[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Voting age (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 9/3/2010 7:52:58 PM EDT
|
I say it should be 21.
Tell me why it should not be raised. |
|
Eliminate the voting age requirement, replace it with a competency test for the right to vote (e.g. basic physics, basic economics, knowledge of the US Constitution, et al). If you can pass it at age 12, go ahead and pull that lever. 90% of our country's problems would be solved so easily that way ........ |
|
I think it should be one golden age. You are an adult, you may apply for a driver's license. Register to vote. Buy a firearm/ccw. Join a military service. Buy tobacco/alchohol. & etc. I think 16 is too young to be driving. The rest I am sort of unsure about. But I do not like the limbo of not being able to drink but being able to smoke cigarettes. Of being able to buy a rifle, but not a pistol. It kind of makes me  when I try to find logic in it.
|
|
Quoted:
I say it should be 21. Tell me why it should not be raised. I agree. It gives some time for the person to experience life as an adult. And just because you join the military doesn't mean you are a qualified voter. There have been times in our history where the enlisted men were for the most part the bottom of the barrel; not the sort you want voting. It's different now but the idea is the same. Personally, with the age requirement I also think there should be other qualifications one has to meet in order to be able to vote. Political POWER is a privilege, not a right. No one has a right to power. It has to be earned/deserved. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So 18 year-old Johnny is old enough to fight and die for you, but he can't pull a lever? QFT......../thread You could make an exception for military if you want, that's a very small percentage of the total population. There are many more 18 year olds that are fucking drug soddened selfish morons that can vote. Age limits are easy to implement, which is why they are used. I'd say the lower limits should be 25 & employed. Nobody on public aid should be voting. |
|
Quoted: I like this idea also but we can drive at 14 in kansas no problem. I think it should be one golden age. You are an adult, you may apply for a driver's license. Register to vote. Buy a firearm/ccw. Join a military service. Buy tobacco/alchohol. & etc. I think 16 is too young to be driving. The rest I am sort of unsure about. But I do not like the limbo of not being able to drink but being able to smoke cigarettes. Of being able to buy a rifle, but not a pistol. It kind of makes me when I try to find logic in it. |
|
Quoted:
Let's play one of ARFCOM's favorite games: Who is OK to disenfranchise? So you think a universal franchise is a good thing? History has proven otherwise. A limited franchise is certainly not incompatible with liberal governance. In fact it is proably much more conducive to its maintenance (as well as good governance) than a universal franchise. People seem to have falsely associated the universal franchise and democracy i general with freedom. The two are not synonymous. |
|
Quoted: I say it should be 21. Tell me why it should not be raised. Screw that. It should be 25 or 30. I'll make an exception for those in the military. I'll even go further -> taxpayers only, no one who is a net tax consumer should have the right to vote. Heck, throw in a citizenship test while we're at it. I never could figure out why we'd let people with no skin in the game and little understanding of our government set the direction of the country. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Let's play one of ARFCOM's favorite games: Who is OK to disenfranchise? So you think a universal franchise is a good thing? History has proven otherwise. A limited franchise is certainly not incompatible with liberal governance. In fact it is proably much more conducive to its maintenance (as well as good governance) than a universal franchise. People seem to have falsely associated the universal franchise and democracy i general with freedom. The two are not synonymous. These threads happen because the OPs think they can't win an election cleanly, so they suggest disenfranchising people who are less likely to share their views. Last time, it was welfare recipients. There's always a military service exception because the anti-representation folks think military guys will vote the same way they do. I wonder whose voting abilities the people at DU would like to strip away?
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: I say it should be 21. Tell me why it should not be raised. Screw that. It should be 25 or 30. I'll make an exception for those in the military. I'll even go further -> taxpayers only, no one who is a net tax consumer should have the right to vote. Heck, throw in a citizenship test while we're at it. I never could figure out why we'd let people with no skin in the game and little understanding of our government set the direction of the country. Because they are subject to government just as much as you are  |
|
Quoted: And this is why I never trust anyone over 30. at 16 I thought I was an adult. At 18 I was DEFINATLY an adult. At 21 I was an adult. 25 Im a respected adult..... At 30+ now: At 16 I was a kid , 18 I was a cocky kid , 21 I was a kid who made decent money and thought I was an adult. at 25 I didnt know shit.  Just kidding.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's play one of ARFCOM's favorite games: Who is OK to disenfranchise? So you think a universal franchise is a good thing? History has proven otherwise. A limited franchise is certainly not incompatible with liberal governance. In fact it is proably much more conducive to its maintenance (as well as good governance) than a universal franchise. People seem to have falsely associated the universal franchise and democracy i general with freedom. The two are not synonymous. These threads happen because the OPs think they can't win an election cleanly, so they suggest disenfranchising people who are less likely to share their views. Last time, it was welfare recipients. There's always a military service exception because the anti-representation folks think military guys will vote the same way they do. I wonder whose voting abilities the people at DU would like to strip away? You didn't answer my question. Do you think a universal franchise is a good thing and/or has been good for our country? Furthermore, there is a strong case to be made for limited suffrage if the objective is liberal government. The appropriate form of limited suffrage to that end has certain characteristics, such as things like only letting landed property owners vote, or only tax payers, or only net taxpayers, people with a minimum education or income level, etc. There is a reason for that. And that also tends to be the most common form of limited suffrage advocated here from what I've seen. You have to consider long-term trends not just the next election. Universal suffrage is the road to tyranny. Some people can't seem to wrap their brains around that though, think democracy/political power equals freedom, and call advocates of limited suffrage advocates of tyranny, oppression, etc. ad nauseum. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's play one of ARFCOM's favorite games: Who is OK to disenfranchise? So you think a universal franchise is a good thing? History has proven otherwise. A limited franchise is certainly not incompatible with liberal governance. In fact it is proably much more conducive to its maintenance (as well as good governance) than a universal franchise. People seem to have falsely associated the universal franchise and democracy i general with freedom. The two are not synonymous. These threads happen because the OPs think they can't win an election cleanly, so they suggest disenfranchising people who are less likely to share their views. Last time, it was welfare recipients. There's always a military service exception because the anti-representation folks think military guys will vote the same way they do. I wonder whose voting abilities the people at DU would like to strip away? You didn't answer my question. Do you think a universal franchise is a good thing and/or has been good for our country? Furthermore, there is a strong case to be made for limited suffrage if the objective is liberal government. The appropriate form of limited suffrage to that end has certain characteristics, such as things like only letting landed property owners vote, or only tax payers, or only net taxpayers, people with a minimum education or income level, etc. There is a reason for that. And that also tends to be the most common form of limited suffrage advocated here from what I've seen. You have to consider long-term trends not just the next election. Universal suffrage is the road to tyranny. Some people can't seem to wrap their brains around that though, think democracy/political power equals freedom, and call advocates of limited suffrage advocates of tyranny, oppression, etc. ad nauseum. Yes, so long as universal means all free adults. You're saying a lot of stuff, but you aren't giving any evidence to support your argument.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's play one of ARFCOM's favorite games: Who is OK to disenfranchise? So you think a universal franchise is a good thing? History has proven otherwise. A limited franchise is certainly not incompatible with liberal governance. In fact it is proably much more conducive to its maintenance (as well as good governance) than a universal franchise. People seem to have falsely associated the universal franchise and democracy i general with freedom. The two are not synonymous. These threads happen because the OPs think they can't win an election cleanly, so they suggest disenfranchising people who are less likely to share their views. Last time, it was welfare recipients. There's always a military service exception because the anti-representation folks think military guys will vote the same way they do. I wonder whose voting abilities the people at DU would like to strip away? You didn't answer my question. Do you think a universal franchise is a good thing and/or has been good for our country? Furthermore, there is a strong case to be made for limited suffrage if the objective is liberal government. The appropriate form of limited suffrage to that end has certain characteristics, such as things like only letting landed property owners vote, or only tax payers, or only net taxpayers, people with a minimum education or income level, etc. There is a reason for that. And that also tends to be the most common form of limited suffrage advocated here from what I've seen. You have to consider long-term trends not just the next election. Universal suffrage is the road to tyranny. Some people can't seem to wrap their brains around that though, think democracy/political power equals freedom, and call advocates of limited suffrage advocates of tyranny, oppression, etc. ad nauseum. Yes, so long as universal means all free adults. You're saying a lot of stuff, but you aren't giving any evidence to support your argument. The political history of the United States is sufficient proof. As the United States became increasingly democratic, especially after the advent of the universal franchise nationwide in 1867, it has become considerably less free. This is due to the fact that in an election involving the masses you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator if you get my meaning. The masses value security over liberty. They cannot comprehend liberty. In a way it is alien to them. Many also have no real stake in society and actually benefit from redistributive schemes; combine that with the typical envy they exhibit and you ave a recipe for some awful things, as we have seen multiple times just in the last century. If you read the Marquis de Tocqueville's On Democracy in America he notes many of the ways in which democracy leads to a loss of freedom. Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn does as well in Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, Liberty or Equalty: The Challenge of Our Time, and The Menace of the Herd, or Procrustes at Large. While somewhat vitriolic, H.L. Mencken also notes a number of these trends in Notes on Democracy. There are a plethora of works out there making this argument with all the citations and exampes you could ever want. I think those books and others also make a far better argument than I could make in one post on an Internet forum. Heck, you can even find evidence against democracy in Thucydides' History of the Pelopponesian War. When you come down to it, political power is not a natural right. The very nature of it means it could never be. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Voting age should be 22 (college graduation 'age'), unless you are active duty military. Why base it off college? Seems arbitrary. All age limits are arbitrary to a certain degree. 21 has been very common for this sort of thing until recently, though. It gives the person a few years of adulthood before they can potentially qualify to receive political power. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Voting age should be 22 (college graduation 'age'), unless you are active duty military. Why base it off college? Seems arbitrary. Because a HS diploma is damn near worthless these days, and the larger and larger number of folks who graduate school for 'the last time' at 22 is about where it was for HS when we started seeing 18 as the age of adulthood... I'd also move all the other 'adult' stuff - except driving - up to 22 unless on Active Duty. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's play one of ARFCOM's favorite games: Who is OK to disenfranchise? So you think a universal franchise is a good thing? History has proven otherwise. A limited franchise is certainly not incompatible with liberal governance. In fact it is proably much more conducive to its maintenance (as well as good governance) than a universal franchise. People seem to have falsely associated the universal franchise and democracy i general with freedom. The two are not synonymous. These threads happen because the OPs think they can't win an election cleanly, so they suggest disenfranchising people who are less likely to share their views. Last time, it was welfare recipients. There's always a military service exception because the anti-representation folks think military guys will vote the same way they do. I wonder whose voting abilities the people at DU would like to strip away? You didn't answer my question. Do you think a universal franchise is a good thing and/or has been good for our country? Furthermore, there is a strong case to be made for limited suffrage if the objective is liberal government. The appropriate form of limited suffrage to that end has certain characteristics, such as things like only letting landed property owners vote, or only tax payers, or only net taxpayers, people with a minimum education or income level, etc. There is a reason for that. And that also tends to be the most common form of limited suffrage advocated here from what I've seen. You have to consider long-term trends not just the next election. Universal suffrage is the road to tyranny. Some people can't seem to wrap their brains around that though, think democracy/political power equals freedom, and call advocates of limited suffrage advocates of tyranny, oppression, etc. ad nauseum. Yes, so long as universal means all free adults. You're saying a lot of stuff, but you aren't giving any evidence to support your argument. The political history of the United States is sufficient proof. As the United States became increasingly democratic, especially after the advent of the universal franchise nationwide in 1867, it has become considerably less free. This is due to the fact that in an election involving the masses you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator if you get my meaning. The masses value security over liberty. They cannot comprehend liberty. In a way it is alien to them. Many also have no real stake in society and actually benefit from redistributive schemes; combine that with the typical envy they exhibit and you ave a recipe for some awful things, as we have seen multiple times just in the last century. If you read the Marquis de Tocqueville's On Democracy in America he notes many of the ways in which democracy leads to a loss of freedom. Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn does as well in Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, Liberty or Equalty: The Challenge of Our Time, and The Menace of the Herd, or Procrustes at Large. While somewhat vitriolic, H.L. Mencken also notes a number of these trends in Notes on Democracy. There are a plethora of works out there making this argument with all the citations and exampes you could ever want. I think those books and others also make a far better argument than I could make in one post on an Internet forum. Heck, you can even find evidence against democracy in Thucydides' History of the Pelopponesian War. When you come down to it, political power is not a natural right. The very nature of it means it could never be. Why do you look down on "the masses" so much? Ever think you might be part of them? A lot of people think they belong in Galt's Gulch. Few are right.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Voting age should be 22 (college graduation 'age'), unless you are active duty military. Why base it off college? Seems arbitrary. ae1... man... I'm with you, I really am. But you are right. Arfcom spends as much time trying to figure out whose rights they should restrict (you know, for our own good) as the left does, and they don't care if it makes them evil in principal. Good luck with your arguments, I'll be over here... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's play one of ARFCOM's favorite games: Who is OK to disenfranchise? So you think a universal franchise is a good thing? History has proven otherwise. A limited franchise is certainly not incompatible with liberal governance. In fact it is proably much more conducive to its maintenance (as well as good governance) than a universal franchise. People seem to have falsely associated the universal franchise and democracy i general with freedom. The two are not synonymous. These threads happen because the OPs think they can't win an election cleanly, so they suggest disenfranchising people who are less likely to share their views. Last time, it was welfare recipients. There's always a military service exception because the anti-representation folks think military guys will vote the same way they do. I wonder whose voting abilities the people at DU would like to strip away? You didn't answer my question. Do you think a universal franchise is a good thing and/or has been good for our country? Furthermore, there is a strong case to be made for limited suffrage if the objective is liberal government. The appropriate form of limited suffrage to that end has certain characteristics, such as things like only letting landed property owners vote, or only tax payers, or only net taxpayers, people with a minimum education or income level, etc. There is a reason for that. And that also tends to be the most common form of limited suffrage advocated here from what I've seen. You have to consider long-term trends not just the next election. Universal suffrage is the road to tyranny. Some people can't seem to wrap their brains around that though, think democracy/political power equals freedom, and call advocates of limited suffrage advocates of tyranny, oppression, etc. ad nauseum. Yes, so long as universal means all free adults. You're saying a lot of stuff, but you aren't giving any evidence to support your argument. The political history of the United States is sufficient proof. As the United States became increasingly democratic, especially after the advent of the universal franchise nationwide in 1867, it has become considerably less free. This is due to the fact that in an election involving the masses you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator if you get my meaning. The masses value security over liberty. They cannot comprehend liberty. In a way it is alien to them. Many also have no real stake in society and actually benefit from redistributive schemes; combine that with the typical envy they exhibit and you ave a recipe for some awful things, as we have seen multiple times just in the last century. If you read the Marquis de Tocqueville's On Democracy in America he notes many of the ways in which democracy leads to a loss of freedom. Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn does as well in Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, Liberty or Equalty: The Challenge of Our Time, and The Menace of the Herd, or Procrustes at Large. While somewhat vitriolic, H.L. Mencken also notes a number of these trends in Notes on Democracy. There are a plethora of works out there making this argument with all the citations and exampes you could ever want. I think those books and others also make a far better argument than I could make in one post on an Internet forum. Heck, you can even find evidence against democracy in Thucydides' History of the Pelopponesian War. When you come down to it, political power is not a natural right. The very nature of it means it could never be. Why do you look down on "the masses" so much? Ever think you might be part of them? A lot of people think they belong in Galt's Gulch. Few are right. No, I am not a part of the masses. I don't go with whatever the slickest guy happens to tell me, or whatever the group happens to go with, or anything simplistic. These are all traits of the herd's mentality. At heart I am aristocrat, not a democrat. And I look down on the masse because they are a threat to my freedom, something I cherish greatly. Again, you should go to the library, read at least some of the works I listed, and get back to me. I've read plenty on both sides of the argument and the ones in favor of universal suffrage simply have no substance unless something other than freedom is the objective (such as equality, with which freedom is mutually exclusive). I am also disgusted by anyone who would throw away their freedom for things like equality, security, etc. They ruin it for the minority who can truly appreciate their freedom. BTW I am not a fan of Ayn Rand's works, although that is for a different thread (I think there's one around here somewhere). |
|
Quoted:
I love threads like this. From such supposedly freedom loving people you all would love to fuck other people out of their rights.  Which right might that be? Suffrage is political power. Political power is not a natural right. It is in fact a tool that requires substantial responsibility and one that can be quite dangerous i the wrong hands. If you think it is a natural right or that political power is but a trifle thing please explain why rather than just saying that people such as myself are against freedom. Did it ever come to you that maybe some of us are in favor of this for the sake of our freedom? |
|
Quoted: No, I am not a part of the masses. YES, you are. You are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. You aren't special. Yet you want to take away those "Rights" and "Freedoms" that you claim are very special to you. Everyone else should have them as well, not just the ones who agree with you. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I love threads like this. From such supposedly freedom loving people you all would love to fuck other people out of their rights. Which right might that be? Suffrage is political power. Political power is not a natural right. It is in fact a tool that requires substantial responsibility and one that can be quite dangerous i the wrong hands. If you think it is a natural right or that political power is but a trifle thing please explain why rather than just saying that people such as myself are against freedom. Did it ever come to you that maybe some of us are in favor of this for the sake of our freedom? Being subject to law, and taxation, and other regulation from Government that you have no vote in is not freedom... Of course YOU get to vote, right? Equal protection under the law, IIRC, is covered under the United States Constitution. Remember that one? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, I am not a part of the masses. YES, you are. You are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. You aren't special. Yet you want to take away those "Rights" and "Freedoms" that you claim are very special to you. Everyone else should have them as well, not just the ones who agree with you. So how am I part of the masses? Explain it to me. Or do you subscribe to the delusional belief that we are all equal (in which case you might as well forget about freedom; it's one or the other, you choose)? Some people are better than others in this sphere. Man, I think you would be in a fit of apoplexy if you read some of what the Founders wrote on this subject. They certainly did not subscribe to a belief that we are all equal and the political systems they devised or wrote about were made or devised in light of that. I don't want to take anyone's rights and freedoms. Don't know where you got that idea since I never suggested it. Democracy=/=freedom, political power=/=freedom or a right, and I have not brought up anything else except freedom in general, which I have stated I am in favor of. Do you really think political power with all of its consequences for others should really just be granted to anyone just because they exist? All that is is a setup to lose freedom. It is inevitable in a democracy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love threads like this. From such supposedly freedom loving people you all would love to fuck other people out of their rights. Which right might that be? Suffrage is political power. Political power is not a natural right. It is in fact a tool that requires substantial responsibility and one that can be quite dangerous i the wrong hands. If you think it is a natural right or that political power is but a trifle thing please explain why rather than just saying that people such as myself are against freedom. Did it ever come to you that maybe some of us are in favor of this for the sake of our freedom? That much is abundantly clear. So in your opinion restricting the voting age to a certain demographic is for the greater good? Obvious state is obvious
|
|
Quoted:
Let's play one of ARFCOM's favorite games: Who is OK to disenfranchise? Let's play another game, Why should government leaches be allowed to vote themselves more free stuff from those of us who work for a living? If you don't contribute, you don't get a vote, call it anything you want to. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, I am not a part of the masses. YES, you are. You are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. You aren't special. Yet you want to take away those "Rights" and "Freedoms" that you claim are very special to you. Everyone else should have them as well, not just the ones who agree with you. So how am I part of the masses? Explain it to me. Or do you subscribe to the delusional belief that we are all equal (in which case you might as well forget about freedom; it's one or the other, you choose)? Some people are better than others in this sphere. Man, I think you would be in a fit of apoplexy if you read some of what the Founders wrote on this subject. They certainly did not subscribe to a belief that we are all equal and the political systems they devised or wrote about were made or devised in light of that. I don't want to take anyone's rights and freedoms. Don't know where you got that idea since I never suggested it. Democracy=/=freedom, political power=/=freedom or a right, and I have not brought up anything else except freedom in general, which I have stated I am in favor of. Do you really think political power with all of its consequences for others should really just be granted to anyone just because they exist? All that is is a setup to lose freedom. It is inevitable in a democracy. How do you figure you're not part of the masses? What, are you fuckin' special? Bullshit. And YES, people are equal...ly protected by the LAW. You are advocating a change in the law, which will render a portion of those subject to the law unable to vote for a Representative to our Republic. Sounds to me like you are afraid of losing freedom, so instead you want to notionally enslave people... because you obviously feel superior. Guess what, doofy. IF you get what you want, you won't be one of the "Chosen" people. You are down here with me.  And for the bold portion of your post, I took the time to copy and paste your tripe below. VVVV "And just because you join the military doesn't mean you are a qualified voter. There have been times in our history where the enlisted men were for the most part the bottom of the barrel; not the sort you want voting. It's different now but the idea is the same. Personally, with the age requirement I also think there should be other qualifications one has to meet in order to be able to vote. Political POWER is a privilege, not a right. No one has a right to power. It has to be earned/deserved" |