Mental health care. And not just for the obviously crazy, but for people with spectrum or cognitive disorders that cost them in society.
To my unthinking gut, solving the problem of voter ignorance by multiplying the pool of ignorant voters does indeed some somewhat silly.
The thinking portion of my gut, having now read the entirety of your manifesto, found a perfectly nice recap of the history of voting rights and the repeated assertion (completely true) that age is used as a substitute for the requirements of intelligence and responsibility. What it found curiously absent, however, is any mention of what you propose to put in its place once you strike down the current age requirement. You say:
on its face, this suggests that you have a concrete procedure for determining each voter’s eligibility based on intelligence and responsibility, but you instead present an equivalence in the cognitive abilities of the mentally retarded adolescents with those of younger, non-MR children. (We are meant to extrapolate from this that non-MR adolescents are at least equivalent in cognition to MR adults, I assume, although you provide no specific evidence of this.) We let the former vote, why not also allow the latter?
Assuming we are to strike down the age requirement, however, you do not suggest who will determine voting eligibility based on intelligence/responsibility, exactly what criteria will be used, how it will be enforced or policed for accuracy and fairness, etc. These are not trivial questions.
(Unless, of course, your base argument is that the voting age should be lowered without restriction, in which case you’ve failed to make that clear—nor have you affirmed whether you simply support lowering the voting age to 17, 16, or abolishing the age requirement altogether, in which case polling stations will either need to stock booster seats and highchairs, or children will encounter 3’ tall Diebold machines where they can be talked through the electoral process by Dora the Explorer.)
See; isn’t it so much better when we produce posts with actual content. That way we can actually have a debate on the deemed merit of each point rather than talking past each other with pointless sniping.
Firstly I like to point out that I have no hand whatsoever in writing anything in that link; it was merely the first page I decided to link to in terms of showing that my initial suggestion was not at all ‘idiotic’ and could not be simply dismissed out of hand. (the link is at the bottom of the page of the first link I offered). It seems we have passed that stage now, so things are definitely on the up. Good show. One other thing to bear in mind; I may not, like yourself, fully agree with everything that was listing in that initial link. It was initially put up there to show that this is a serious topic that, I believe, demands serious thought.
Now, you say…
Firstly, it is not my intention at all to aim for a decrease in what you call ‘voter ignorance’. That would be an admirable thing to achieve, but certainly not at the expense of losing previously hard-gained emancipation. People have a fundamental right to vote regardless of their level of education or their ability to talk or think rationally on specific polices. I have no interest in suggesting that a test of competency should be set prior to a vote being allowed - that way lies madness. I also don’t accept the premise that youths, merely as a by-product of their age, will automatically produce a less educated vote than anyone else. I merely contest they should be afforded the same fundamental right to their vote as all other free citizens.
I’m proposing that the minimum age of 18, as currently set, is a completely (and demonstrably) arbitrary line to draw. This was originally proved, in my opinion, by the passing of the 26th amendment, showing the age limit to be flexible and open to future interpretation.
I’m not advocating scrapping the age limit for voting entirely, for the same basic cognitive reasons mentioned above previously. I’m suggesting only that the current age limit, the accepted status quo, should certainly be considered only as a fluid marker, not set in stone. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but a step by step lowering of the voting age, in increments, perhaps on a state rather than national level ( if this didn’t cause constitutional issues in itself ) would be a good starting point. There are many youth organisations out there who support a lowering of the age limit, and I contest they should be given a fair and honest hearing rather than a simple dismissal.
This is a strawman because I seriously doubt any reasonable person would disagree with this. No one thinks you go to bed the night before your 18th birthday as a swaddled mental infant, and wake up the next morning with a fully developed adult mind and body. It’s just that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Actually making that line “fluid” in practice would open up a pandora’s box of potential and actual discrimination that would make you yearn for the days of 18 to vote. Age is the least discriminatory way we can draw the line, because it applies to every single human being on the planet until a certain point.
IIRC, the argument for lowering the voting age to 18 was because 18 was the age for the draft. If you were old enough to be forced to fight in a war, the argument went, you were old enough to vote.
Let me ask you this-if we give kids the right to vote and drive and such, are we also going to give them the responsibilities? Such as being tried as adults at the age of ten and fourteen? Paying taxes? Be subject to the draft?
Yes, you can either take the responsibilities with the rights or get neither.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Ten year olds on the battlefield. After all those decades of fights against child labor laws, you approve of this?
You’re not talking to me are you? I’m *for *keeping the age of majority at 18.
ETA: I see how my post could be misinterpreted. I was saying “Yes” to you and then elaborating on it.
How would a general system of UHC not address their problems adequately?
You people are ignoring how much commonality there is between kids and adults! Both can be just as immature, emotional, politically stupid. Both benefit from being forced to do things! If adults had curfews, couldn’t drink, and were forced to do their homework, they’d be safer, smarter, and better behaved.
The difference between kids and adults is about who has power and who doesn’t.
Remember, often people in their 20s and 30s, even 40 year olds, are considered “kids” because the people with power are all 60 and 70. (Often in connection with politics, or some societies, or other social heirachies.) In other situations, the cutoff is younger. (Like in pre-history or summer camp.) Yet the distinction is always the same, on any scale.
It is interesting that it this issue that has caused so much steam. Because it is connected to several other issues on the OP’s list. Namely, animal rights and pedophilia. It is also connected to the actual “great civil rights movements”: those of womens’ rights and minorities’ rights. For one thing these people were also often treated as kids. For another, real differences do exist between men and women, and blacks and whites, just like they inarguably do between the young and the old. Differences of disposition and ability. However, these past civil rights movements eventually succeeded through an overwhelming meme that ‘everyone in identical.’ Through that inaccuracy, the movements succeeded. But that argument cannot possibly be stretched to include kids. And neither to animals. Or hominids from Florens, if they still exist. Which is why these groups will never likely gain respect in the same way. (Unless we go back and reconsider our philosophical underpinnings for extending civil rights.)
(Or we just forget the whole rights thing and realize that telling adults what to do has just as many benefits as strictly rearing kids and animals. That’s also an option. Imagine, no one would be fat, and everyone would know Latin.)
Whatever happened to “No rights without responsibilities?” Why are children mature enough to drive, and yet NOT mature enough to join the military?
Well, rejoining the debate- how about dudes under 21 and 18+? They are adults under the law, they can vote, etc.
But they can’t buy a beer or buy a handgun.
Now, if we passed laws saying that Amerinds couldn’t buy alcohol or Balcks couldn’t buy guns, that woudl be racist. So why is it right to deprive another group of privleges?
Well, there, I absolutely agree-the drinking age should definitely be 18-what’s the point of it being 21, anyways? And though I did not know that you couldn’t buy a gun until 21-that should also be changed.
So I’m assuming that you all are proposing to take the vote away from people who are too old (or unintelligent, or physically unable) to fight in the military, people who are too poor (or who cheat on their taxes) to pay income tax. Let’s not forget that anyone who buys something will pay some sort of sales tax, whether it’s 60 year olds buying a lexus or 10 year olds buying a video game. So it’s not like kids are total freeloaders who don’t deserve a say at all.
I’m still not seeing 18 and one day = responsible, smart adult. If you want to propose some way of determining voter competence, that’s fine; our argument is that age is nothing more than arbitrary (and useless) factor.
Honestly it sounds like you want to go back to 1776. Back then only white, landowning, legal adult males could vote. Then we got rid of the landowning part. Then we got rid of race and gender qualifiers (in whichever order you want). Then we changed “adult” from 21 to 18. I would say that you are going against the trend here.
Good luck with disenfranchising all of those irresponsible voters, by the way.
If they are ,they sure as hell can not admit it. They have to appease the oppressive Christians .