Should you be able to vote at 16

A new survey of 1000 15-17 year olds carried out by the national youth foundation showed that 90% of respondents couldn't name an MEP and only 50% could name their local TD

Story here , there was also a piece on morning Ireland this morning discussing the poll.
Is it time, that a course on politics was made compulsary at least for the leaving cert and preferably also for the junior cert?
I would tend to agree with the education idea, but at the same time, I recognise that those who feel strongly enough to do so, can usually find where to express their frustration on a ballot paper.
Discuss.

Beruthiel

well I have a 16 year old, and though I discuss politics while she’s in the room, she still knows sfa about it, probably cos I spend most of my time bitching about Bush, so she knows more about American politics than Irish, I imagine that it would be ok to lower it to 16 as the only ones who would bother voting are those who have a real interest, I don't see the harm in it tbh.

oscarBravo

The line needs to be drawn somewhere. My experience is that 18-year-olds are at the early edge of the maturity level required to make this kind of decision. At 16, there is neither the maturity nor the real-world experience to contribute to a decision that affects everyone's lives.

IMHO.

GuanYin

To be fair I know little about Irish politics other than what is blatently obvious to someone my age trying to live in this country.

I keep an eye on US politics because I'm looking a bit towards the future and, well, frankly its more entertaining.

Seriously though, its a bit grey to me, I know there are plenty of 16 year olds out there far more informed about politics than I am, so on that sense I think age is a bit of a silly thing to go by.

What is important is that 16 year olds don't have too many alterations to their lifestyle as a consequence of the government. The brunt of these things, even the ones that are related to 16 year olds, are felt by the parents or guardians.

So even though I'm a political dunce, I can and will vote based on how the government in question effects my lifestyle as a worker, earning a wage, paying a mortgage/rent etc etc.

I would be in favour of worker-vote entitlement for those who leave school to enter a trade or profession before 18 as again, voting is something that is likely to directly effect them.

I've a cold and I ramble when I'm sick.

leeroybrown

I'd prefer to see the voting entitlement stay at 18 years old.

While many 16 year olds have knowlege of the political system and mature opinions, a significantly larger percentage of them don't when compared to the 18 year old age group.

Also, I don't feel that giving younger people a vote is a good solution to political apathy.

Adding a course on 'politics' to the Leaving Cert course, while an admirable idea, does cause instant problems for students who already have heavy workloads. With the exception of physical education and career guidance classes I found all my non academic material an unnecessary encumbrance and in general grew to despise it. I think the Junior Cert already addresses this as part of the CSPE (Civic, Social and Political Education) course which is compulsory.

Perhaps making them read the Irish Times, the Phoenix, Private Eye and watch Have I Got News for you might be the best solution.

The majority of 16 year olds are still living at home. They're not responsible for themselves, and thus, are not responsible enough to make judgements that involve the running of the State. When they start paying taxes, and are legally responsible for their actions, thats when they should have the right to vote (18). Definetly not before.

As for Irish Politics, I know more abt International Politics than i do Irish Politics, simply because its the same crap year after year. Still, I continue to vote at referendums.

Base line. If you're under the roof of yur parents, if you're not contributing to the country as a worker/taxes, you should have no involvement in voting. Period.

flogen

No.

some may know alot, maybe more than you or I, but from my experience alot know very little, or just dont care at all.
I dont mean to make a general statement, but in my experience, that age group is rife with RA heads who listen to Wolfe Tones as gospel.

Flogen

Adding a course on 'politics' to the Leaving Cert course, while an admirable idea, does cause instant problems for students who already have heavy workloads.

I must admit i can't see the point of such a course. What would they learn? Irish Politics - Number of investigations into corruption, the number of crap politicians, the changes in opinions etc.

All I can see such a course doing would make them disillusioned quicker than normal.

ixoy

No. The problem isn't that young people feel unable to vote - it's that they just don't care about the vote. The successive governments (which is, frankly, the same one) are quite faceless and nothing seems to ever really change (we don't do exciting things like invade countries). The only way to really associate anything with the government is when something mildly interesting happens - like a corruption scandal.

I think what's needed is to actually really get across the concept of a vote making an actual difference and not lowering the voting age.

arcadegame2004

No. I think that when I was 16 (I am now 24), I would have said "Yes". But that was before I studied economics and business-organisation for my Leaving-Cert, and that revolutionised my political outlook. Before then, I believed the claptrap that companies are better providers of goods and services when they are state-owned monopolies where people have no choice over what company provides the service. Learning these two subjects woke me up totally on that. As such, I feel that had I had the vote at 16, I would have definitely made the wrong decision in elections. Leave the age at 18.

mike65

No - as most 16 year olds can't be counted upon to bring home the right bread....(there's logic in there somewhere)

Moriarty

No. In fact, I think it should have been left at 21 or maybe lowered to 20. It's really only at that age that people begin to properly mature and start to have an understanding of the world around them, along with starting to 'firm up' on the general ideas that they believe in.

Lowering the voting age would serve no useful purpose and may have many disadvantages.

Emboss

i don't see why you should have to be 18 to pick a criminal to control the country.

i think we should ban everyone from voting

except 16-18 yr olds

they seem to know it all anyway...........

Is it time, that a course on politics was made compulsary at least for the leaving cert and preferably also for the junior cert?

No f*cking way, we all ready shove enough useless sh&te down their throats without adding more.

We should be looking towards ways of keeping kids in school making it more enjoyable to learn things they might actually want to learn/need/use in the real world.

not feeding them crap....

BuffyBot

No f*cking way, we all ready shove enough useless sh&te down their throats without adding more.

Some political education would probably go a lot further and make more of a difference than some of the subjects taught.

Washout

I dont think 16 is old enough.

How many 16 year olds show real interest in politics. Heck let them concentrate on more imoprtant matters like getting their leaving certificate.

Then again how many 18+ year olds have any interest in irish politics. We seem to spend more time talking about internation affairs rather than our own

MrPudding

Originally posted by klaz
The majority of 16 year olds are still living at home. They're not responsible for themselves, and thus, are not responsible enough to make judgements that involve the running of the State. .

You are joking right? In my experience down here most 20 to 30 year old still live at home. If having your own gaff was a requirement to vote we would have a lot less registered voters.

Although I can see the problem I think it would be good to somehow introduce politics into the school system. I know that there is plenty of work as it is but some kind of civic awareness/political awareness, I feel would be most beneficial. I think if 16 year old were given a vote, in conjunction with being given a better understanding what their vote is for and why it is important, it would benefit society as a whole.

I think that short term the benefits might be small, but in the long term we would see an increasingly politically aware population. Most of them would be young and would hopefully have a different idea of what makes a good politician (it seems to me that people in Ireland seem to think that someone who bends or breaks the law and gets away with it is good). It might also increase the number of younger people getting into politics.

All in all I think it would be good for the country.

MrP

You are joking right? In my experience down here most 20 to 30 year old still live at home. If having your own gaff was a requirement to vote we would have a lot less registered voters.

Actually, i was talking about the responsibility that goes with having a job, being capable of being tried as an adult in a court of law, and the payment of taxes. If they're not supplying any of those conditions, I don't think they have the "right" to vote. They're not members as such yet. Their parents are.

Superman

Originally posted by MrPudding
If having your own gaff was a requirement to vote we would have a lot less registered voters.

yes yes, only the land owning gentry class should be given the right to vote, while the peaseant class shine boots and tend to the crops.:D

alot of 16 year old know a good bit about politics, but alot m,ore don't and could easily be roped in by various parties using tricks. like say legalising weed (not that its a bad thing)

My point is that teenage years are for reading papers and learning in life and develoiping views. So that by the time you are 18 you can say what you door do not agree with.

As for having a Politics course it would be a good idea, the CSPE couse should bew developed in transition year, in order to give teenagers (not talking down to u guys , i'm 19) a holistic viewof their role in society. Call it a "Social Knowledge Couse".

Gurgle

16 ?
Let them vote at 14!
Teenagers are much less likely to vote 'traditionally' than older people.
In my experience, many 'mature' people use their vote for one of 2 reasons:

- My parents/in-laws/husband/wife/friends have voted FF/FG/Whatever since 1922 and I'm not going to change now

- Mickey Joe there is a grand fella, lets vote for him

Teenagers might just display enough independant thought to use their vote based on issues.

Many middle aged people to older people float along on the basis that they did their thinking 30 years ago and aren't going to rethink now, as though admitting they were wrong in the first place.

Superman

Originally posted by Gurgle
Let them vote at 14!
Teenagers are much less likely to vote 'traditionally' than older people.

Yes what a brilliant reason!! I see you really give a shit!

Gurgle

Originally posted by Superman
Yes what a brilliant reason!! I see you really give a ****!

And us adults are doing such a great job of electing "leaders".

IMHO, its a damn good reason.

I think, then vote.
That puts me one up on damn near everyone else.

We elect people but its parties that win or lose. The person you voted for will, in most situations have no say in how his vote is used in the Dail, thats decided by the party leadership.

We're not even told what the party is planning to do once they are in.

Examples:
Did you hear anything about the smoking ban in the last general elections ?

Was there any mention of whether Ireland would support the "liberation" of the middle east ?

How much difference does it make what party does the 95% paper-pushing part of government ?

Its the other 5% we (the people) should be consulted on, but are not.

Fact is, teenagers do have and are entitled to an opinion.

We, who should know better, sell our votes for lower income tax and end up paying just as much tax in different ways.

Why shouldn't elections be won on lost on actual issues ?

Originally posted by Gurgle
A
Fact is, teenagers do have and are entitled to an opinion.

Agreed, but below 16 how well informed are those opinions compared with your average adult?
What emotional and un reasoned ideas might be floating through many of their heads?
After 16 they mightn't be too well informed/experienced either or after 40 for that matter.
But you are far more likely to get a better decision out of an adult that out of a fourteen year old.
I'd have thought that was a given.

And us adults are doing such a great job of electing "leaders".

True enough, but its us adults that face the consequences of the voting. we're the ones that lose to tax raises, benchmarking, rip-off ireland etc.

Teenagers might have some good ideas, but their idea's would have no real affect on them. Their decisions would affect everyone over the age of 18 though.

Fact is, teenagers do have and are entitled to an opinion.

They're entitled to an opinion. A vote on the other hand, they're not.

We, who should know better, sell our votes for lower income tax and end up paying just as much tax in different ways.

Aye, but we're the ones that pay for the running of the country, and face the pain should the government that was voted in ****s up.

I'll never vote to allow under 18's the ability to vote, unless they lower the age limit for adult offenses, and also start taxing teenagers. Until, they have a real stake in the success or failure of the country, they can continue to sit on the sidelines with their opinions.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Gurgle
And us adults are doing such a great job of electing "leaders".

IMHO, its a damn good reason.

Let me see if I've read you correctly: the governments elected by adults have left something to be desired, ergo a government elected by children must necessarily be superior?

Methinks someone needs a level 3 diagnostic on their logic circuits...

I think, then vote.
That puts me one up on damn near everyone else.

I'm impressed by your humility, if nothing else.

Tell me: what percentage of "everyone else" did you canvass to arrive at this conclusion? What percentage of your survey sample counts as "damn near everyone"?

We elect people but its parties that win or lose. The person you voted for will, in most situations have no say in how his vote is used in the Dail, thats decided by the party leadership.

That's a completely different issue - and one on which we're agreed - but I don't see how allowing children to vote would have a bearing on it.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by klaz
I'll never vote to allow under 18's the ability to vote, unless they lower the age limit for adult offenses, and also start taxing teenagers. Until, they have a real stake in the success or failure of the country, they can continue to sit on the sidelines with their opinions.

I think it's safest to avoid confusing the concepts of taxation and suffrage (Boston Tea Parties notwithstanding). I've been paying income tax - continuously - since I was sixteen. Many adults don't pay tax (for various different reasons). Keep the issues separate.

bonkey

Originally posted by Gurgle
We elect people but its parties that win or lose. The person you voted for will, in most situations have no say in how his vote is used in the Dail, thats decided by the party leadership.

And allowing minors to vote will change this, how?

Why shouldn't elections be won on lost on actual issues ?

They should be. But again, how does giving minor's a vote bring this about?

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz
Until, they have a real stake in the success or failure of the country, they can continue to sit on the sidelines with their opinions.

As OscarBravo has pointed out, having a stake in your country is not down to whether you pay tax or not. 16 year olds clearly do have a stake in the future of the country.

I'm tempted to take the opposite tack to some people posting here and say that 16 year olds should be allowed vote precisely because they're not job-holding, home-owning people. Because they're not in the position of having all these individual interests to protect, they should be able to take a wider view of what's good for society as a whole. With less to conserve, they may even be less conservative.

Keep the issues separate.

Oscar, Do you understand where i'm coming from though?

i.e. Until Teenagers face the consequences of Voting, I don't believe that they should have the right to vote. As things stand their parents take the brunt of most consequences.

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz
i.e. Until Teenagers face the consequences of Voting, I don't believe that they should have the right to vote. As things stand their parents take the brunt of most consequences.

Won't younger people by definition be facing the consequences for longer than us older people? Since very old people won't be 'facing the consequences' for much longer, should we take away their vote, as otherwise they'll only use it irresonsibly?

Gurgle

Originally posted by shotamoose
With less to conserve, they may even be less conservative.

I think I was trying to say something along those lines in the first place.

Originally posted by bonkey
They should be. But again, how does giving minor's a vote bring this about?

From vague memories of being 16, I think my vote would have been won more on issues than personalities/parties.

IMHO, the voters of Ireland are too conservative.
Teenagers, in the process of rebelling are likely to be anti-conservative.

This could possibly lead to a balance, enabling political progress rather than the current status-quo.

quote:

---

I think, then vote.
That puts me one up on damn near everyone else.

---

OK, I withdraw that bit!
Though I have spoken to quite a lot of people who were determined to vote a particular way but would/could not give any reasons.

Originally posted by oscarbravo
Let me see if I've read you correctly: the governments elected by adults have left something to be desired, ergo a government elected by children must necessarily be superior?

I dare you to go to a lecture room full of 1st year engineers and announce that everyone there under 18 is a child and that their opinions should be ignored.

bonkey

Originally posted by Gurgle
I think I was trying to say something along those lines in the first place.

I would rephrase it and say that its not that the youth are more conservative...I'd see them as more "anti-establishment".

From vague memories of being 16, I think my vote would have been won more on issues than personalities/parties.

So what are you saying? Now you have the vote, you no longer vote regarding issues? Why not? And if you think letting 16 year olds do this is the solution, is an equal solution not to recognise the failings in your own voting style and revert to what you're saying is a better option?

Teenagers, in the process of rebelling are likely to be anti-conservative.

Rebelling is "anti-system", not "anti-conservative". They're just as anti-liberal as anti-conservative.

This could possibly lead to a balance, enabling political progress rather than the current status-quo.

How? How do these people make up such a large voting block that they would lead to such a balance?

And more importantly....what possible reason do you have to believe that this "anti-conservatism" only lasts until they are 18? Because thats implicit in the assumption that we need them to add a missing element. If 18-year-olds were still anti-conservative, they too would be able to provide some of this balance....but where is that in evidence? Its not.

I dare you to go to a lecture room full of 1st year engineers and announce that everyone there under 18 is a child and that their opinions should be ignored.

I dare you to go into a secondary school and tell it to the first years there. I'm pretty sure you'll get the same reaction. Does that mean that secondary school attendees are all adults as well????

jc

oscarBravo

Originally posted by klaz
Oscar, Do you understand where i'm coming from though?

Oh I understand alright - it's just that I don't agree.

i.e. Until Teenagers face the consequences of Voting, I don't believe that they should have the right to vote. As things stand their parents take the brunt of most consequences.

Everybody faces the consequences of the choices made in elections - including tourists, to take an edge case. I see your point, but I don't see it as a useful determinant.

To be honest, I'm uncomfortable with delineation like this at the best of times. The law seems to suggest that on the day before your 18th birthday you're not sufficiently enlightened, informed, mature or whatever to vote, and that that situation changes the following day. This obviously isn't the case. The true situation is that newborn infants don't have the capacity to make informed choices in these matters, whereas forty-year-olds (theoretically) do. In the absence of a scientific criterion to establish competence to vote, a fairly arbitrary age in between is chosen. As I've said, as arbitrary divisions go, your eighteenth birthday seems a better one to me than your sixteenth.

Oh I understand alright - it's just that I don't agree.

Okies. Fair enough.

bonkey

Lads...for the people who think that dropping the voting requirement by 2 years would have a significant impact...consider the following :

According to the 2002 census :

Age 15-24 : 641,522
Age 25+ : 2,448,253

Now...allowing me a small bit of assumption here, I'm going to say that these groups are evenly distributed across the age groups.

So, that would give me 64,152 people of each age between 15 and 22. That means that 449,064 of them are already of legal voting age, and 128,304 are 16 or 17.

So...with the wonders of windows calculator, that says to me we have :

16 / 17 : 128,304
16+ : 3,025,621
18+ : 2,897,134

Now, because there's no data available on the subject that I can find, I'm going to assume that the same percentage of each group will register to vote and/or will actually vote....so we can leave the figures as is. If anyone can show me why it should be otherwise, I'll revise these figures.

So, looking at that....we can see that dropping the voting age would increase the total number of eligible voters by a bit over 4%.

Now seriously lads. Who is trying to kid whom here when claiming that this would have a major impact on our politics? Lets assume - one last time - that 4% of the vote translated into 4% of the seats in the Dáil. So thats 4-ish% of 166, which is...say 7 or 8 seats.

So...if every single 16- and 17-year-old who voted all cast their vote [/i]in the same direction[/i], they could effectively "back" a new party the size of the PDs. That is the most they could do.

And because we can reasonably assume that a goodly proportion of the 16- and 17-year olds who vote would actually vote for one fo the existant, traditional, problematic parties....or tha they would back a multitude of differing "new" groups, we can be reasonably sure that the net result would be less than that.

Come on....do the math. Dropping the vote to 16 would seem to have a far, far less effect on the end result than people are claiming....

Maybe the Greens would pick up a seat...maybe two. Maybe a handful of indies would get in instead of the party favourites....but thats as far as it would go.

Its just not a significant group.

jc

strawberry

No - I'm three years clear of there and I still feel like an idiot quite frequently. Granted that when it comes to discussing local politics I've come to the conclusion that most voters are a shower of idiots, but a shower of idiots with a little more experience nonetheless. There has to be a cut-off point somewhere and eighteen is working just fine, why change it?

mike65

Originally posted by bonkey
Come on....do the math. Dropping the vote to 16 would seem to have a far, far less effect on the end result than people are claiming....

Maybe the Greens would pick up a seat...maybe two. Maybe a handful of indies would get in instead of the party favourites....but thats as far as it would go.

Its just not a significant group.

jc

That sounds like the difference between one stable government and one unstable government....

Mike.

Originally posted by strawberry
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere and eighteen is working just fine, why change it?

As far as I can remember there is a group lobbying the E.U parliament at the moment for a change to 16.
I will look for a link to this in the morning.

Big Ears

Im 14 and obviously do cspe in school , but there is a major problem with the subject .

On the day of E.U. enlargement we did not discuss the enlargement at all . ( thats right in one of the biggest things to happen politically for decades we didnt discuss it . ) Instead we compared whats the difference between communication and transport from the 1700's to present day .

The class is basecly a dos and nobody learnes anything from it . Personnely I dont think its a good idea because I could see a lot of people I know voting for Sinn Fein without knowing anything about them or what their local politician for a constituency is about .

Then again maybe only the people who have an interest in politics would vote .

Big Ears

Originally posted by klaz
T
Base line. If you're under the roof of yur parents, if you're not contributing to the country as a worker/taxes, you should have no involvement in voting. Period.

What about people that have a physical disability and are unable to work / find it hard to get work and still live with their parents ?

should they not have the right to vote ?

bonkey

Originally posted by Big Ears
On the day of E.U. enlargement we did not discuss the enlargement at all . ( thats right in one of the biggest things to happen politically for decades we didnt discuss it . )

Have I got my dates wrong? Didn't the enlargement happen on a weekend? Are you saying that you're in school on the weekends?

jc

Big Ears

Sorry i meant the days just before and after enlargement .

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Gurgle
From vague memories of being 16, I think my vote would have been won more on issues than personalities/parties.

Pity you didn’t understand the issues when you were 16. Or did you work full time and pay rent and income tax? Perhaps you would have been swayed by the promise of tax relief of pensions? Was medical care a big issue for you - I bet all those VHI payments you were making were galling?

At 16 few are in the Real World. The vast majority are still living at home and being supported by their parents, so frankly don’t have much of a clue what the bottom line is. Add to this, many are still undergoing puberty (a condition akin to extended temporary insanity) and even if not are still remarkably naive chumps.

To be honest, there’s quite a few, well into their twenties and thirties and sixties, who probably are still not mature enough to vote. I’d raise the age rather than lower it. And make a minimum number of tax returns a prerequisite too.

I dare you to go to a lecture room full of 1st year engineers and announce that everyone there under 18 is a child and that their opinions should be ignored.

Deliver it with a smutty joke and they’ll lap it up like the sheep they are.

villain_97

I think it would be crazy to lower the voting age to 16.it would be disaterous for the country.The average 16 year old just ins't mature enough to vote.They'd vote for all sorts of narrow issues that will end up affecting the whole bloody system.When you are 16 you are very idealistic and not very tactful.

mike65

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I’d raise the age rather than lower it. And make a minimum number of tax returns a prerequisite too.

So the unemployed do'nt get a vote? I agree with everything else you said though.

Mike.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mike65
So the unemployed do'nt get a vote?

You can be unemployed and still have contributed to society at some stage in the recent past. You can also be long term unemployed due to significant disability, and thus you shouldn’t be penalized for that.

But at the same time, if you want rights, you should deal with the responsibilities.

But would I give someone who’s an able-bodied forty-five year-old, with twelve kids by six different women and has never paid a penny of tax in his life, the vote?

No.

Hell, you don’t want to know what I’d give them.

BuffyBot

But would I give someone who’s an able-bodied forty-five year-old, with twelve kids by six different women and has never paid a penny of tax in his life, the vote?

I don't know if you would, but you should. Whether we like them or not, a true democracy is on where every adult has a say.

Big Ears

How about having a politics test before u are egible to vote . If you know nothing about national and local politics you shouldnt be voting anyway .

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Whether we like them or not, a true democracy is on where every adult has a say.

What true democracy? Point to one, please.

Modern democracies are limited. The electorate is not able to vote on individual laws or policies, but for representatives that may pursue similar policies to those of their constituents. Even then, political parties and party whips limit regional and constituency rights by imposing common decisions. Say nothing of those exceptions to the rule where democratic rights are suspended, such as in the case of war or other emergency.

Even in your own words you would limit the right to vote to adults - thus in principle saying that it is for the greater good that some not have right to vote in a democracy.

BuffyBot

Modern democracies are limited. The electorate is not able to vote on individual laws or policies, but for representatives that may pursue similar policies to those of their constituents. Even then, political parties and party whips limit regional and constituency rights by imposing common decisions. Say nothing of those exceptions to the rule where democratic rights are suspended, such as in the case of war or other emergency.

I'll grant you that modern democracies are limited. That doesn't mean they aren't democratic in nature. However, taking the vote away from people because of their lifestyle or for whatever reason is certainly non-democratic, as you are taking away their chance to participate, even if it is in a limited way.

I don't like right wing parties like the BNP, but I wouldn't take away the right to vote from those who believe in their point of view, because that would be undemocratic. Removing the right to vote from those who are old enough to understand what they are voting for is undemocratic.

Even in your own words you would limit the right to vote to adults - thus in principle saying that it is for the greater good that some not have right to vote in a democracy.

Yes, there has to be a distinction between those who are old enough to vote and those who aren't. It's quite obvious that giving a 3 year old a vote would be a tad on the pointless side.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Even in your own words you would limit the right to vote to adults - thus in principle saying that it is for the greater good that some not have right to vote in a democracy.

Setting a limit on age is a practical necessity. Newborn babies simply do not have the capacity to even cast a vote meaningfully, so there must be an artificial age limit set somewhere. Setting it at the point of adulthood, which is also a signiifcant point in how the law addresses the individual would seem a reasonable approach. Yes, the age is relatively arbitrary, but its still relatively consistent.

But to further make requirements, such as some form of "societal suitability" (works, pays taxes, whatever) is little different to a meritocracy. For example, what about the person who has a qualification but cannot find a job. What about the mother who never worked in a tax-paying job.

Ultimately, there are so many "side issues" that would have to be catered for, that it would come down to a judgement of saying "you do not deserve to have a say in how society progresses" to people we adjudge to be wasters.

But if we were to do that, one would also have to ask why these people are even capable of being wasters except that we have a society which supports their lifestyle choice. Surely saying that they don't deserve the vote for abusing what we have already chosen to give them is little removed from suggesting that they also do not deserve any support from the state?

Setting artificial barriers for vote-eligibility, such as some notion of your worth to society would strike me as being a terribly dangerous approach. We, the "hoi polloi" of the modern world, often complain that politics has already been usurped by Big Business [tm] and that we are suffering as it no longer serves our interests. Surely arguing that some people do not deserve the vote, because they do not live their lives in accordance with our desires - but still in a manner that our society supports - is little different to what the Big Business is doing to us?

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BuffyBot
I'll grant you that modern democracies are limited. That doesn't mean they aren't democratic in nature. However, taking the vote away from people because of their lifestyle or for whatever reason is certainly non-democratic, as you are taking away their chance to participate, even if it is in a limited way.

Thus you favour withholding democratic rights in some cases, but not others. Why? You have failed to explain this; the closest you’ve come to it is by saying that individuals should be discriminated against because of age but not because of lifestyle, but not said what you base your criteria upon.

I don't like right wing parties like the BNP, but I wouldn't take away the right to vote from those who believe in their point of view, because that would be undemocratic.

Irrelevant and off topic.

Removing the right to vote from those who are old enough to understand what they are voting for is undemocratic.

Then understanding would be your criteria? Should this mean that individuals with degrees (and thus a better understanding of the political process) should have weighted votes? Perhaps, as Big Ears suggested, people should be tested on this understanding before qualifying for this right? And what would you do with the vote of the senile or mentally handicapped?

Yes, there has to be a distinction between those who are old enough to vote and those who aren't. It's quite obvious that giving a 3 year old a vote would be a tad on the pointless side.

I’m not questioning that there is a distinction between those who are old enough to vote and those who are not. I’m questioning that it is the only such distinction.

Originally posted by bonkey
But to further make requirements, such as some form of "societal suitability" (works, pays taxes, whatever) is little different to a meritocracy. For example, what about the person who has a qualification but cannot find a job. What about the mother who never worked in a tax-paying job.

Fair examples, however this does not mean that we should not examine and explore meritocratic solutions to democracies shortcomings. Bravado aside, that’s all I’m really suggesting.