Schools already introduce children to the voting process. Since the education system is in crisis mode it doesn’t make sense to add additional burdens to the curriculum. There are an infinite number of “good ideas” we could dump on kids.
And there is no hyperbole to the idea of a large voting block (teachers unions) entrusted with such a task.
Voting is a right. A right to do something implies freedom not to do it. If you make voting mandatory, you eliminate it as a right and make it an obligation.
I prefer voting to be a right.
No, he’s right. I don’t think it’s a bad idea because I think teachers are all union goons who would indoctrinate the children to vote for Big Brother Democrat (:rolleyes:), but it is indoctrination. So is a lot of other nonsense students do in school. Almost all of it is a waste of time that could be disposed of and absolutely nothing would be lost, and maybe we would see a small uptick in critical thinking. I think this kind of indoctrination does little to convince anybody to do the thing they’re being encouraged to do. A lot of the time, kids recognize that it’s bullshit, or else they realize it not long afterward. Maybe after we finish school and stop being exposed to so much of this stuff, we forget how ridiculous it was and think maybe it works after all. It doesn’t. I do usually vote, and it’s not because I was encouraged to do it in school. It’s because I decided it was worth my time and effort. When I don’t, there’s nothing a school could have said in my past that would’ve changed my mind. (I didn’t bother voting in NYC’s latest mayoral election because I generally liked Bloomberg but was upset with his term limits power grab, knew little about the Democrat and figured he had no chance to win, and the weather sucked. Turns out a lot of the city agreed with me and it did send a message.)
Should? Yes, probably. But they have a right not to, and Terr is right that you take the “should” out of the equation once you try to force people to do it.
Other than wasting their time and their parents’ time and money, plus the time of the election workers. That doesn’t count for some reason.
No, it wouldn’t. In fatc I think it might be a subtle reminder that when you get older and your vote “counts,” it still counts for shit a lot of the time. What does that do for civic pride?
It is not indoctrination because no one’s pushing for a particular viewpoint that favors one party or another. What would be taught is that voting is important and a civic duty, as they probably teach now, only that we would give students first hand experience in participating in a vote that isn’t about what class color or what mascot they want. In this case, I think you’re falling into the way of thinking that is more in line with your opinion, because you don’t think it’ll do much to change students’ minds, so you are using examples where it doesn’t. My argument is slightly different, in that students need to know this, should know it, and as part of the learning process, should get to participate in a mock election. This would be no different than saying they need to learn math, and forcing them into classes that teach it, in the hopes that knowledge would give them some basis to fall back on when they are adults and can make decisions that matter
This is just like saying that kids should learn math but shouldn’t be required to. I think all kids need to have a base level of education in order to benefit themselves and society. Voting, how to do it and discussion of its impact, is just as valuable as learning english or social studies. No right is being diminished because the kids don’t really have the right to vote until they turn 18. Until then, they are simply learning about it through a mock process
Its no more a waste than forcing adults and kids together for 7 or 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday, about 180 days a year for 12 years learning about other things. It is not a waste, it would be integrated into the curriculum
You can’t instill pride, but part of the reason why we teach kids a plethora of eventually useless knowledge over a breadth of topics is that it will help them later on to be more well-rounded adults, and some, or most kids will eventually use some of what they learned to function as members of society. Since we don’t know what they’ll do, we have to teach them a lot of different things so that at least one thing learned in school will be useful. Voting is just another topic to cover
Its not a right for kids, their votes don’t count. Making them practice it then, by your definition, shouldn’t diminish it. They are free to choose to exercise it or not when they grow up. I only think that during school, as minors, they should go through the process of doing it
I don’t hate or fear teachers unions as much as you, so I cannot really contemplate what you hope to mean by that last statement.
Saying that the schools are overburdened is a terrible way to prevent more educational topics to be included. Are we to freeze all education at 2012 levels, never adding one more topic, because our system is full? Of course not! The answer is simply to integrate it into existing curriculum or find something else to remove in order to add voting into the syllabus
That’s not what indoctrination means. The dictionary.com definition is “to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology,” and if this isn’t instructing in a principle, I don’t know what is. There’s no requirement that it be partisan, although I admit I’m surprised to see that the definition goes on to say “especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.” It’s biased but not partisan.
They do already teach that, and my point remains the same: making people vote in a pretend election that does not count is a meaningless activity, and it remains a meaningless activity no matter how much you make it superficially resemble a more meaningful activity. So the trappings are pointless. A vote for a school mascot or a class color is unimportant and student council elections are only somewhat more meaningful, but then again, at least their votes in those elections would actually count. You don’t have to stage an expensive fake election to teach kids about voting, and it’s kind of ridiculous to say the only way to teach students about something is to stage an elaborate and expensive practice version.
Yes, that’s different. You only learn math by practicing it. You don’t actually have to do a run a mock presidential election to make this point about voting, nevermind the bit about requiring kids to do it.
It is more of a waste, and I already explained why.
It’s already covered. We’re talking specifically about this proposal for a mandatory fake election.
Straw man. The process of voting is already taught in schools. that’s not what the thread is about.
Straw man takes a wife.
This is madness. Voting != the government.
If the government is bad, then voter turnout should be high, as people seek to replace it.
I’m bemused that there are multiple posters in this thread who object to schools indoctrinating young citizens, and consider voting an inconvenience and a burden.
Weird.
Only if you interpret “government” to mean the current government.
If you have a bad government structure or government system, the result is disengagement from the entire political process. The US has, by comparison with other developed democracies, low turnouts at its elections and one possible explanation for this is citizen disengagement, which is possibly the result of an electoral system which seeks to minimise the choice offered to citizens, by presenting only two viable candidates from parties whose policy positions broadly overlap.
Well, that’s the two-party system. But that’s not what he said.
And if we got all those disaffecteds to come in and vote for other parties, or even just donkey vote, it might undermine the two-party system.
With pointless crap? I’ll object all day to that.
Come on now. It’s not exactly a revolutionary observation to point out that voting can be inconvenient. It might be worth it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a pain in the ass to make the extra time to stand in line for half an hour in a crowded gym to cast your ballot. (It bears repeating that this would get worse if children age 8 and up were forced to figure out how to vote.) And Magiver didn’t say voting is a burden. He said the fake election would be a burden for schools.
If we’re going to take that very milquetoast definition, then it is ok to indoctrinate kids. All kids should be indoctrinated to believe that voting is important just as kids are regularly indoctrinated on a variety of other subjects in school
I would disagree that you can’t learn math by reading about it. As long as the formulas are correct and legible, and taught in an easy-to-understand manner, there’s no reason why you’d have to do X+Y=Z over and over to understand it. In this, I think voting is even more important to practice than math, because people might need math irregularly, or not at all, and losing the skill of long division will probably not affect you much, but every vote and every election has consequences. 1 man’s vote may not mean much in the big picture, but if 90% of the people vote, that can and will change lives
And I think you misunderstand how big of an election would be required. Luckily I have some experience in setting one up. Its no more trouble than a field trip or an assembly. All you’d have to do is set up some cheap ass cardboard voting booths, or some booth equivalents, and print out some documents to substitute as ballots, and have the kids learn about the process and then participate in it. Its really not a big deal and does not have to be expensive or elaborate
Hell, use the same equipment they use for existing school elections, and then just print out some new ballots with the presidential election names. You could do it at the same time even!
Until you knock them down, they are…I dunno, brick men, or something 
You think its too expensive and burdensome to include voting as part of the curriculum. It is not, as it will cost little more than some booths and some paper. Devoting time to the process can be part of a class curriculum, so no significant costs will be incurred. Plus, we can also save time and money by integrating it with existing school elections. Before the election, classes can choose to represent parties or candidates, and advocate for or against a platform. Afterwards, students can be taught to think critically about the repercussions of the elections if the elected platforms were to be made law. This stuff is covered normally in social studies, but without the student participation. I think it would be much more informative and fun for students to be required to do this instead of just reading about voting in a book
OK. Why do we have to do that with a big fake presidential election?
Then why do kids in elementary school learn math by practicing over and over again instead of reading about it?
I think you’re either not understanding what the OP wanted, or you’re suggesting something different. The OP was asking about a mandatory nationwide simulated election where election officials around the country actually take time to count the children’s votes even though the votes are worthless. That’s what I’m against. It is a ridiculous waste of time and money. What you’re proposing on, say, a school level doesn’t bother me. I don’t think it’s necessary, but I don’t think it’s a big deal either.
“Ridiculous waste of time”? Really? I think it could work while you disagree but neither of us has proven the point. The hyperbole is inappropriate. If it doesn’t work then obviously it’s not something we should spend money on. But if it does reliably increase turnout by even as little as 5% or so then I would say it is worth the cost. That’s millions more Americans engaged in the political process. Compared to that the cost is trifling.
Yes. The idea of making election workers count tens of millions of fake ballots cast by children is totally ridiculous. They have enough to do in handling the real election, and like I said upthread, they’ll also have to spend time assisting children whose votes don’t count. The whole process will be slower for everyone. I don’t know how much money this would cost, but the cost in terms of effort and inconvenience would already be prohibitive. It’s a waste of time, and it’s a ridiculous idea.
Whoa, hold on a second, I never said we should make election workers count anything. This would be like a school election with “real” names on the ballots. You don’t have to get anyone from the local election department to administer it. At the most, the people in school would have to count a few hundred or few thousand extra votes. In fact, since its a fake election, do it on a Scantron and have the computer count it. Its no different than what schools do each week when they give out tests. I think you think that I’m planning this thing to be a much bigger event than it is.
As I see it, its a simple 4 step program that can be easily integrated into any social studies curriculum
Step 1: Have discussions on candidates or parties in an upcoming election. Discuss platforms, pros and cons of each. Maybe have mock debates where kids (in high school, not children in elementary school, where did you get that anyway?) have to advocate for one platform, party, or candidate. In other words, like a typical assignment
Step 2: Print out some fake ballots of the candidates, set up some voting areas not unlike a vote for student council president or class color
Step 3: Have election. Try to make it realistic (but not overly so) by having kids go to a physical booth of some kind (easily recreated with some cardboard) and dropping off the ballots in a locked box
Step 4: Announce election results, and students have to complete some follow up assignments like writing an essay on the specific ramifications of passed laws/winning candidates. Maybe even for fun, have some debates on how the new “laws” that were voted in would be implemented in the context of a school. Its not hard, just some essays, some discussion, basically the same thing kids do in school now
I know for a fact that some schools do have mock votes, and they get hundreds of kids to vote. I don’t know what else comes before and after an election of this type, but its not impossible, and certainly not the huge production you thought I was going for
To me, the important thing is that in 4 years of high school, if kids are forced to vote and discuss the election as part of an assignment, that will give them more information on how the government works, how winners and losers can shape our lives, and how voting determines that. There is precious little people who will admit that voting is pointless, most of us know its important. But less than half of us vote. There’s a serious disconnect here between public perception of voting and the exercise of that right. I think making kids do this for 4 years in high school would, in some small way, indoctrinate (yes I said it :p) into them the idea that voting is important and has consequences. And in a big way, it would educate them, which is why they’re in school in the first place
The OP did.
The election equation in the US, deciding whether someone will go vote, is:
P*D+W>R
Where
P is the probability of your vote affecting the result of the election
D is the desirability, to you, of one particular outcome of the election
W is the “warm fuzzies” you get from voting
R is the hassle factor - having to go out of your way, stand in line, and spend time to vote
Most people fool themselves into thinking that P is non-zero. It may be, in the case of local elections, but with federal elections it is close enough to zero to be zero. But with the kids’ elections scenario in the OP even the fooling yourself is not an option. Thus, the only two factors remaining are W and R. I really don’t expect W to be very high with kids. They know very little about politics, unless they have weirdo (I would say abusive) parents who indoctrinate them in politics.
I should have made my distinction more clear then, sorry. I don’t want the kids vote to count, tie be damned. And I would limit it to grades 9-12, or a typical high school, maybe extend it to junior high if its popular and helpful. And I’d keep it within the schools; since the votes don’t count, they don’t need election workers to count them
Your cost benefit analysis there is missing half the equation. If you don’t believe increasing voter turnout is important then no significant increase in cost is worthwhile. If you think the goal is moderately important then some extra expenditures seem worth it. If you believe it is very important, as I do, then larger investments are acceptable. I’m not certain where the disconnect is occurring for you. Perhaps you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own or just unwilling to accept that the idea could work. Or maybe I’m completely off base. I couldn’t say. I can tell you that the arrogance is unwelcome. When come back bring thinking cap.