I think Teens should be able to Vote

[AHunter3]

…is the most complex, and therefore perhaps the final and ultimate, political liberation proposal.

We started off simple, with models of oppression & equality & liberation that were pretty zero-sum and linear: Group A enslaves Group B, which is stripped of personal and political rights and owned as property, both collectively and individually, by Group A. This is oppression. There is no defensible structural difference between the treatment of Group A and Group B, so equality is sameness before the law. Liberation consists of extending to Group B all the rights possessed by Group A. End of story.

We have moved into consideration (and in some cases, effective adoption) of some liberations that were more complicated, perhaps most centrally the liberation of women. Biological differences exist (reproduction); Individual familial relationships exist (mating; parent-child; sibling; extended family) within which and across which power differentials are never as simple as Group A has the power over Group B; protections are interwoven into oppression, and in some cases some people think there may be defensible structural differences between the treatment of women and men, and liberation is often thought to be more complicated than simply extending to women all the rights possessed by men. And yet we muddled through, and continue to muddle through – in some cases first modifying our understanding of men (Group A)'s rights and situations as the model by considering how women’s differences would be treated in law and consideration if those differences were not only characteristics of the oppressed (Group B) group, and only thenextending the entire model to both groups.

In the case of children, some things are immediately and compellingly obvious: this liberation, if it is to happen, cannot happen according to a linear zero-sum mentality model. Issues of dependency and protection, mildly applicable in the case of feminist liberation, range from strongly applicable to central; the Group B exists as a continuum along which the meaning of dependency and liberation and oppression scales dynamically, unless we’re going to posit that 2 year olds should vote, decide their own residence, sign binding contracts, be protected legally from being physically restrained by their parents or other people as per laws governing self-determination, buy and smoke cigars, etc etc – ludicrous!

And yet it’s pretty damn ludicrous to have a single set of laws and principles applying equally to 2 year olds and 14 year olds. Or to pretend that 17 year olds are identical to month-old infants until their 18th birthday when they morph into adults like caterpillars turning to butterflies.

I see no reason why 16 year olds should be prohibited from voting. I have no problem saying that 4 year olds have no business casting a ballot. Ask me where the cutoff point is, though, and I have to say I don’t know. Maybe the half-vote and quarter-vote thing is not such a bad idea, in fact.

This may be the ultimate liberation also in the sense that it is never going to be arrived at but merely approached.

I do think that that direction is the way to go, though.

[Ravenman]

@far_born

Funny, I don’t see what dangers that voting presents to children or minors. It’s hardly an overwhelming responsibility either since they don’t have to vote if they don’t want to. Are you trying to protect them or deny them their right vote? Those are different issues.

Please try to track your own questions. You asked what right adults had to enact prohibitive laws on children. I said that adults have a say in the government because they have full legal responsibility for their actions.

For centuries, adults have recognized that children are not the same as adults, and cannot be held fully responsible for their actions. Laws have been enacted to make sure this is so. Conversely, if one cannot be fully responsible for one’s actions, it makes little sense for that person to be put in a position where they could be making decisions for a large number of people. Therefore, kids can vote. Follow?

What you seem to be arguing is that there is no difference between an adult and a child, because they are both subject to the rule of law. Can you at least agree that there must be a point at which children do not have the capacity to understand the nature and role of government? At what age do you believe that people gain such a capacity, and why do you choose that age?

Further, do you think that non-citizens who reside in the country should be allowed to vote? What about felons?

[Ravenman]

@far_born

Our laws concerning children are on the surface made to protect them, but really what they represent are the preferences of adults who incidentally often wish to protect them. It is a subtle difference but highly important to me.

I don’t follow. Please expand upon this.

And after AlHunter3’s post, I could not help thinking of the phrase “floating point system applied at my discretion.” Perhaps some members of the SDMB might have the key for weighting votes of juviniles…

[Belrick]

I dont think anyone can vote till theyve passed a govt funded political education scheme.
(part time one year?)

Im sick of nobs and n00bs easily distracted from issues by clever goebel like politicians. Im sick of dumb joe bloggs fogetting past records of politicians come election campaigns. Im saddened that mr public not understanding side effects of there current agendas.

All in all i think education should be required in order to vote. Anyone should have access to it. After all you need licence to drive or own a firearm… What does more damage, adolf hilters and GWB getting into power or one shooting spree in downtown aramoana?

[Ms2001]

@Sage Rat

Under the age of eighteen, under current law, you are still a dependent and probably have no way to support yourself. As such, if we allowed persons under the age of eighteen to vote, it is conceivable that some sort of duress by the parents could become involved and the youth would be giving his parents vote instead of his own.

The same argument can be (and indeed was) used against female suffrage: since women are dependent on their husbands more often than men are dependent on their wives, it’s conceivable that some sort of duress by the husband could become involved, and the wives would be giving their husbands’ votes instead of their own.

And the same counterargument applies: the secret ballot. If someone is pressuring you to vote a certain way–whether it’s your husband, your parent, or the gang leader down the street–you’re protected by the fact that they can’t possibly know how you voted.

[Ms2001]

@Ravenman

Can you at least agree that there must be a point at which children do not have the capacity to understand the nature and role of government? At what age do you believe that people gain such a capacity, and why do you choose that age?

IMO the question is silly. It’s like asking “At what age are people tall enough to reach the top shelf?” Even if we can agree on exactly how tall the top shelf is, there’s still no specific answer to the question, because everyone grows at a different rate. Some people may be tall enough at age 12, some at age 21, and some may never be tall enough.

Further, do you think that non-citizens who reside in the country should be allowed to vote? What about felons?

I don’t believe non-citizens should be allowed to vote, but note that (1) they’re free to leave the country on their own and take up residence somewhere else, and (2) they can apply for citizenship. Minors can’t apply for voting rights, and they can’t leave the country on their own.

Felons should be able to vote once they’ve served their sentences.

[Sage_Rat]

@Mr2001

The same argument can be (and indeed was) used against female suffrage: since women are dependent on their husbands more often than men are dependent on their wives, it’s conceivable that some sort of duress by the husband could become involved, and the wives would be giving their husbands’ votes instead of their own.

And the same counterargument applies: the secret ballot. If someone is pressuring you to vote a certain way–whether it’s your husband, your parent, or the gang leader down the street–you’re protected by the fact that they can’t possibly know how you voted.

Yep. I think that very little would change if we entirely removed all age restrictions on voting. That was just the first idea that came to me that actually had some sort of logic outside of “because adults don’t trust children to be smart enough.”