to understand politics, in fact, I would say that I've given them an insentive to do so.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I for one find impossible to express my aspirations for society through one single vote

When did I say that people did have to do that?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

The hereditary peers are effectively irrelevant to this, but they are an objectionable anachronism that I am pleased to have seen done away with. The main problem is the power of the government, or more precisely, the Prime Minister's to appoint life peers. This is an enduring and totally indefensible nonsense. The fact that The Tories have only started banaging on about it now, when they were quite happy to use it for their own purposes for many decades without a squeak is shamelessly hypocritical.

Hereditary Peers are unelected, and so don't need to please constituencies, and unappointed, so they aren't party cronies.

Obviously the fact that they are unelected means that they can't run the country, which is the job of the House of Commons, but they do provide a check on the powers of the Commons and a lot of experience of politics and government affairs.

Any other way of making up a second chamber is inferior to this system, in my opinion.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Who decides who is in the House of Lords, who decides what qualifications are needed to be a Lord. Lords are just as susceptible to influence and cronism as MP's. Lords are unaccountable for their decisions.

A better system for a second chamber would be proportional representation across the whole nation.

This would not solve a god damn thing though.

Down with parliamentarianism.