# Youth Rights - Suffrage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2009, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053 "2009-09-22T05:55:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/61 "2009-09-24T05:23:08Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > You’ve gotten answers to your question it’s just that you don’t like the answers. The word “WHY” was capitalized for a reason in that post. There’s been a lot of opinion dumping, but the anti-suffrage crowd has been rather light on the justification front. The “you have to have a line somewhere” is taken as a given by that lot without any justification, and they instead focus on where the line ought to be. The fact that they aren’t justifying their stances mean they haven’t been answering the “WHY” part of the question. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Ask that to the residents of the District of Columbia. > > The point is, there DOES have to be a line, and the nature of lines is that they are arbitrary. The only alternative to a line is a test, which by ITS nature is discriminatory, and unconstitutional BTW. > > Where you draw the line is worthy of discussion. Whether there should be a line is not. As you are not willing to acknowledge this reality, buh bye. Have a nice rest of your thread. You claiming that there has to be a line does absolutely nothing to justify the idea that there has to be a line. You’ve been asked (repeatedly) to justify the existence of this line, and all you’ve been able to do is assert that it needs to be there. If you have no intention of providing any sort of argument or justification, I not only welcome you to leave, I encourage it. > [@Odesio](#): > > It’s the point at which someone is responsible enough to take care of him or her self. I know, you’re going to come back and tell me that someone doesn’t magically become mature at the age of 18. You know what? You’re right. I’m also sure that there are fifteen year old individuals who are mature. So your line is based on when we grant them other basic rights which we’re currently denying them for no good reason, like the right to live on one’s own, earn an income, sign a lease, and the like. Nice to know you’ve got nothing in the way of argument besides this circular using one unjustifiable arbitrary line based on nothing to justify another. > [@Odesio](#): > > Given the maturity level of most teens I don’t believe it to be an ignorant position to have. Cries of oppression strike me as a tad melodramatic. Voting disenfranchisment is opression. How the facts strike you is irrelevent. > [@Odesio](#): > > No. Or would you prefer it if we simply passed laws forbidding minors from working? Because the right to vote isn’t likely to happen any time in the near future. Wow, if only we’d had you during the American Revolution. If only the British Monarchy had figured out that they could shut up those upity colonists by just denying them the right to earn an income! > [@Odesio](#): > > When these voting rights for minors threads pop up I always wonder what the end game is for advocates. At what age do you think people should have the right to vote? Is a 12 year old capable of consent? How about a 6 year old? If you say yes to the former and no to the latter how would you justify your seemingly arbitrary age restriction? > Odesio My end game? An end to all age lines. And to anticipate your next few qustions: Yes, all of them. No exceptions. Period. > [@Odesio](#): > > I’m experiencing some cognitive dissonance here. If someone is mature enough to vote then why aren’t they mature enough to sign contracts, consent to sex, etc? The same people that have a bed time and must eat their broccoli before dessert are mature enough to vote? It doesn’t make sense. You’re using one unjustifiable arbitrary age line to justify another. It’s circular reasoning. I don’t support any of those lines, but none of those things is the focus of this thread. > [@thirdwarning](#): > > Except that we don’t require any specific level of education in order to vote. You can vote if you’ve dropped out of high school, or if you somehow never learned to read, or if you just didn’t bother with the classes you took. Nobody suggested the education was necessary in order to qualify to vote. Actually, people have suggested it. They just said that since we can’t have litteracy tests, we should just force people to get an education, then not give them the vote until they’re past the age where we can’t force them into education anymore. > [@footballisplayedwithyourfeet](#): > > I personally think all these arbitrary lines should either be enforced and be at the same age, or every right should be given on a case by case basis. > > You could say that when you become eighteen, you become an adult that can marry, sign contracts, buy liquor, be prosecuted as an adult, pay taxes and vote; and before your eigteen none of these can happen. > > Or you can look at it at a case by case basis because you don’t like arbitrary lines, but then any minor should be able to apply for voting rights, the right to sign contracts etc. I don’t think it is fair to say some things are case by case and for others we abhor to the arbitrary line we find so inportant (especially when it is the one area where being treated as an adult is negative for the minor). > > I guess I’m saying there should be consistency. Again, while I opose every age line, the focus of this thread is suffrage. If you want to discuss those other threads, you can either make your own thread about them now, or wait until I get around to making threads for those individual issues, as I’m planning a full series of these threads. Suffrage just seemed a reasonable place to start, since it’s the fastest, surest way to enable the rest of those rights to come. > [@DrCube](#): > > Of course it does. My question, maybe I haven’t made it clear, is “What is the bad stuff that will happen when we allow the youth to vote?”. > > There are bad things that can happen when 11 year olds are allowed to consent to sex, and take out mortgages, namely, being taken advantage of by nefarious adults. > > If an 11 year old votes for President…? What’s the down side of giving those who are governed a voice in their own government? This is the thread about sexual consent: > **[Law & Ethics: Adult-Minor Sex](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=532345)** > > In this thread, the question came up of what a straight man would do if he suddenly discovered, to his surprise, the person performing fellatio on him was another man. Another question came up where it was asked what if the man discovered the person... Can we take any off topic arguing about the appropriateness of it there? > [@SoulFrost](#): > > Yes, yes I am. But I’m old enough and experienced enough to know it. And to call Bullshit on it when I see it. Children are neither. > > How would adults protect them? Tamper with their kid’s vote? Or tamper with the kid’s choice? Can I get some proof that every human being on earth is capable of recognizing when they are being manipulated after they cross the magic age line? Is the adulthood fairy somehow involved in granting this ability? > [@SoulFrost](#): > > I make it a point never to discuss politics with any underage voting children who may look to me as an authority figure. > > Again, I am an adult. I have the knowledge and experience to make an informed decision. > > Even if my mama disagrees with my choice. > > Even if my best friend tells me I’m wrong. > > Even if I see on a TV ad that my candidate will make my daddy lose his job. > > Even if my pastor tells the whole church that God, Hisownself, has revealed that my candidate is the Antichrist. > > Children do not have the knowledge, do not have the experience, and do not have the filtering mechanisms to make that informed decision. Prove you have this knowledge and experience. Prove every adult has it. Prove no child has it. Explain why you feel that this knowledge and experience is necessary to someone’s vote being legitimate. Essentially, provide some evidence and meaningful argument for the bullshit you’re continually spouting. > [@Ravenman](#): > > **DrCube** , what are your views on emancipation? Do you think children ought to have a right to leave their parents at any time without some kind of judicial or administrative review? I’m not who you addressed this to, but I’ll answer anyway. I support an unconditional right of a child to choose their living arrangements without any reason given. If someone’s reached the point that they’d rather live on the streets than with their parents, seems to me they’re better off on the streets than with the parents that drove them to that conclusion. Though I should point out that often kids do have people who are willing to take them in, but the kid is denied the right to choose to live with them either, because the courts decide that the DNA donors ought to have their authority to abuse their ofspring as they see fit respected. > [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Of course there are 16 year olds mature enough to vote and 30 40 or 70 year olds who aren’t. But the law can’t judge everyone individually. It would take forever, put your rights in the hands of a subjective whimsical judge, and cost a fortune. You know what, you’re right. I mean, next thing we’ll be wanting to judge people based on their merrits when deciding who ought to be allowed to drive. Oh wait… :rolleyes: > [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > The law needs a bright line that applies to everyone equally, arbitrary though it may be. The line used to be 21, now it’s 18. It could be some other age, 16 or 19, but it would still be an arbitrary bright line. We’re not going to let toddlers vote obviously, so the line is going to be somewhere. I think 18 is fine, but if you want to argue that it should be 16 or 14, you should lobby for that. But it will still be an arbitrary line. The law has no need for such a line, and you’ve done nothing to suggest that we need one. There is no obvious reason we should deny anyone who so desires the right to vote. If you have any intention of providing one, I suggest you get to it. > [@Jettboy](#): > > _“Free candy and a skateboard for anyone who votes for me! Watch my music video and you’ll see that I’m the best possible candidate for office! I’ll make it my mission to abolish curfews, drinking ages, school attendence and broccoli! Tell your friends that if they’re really, truly cool they’ll vote for me!”_ > > That’s why kids shouldn’t be allowed to vote. You are aware that bribing voters is already illegal, right? As to the issues you mention, they seem like legitimate appeals (broccoli notwithstanding), and any politician **should** be dealing with youth-rights issues in such a system. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing. > [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > That’s only marginally more stupid than political ads aimed at adults. Considering it’s both illegal, and so transparent as to be almost guarenteed to drive people away (since no one likes being talked down to, kids included), I’d say it’s more than marginally more stupid. > [@DrCube](#): > > Past a certain point, yes. But parents have a responsibility to care for their kids, and allowing an 8 year old to live in the streets when you can prevent it isn’t very caring, no matter what the kid chooses. Especially when they can’t enter into any rental agreements, get a job, drive a car, etc. So my solution would be to set the aforementioned legal age to enter into contracts as the age at which kids could leave home without permission. Those younger would be dealt with on a case by case basis, as now. > > But a 16 year old who can drive and work absolutely should be allowed to live where he pleases. Believe me, lots of kids are living with their parents until they’re 30 nowadays. Nobody gives up free room and board, and probably laundry, dishwashing and housekeeping services, without a good reason. And whether that reason is good enough is not your decision to make. Me, I’d support this being a voluntary arrangement on both sides from any age. Parents can already terminate the relationship at will by giving their kids up for adoption, so I see no justification for that right not being reciprocal. But again, that’s another thread. > [@pedescribe](#): > > Yes, when I make a decision, to a large extent is is due to outside manipulation\*. But this is true for anyone. However, as people age from child to adult, their decisions become more and more their own. Still waiting for you to provide more than assertions, and start providing actual facts and arguments. > [@pedescribe](#): > > Let’s look at this step by step: > [ul] > [li]The voters should be as rational and objective as possible[/li][/ul] Not a requirement I see anywhere in the constitution, or in any of the political writings dealing with representative democracy. Where are you getting this insane idea? > [@pedescribe](#): > > [ul] > [li]At a certain age, the vast majority of people are as objective and rational as they can possibly be.[/li][li]Before a certain age, the vast majority of people are highly irrational compared to the rest of their life.[/li][/ul] I’m **really** going to need to see some evidence of this. Then I’m going to need to see your justification for opressing minorities because it’s more convenient for the majority. > [@pedescribe](#): > > The first item is, IMHO, an essential element of democracy. The US constitution, the federalist papers, the minutes of the constitutional conventions, and two hundred years of history disagree with you. The US electorate has never been rational or objective, yet we remain a representative democracy. Once again, the whole point of this form of government is that it accounts for the fact that the overwhelming majority of people (of all ages) are idiots. > [@pedescribe](#): > > And the second and third items are simply a consequence of brain development. Have you even looked at any studies of brain development ever before producing these assertions? > [@pedescribe](#): > > It logically follows that people who are younger than a certain age should not vote, simply to keep the pool of voters more rational and objective. And if any of your premises were true, that would mean something. Valid, but not sound. > [@pedescribe](#): > > Now, we have two choices: > a) Implement a highly costly and subjective system to attempt to find the few exceptions to the line It’s not really that difficult, costly, or subjective. You ask the question: “Would you like to vote in the election?” If they answer “Yes”, you let them vote in the election. > [@pedescribe](#): > > or > b) Bar a few undeserving people from voting **for a few years**. > > And this, this is the part that you do not seem to comprehend. It’s not like anyone is getting permanently disenfranchised. For the people who are on the wrong side of the line, the problem is self-correcting, since time will allow them the vote. Wrong. Keep in mind that even in first world countries people do die before the age of 18. People aren’t invulnerable before that age. > [@Ravenman](#): > > There is no right for children to vote, so they are not being denied their rights. There is an inherent moral right of every citizen in a democratic society to have a vote. Just because that right is routinely violated by an immoral legal system does not change, in any way, the existence of that right. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Should children serve on juries, too? Of course they should. Why do you assume this would be an issue? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/62 "2009-09-24T08:28:01Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Perhaps you didn’t notice, but this isn’t IMHO. Make an argument, or don’t bother posting. Ok. Here’s my argument. Kids and teenagers aren’t just little versions of adults. It takes time for them to develop mentally and emotionally, and because they’re mentally and emotionally immature, it’s bad public policy and unfair to them to give them all of the rights and responsibilities we give adults. Here’s a summary of various stages of adolescent development. (The site is from the South Carolina Department of Mental Health, and the information comes from the American Academy of Childhood Psychiatry.) [http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/adolescent\_facts.htm](http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/adolescent_facts.htm) Here’s a paper from the American Bar Association opposing the death penalty for juveniles, that looks at some of the studies about adolescent brain development. (Warning, in PDF) [http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf](http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf) > [@](#): > > The frontal lobe is “involved in behavioral facets germane to many aspects of criminal culpability,” explains Dr. Ruben C. Gur, neuropsychologist and Director of the Brain Behavior Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania. “Perhaps most relevant is the involvement of these brain regions in the control of aggression and other impulses…. If the neural substrates of these behaviors have not reached maturity before adulthood, it is unreasonable to expect the behaviors themselves to reflect mature thought processes. > > “The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable…. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the ‘biological’ > age of maturity.” > [@](#): > > Jay Giedd, a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health, explains that during adolescence the “part of the brain that is helping organization, planning and strategizing is not done being built yet…. It’s sort of unfair to expect [adolescents] to have adult levels of organizational skills or decision making before their brain is finished being built.” ---
**Author:** ![Blackberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@Blackberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackberry)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/63 "2009-09-24T09:54:54Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > 1. The Juvinile justice system is a disadvantage to minors, since they are denied access to a jurry of their peers and all the other tools of due process afforded to adults. You’re greatly oversimplifying the issue. Juvenile justice laws vary a LOT from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it’s incorrect to say that juveniles are denied all tools of due process (and the trend is toward granting them more due process rights). There are many potential advantages and disadvantages of being prosecuted as a juvenile, depending on the crime, jurisdiction, individual, and other factors. But it is absolutely not always a disadvantage to juveniles. In fact, juveniles transferred to the adult system are at an increased risk of suffering physical and psychological harm and less likely to participate in rehabilitative programs (cite below). Hinton, W. J., Sims, P. L., Adams, M. A., & West, C. (2007). Juvenile justice: A system divided. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(4), 466-483. doi:10.1177/0887403407304578 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/64 "2009-09-24T10:19:39Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > FTR, I don’t agree with age limits for almost anything. Driving a car? Owning a gun? Purchasing alcohol? Do you really want to see some drunk 10 year old driving down the highway with a loaded weapon in his hand? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/65 "2009-09-24T11:59:56Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > I say having no age limits beats the alternatives. Why do you think that denying people the right to vote based on their birthday is justified? Children are given more responsibilities as they get older and get more capable of handling them. That’s how parents handle it, and that’s how society handles it. Having a voting age is consistent with that. I don’t think a five-year-old loses anything by not being able to vote. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/66 "2009-09-24T12:54:24Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Driving a car? Owning a gun? Purchasing alcohol? Do you really want to see some drunk 10 year old driving down the highway with a loaded weapon in his hand? > [@DrCube](#): > > The fact is, granting someone rights doesn’t magically make every last one of them abuse those rights. All it does is give them a choice. And for that matter, we test drivers so what does it matter how old they are? If they pass the test, then they can drive. I don’t see why this wouldn’t work for children and guns as well. As for alcohol… Why do you people always care what goes into somebody else’s body? It is the parent’s decision to allow their children to drink, and I still think allowing your children to drink to the point of blacking out or getting health problems is negligence and potentially child abuse. But otherwise, let them have fun. Perhaps we could even mandate some awareness training on the dangers of alcohol at a certain age. But seriously, if this education I’m talking about is anything like DARE, I’d rather go back to the dark ages. If we’re going to educate people then we need to give them all the relevant facts and let them make their own decisions instead of cherry pick facts and advise abstinence from all potentially harmful substances. As a parent, I’ve found it is mostly counterproductive to tell kids what to do. Tell them _why_ they should do it and let them choose. That doesn’t always work, of course (my son is 3), so I often have to physically pick him up and make him bend to my will. I figure I’ve got a couple of years until that power difference is gone, then he’s mostly on his own. I’ll be there to help him make decisions until he’s an adult, but they’re still his decisions for the most part. I’m just trying to keep him alive and semi-healthy while I teach him to be an adult. That’s my job, not sheltering him from responsibility, danger and offense until he goes to college. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/67 "2009-09-24T13:16:20Z")
Are you going to buy your 5 year old a gun if he wants one? If you’re not willing to pay for it, are you going to let him drop out if school so he can work and earn money to buy a gun? Hmmm what kind of work can a 5 yeard old do? Well, since you think labor laws are discriminatory, perhaps you yourself can hire him to clean the house. Or maybe the man down the street wants to hire him to take naked pictures, or to have sex? Is that all right? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/68 "2009-09-24T14:13:19Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Are you going to buy your 5 year old a gun if he wants one? > > If you’re not willing to pay for it, are you going to let him drop out if school so he can work and earn money to buy a gun? > > Hmmm what kind of work can a 5 yeard old do? Well, since you think labor laws are discriminatory, perhaps you yourself can hire him to clean the house. Or maybe the man down the street wants to hire him to take naked pictures, or to have sex? Is that all right? If he can’t buy it he can’t buy it. As long as the government isn’t restricting him, I’m cool with that. And I’m not against labor laws. Just the sharp cutoff age at which one is allowed to work. Just because I think kids should be able to earn money doesn’t mean I think they should be locked into dangerous factories for 12 hours every day of the week. Nor do I support letting children be porn stars. ---
**Author:** ![SoulFrost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f07891/32.png) [@SoulFrost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SoulFrost)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/69 "2009-09-24T14:21:11Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Can I get some proof that every human being on earth is capable of recognizing when they are being manipulated after they cross the magic age line? Is the adulthood fairy somehow involved in granting this ability? > > Prove you have this knowledge and experience. Prove every adult has it. Prove no child has it. Explain why you feel that this knowledge and experience is necessary to someone’s vote being legitimate. S’what the line’s for–those above it _should_ be able to make informed choices, those below it are not always expected to. The proof is that people need time to grow and develop, to learn and explore before they begin making such decisions. The line is arbitrary, granted, but it’s the best method we have of separating children from adults. > [@Cesario](#): > > Essentially, provide some evidence and meaningful argument for the bullshit you’re continually spouting. Ooops, so sorry, but your words are suddenly no longer worth my time or attention. Later. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/70 "2009-09-24T14:23:19Z")
Didn’t you just say “no lines” upthread? Do you understand that if children are granted all these legal rights, then no one, not even their parents, are going to be able to prevent them from exercising them? Or do you propse that parents should be allowed to violate the constitutional rights of their children? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/71 "2009-09-24T15:27:09Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Didn’t you just say “no lines” upthread? That was Cesario. I still advocate age limits for sexual consent and contracts. Furthermore, I recognize parents’ rights as well, including the right to raise their own children. We also can’t ignore the current power dynamic between adults and children, which puts children at a significant disadvantage in their relationships with adults. I’d like to see that power minimized, but it’s not ever entirely going away. Basically, my stance is that the government shouldn’t tell children what they can buy or put in their body. But the parents still can, until such time as the kid gets sick of it and leaves home. Which I would allow as long as they’re not in any danger (e.g., living off of garbage under a bridge). ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/72 "2009-09-24T16:02:40Z")
I apologize for my confusion over who posted what. So you’ve in favor of nearly all (but not totally) adult rights for children with parental consent? Should parents be able to decide when their children can vote? Or drive a car? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/73 "2009-09-24T16:09:31Z")
So, should the Octomom be able to drag her 8 kids to the polling place and have, effectively, 9 votes? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/74 "2009-09-24T17:59:54Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > And for that matter, we test drivers so what does it matter how old they are? If they pass the test, then they can drive. I don’t see why this wouldn’t work for children and guns as well. We test them when they are 16 years old. We are making an assumption that they have reached a certain maturity based on their age. I suppose if you could construct a test that would cover every possible situation a 10 year old driver might encounter then testing them might make sense. Such a test would be prohibitively expensive to make and administer, however, and ultimately pointless, since anyone who has observed typical ten year old behavior knows they have no business operating a motor vehicle on public streets. > [@](#): > > As for alcohol… Why do you people always care what goes into somebody else’s body? Who the fuck are “you people?” I don’t care what anyone does as long as they understand what they’re doing. And I don’t want your drunken ten year old going about waving a loaded handgun willy-nilly. > [@](#): > > I’m just trying to keep him alive and semi-healthy while I teach him to be an adult. That’s my job, not sheltering him from responsibility, danger and offense until he goes to college. Keeping your drunken ten year old away from guns and out of the driver’s seat isn’t protecting him, it’s protecting society. This is the part you don’t seem to grasp. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/75 "2009-09-24T18:49:17Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I apologize for my confusion over who posted what. > > So you’ve in favor of nearly all (but not totally) adult rights for children with parental consent? Should parents be able to decide when their children can vote? Or drive a car? Yep. ---
**Author:** ![North\_Going\_Zaxian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b3f665/32.png) [@North\_Going\_Zaxian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/North_Going_Zaxian)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/76 "2009-09-24T18:51:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Children are given more responsibilities as they get older and get more capable of handling them. That’s how parents handle it, and that’s how society handles it. Having a voting age is consistent with that. I don’t think a five-year-old loses anything by not being able to vote. I think he/she does. If 5 year olds were allowed to vote, then they have a voice to express their dissent, and the government would have to listen to them to get their votes. Probably not about 5 year olds demanding Halloween be a monthly occurrence, cause no politician would ever promise that; but youth minimum wage, copyright laws, province wide aged-based curfews? These are all valid examples of stuff that a youth voter “loses anything by not being able to vote”. (I’m Canadian, don’t know how many of these apply in the US). [QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Keeping your drunken ten year old away from guns and out of the driver’s seat isn’t protecting him, it’s protecting society. This is the part you don’t seem to grasp. [/QUOTE] So limiting the vote by age is protecting society? Give me one realistic case (that a politician can and will promise), that is detrimental to society. If a politician promises stupid stuff pandering to kids, he/she will be taken just as seriously as the Marxist Leninist Party or the Weed party and never get any significant votes. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/77 "2009-09-24T18:57:57Z")
> [@North\_Going\_Zaxian](#): > > So limiting the vote by age is protecting society? Give me one realistic case (that a politician can and will promise), that is detrimental to society. If a politician promises stupid stuff pandering to kids, he/she will be taken just as seriously as the Marxist Leninist Party or the Weed party and never get any significant votes. I’ll answer that if you can point out anywhere I said anything remotely like that. ---
**Author:** ![North\_Going\_Zaxian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b3f665/32.png) [@North\_Going\_Zaxian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/North_Going_Zaxian)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/78 "2009-09-24T19:14:36Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Are you going to buy your 5 year old a gun if he wants one? > > If you’re not willing to pay for it, are you going to let him drop out if school so he can work and earn money to buy a gun? > > Hmmm what kind of work can a 5 yeard old do? Well, since you think labor laws are discriminatory, perhaps you yourself can hire him to clean the house. Or maybe the man down the street wants to hire him to take naked pictures, or to have sex? Is that all right? I think the 5 year old has the RIGHT to do the nude pictures; I also know that the 5 year old has the PROTECTION that the man doesn’t have the RIGHT to take the pictures. If the pictures were taken, the man gets in trouble; the 5 year old, not so much, because the 5 year old hasn’t done anything legally wrong, the man has. And if I want the 5 year old to clean my house, he has the RIGHT to do so. If I had kids, and wanted to give them $5 to clean their room or even $7,000,000 to clean up the gerbil’s cage, how does this violate their rights. If I wanted to hire a 14 year old to babysit my imaginary 5 year old, how does this violate the 14 year olds rights? Is there a law limiting when one can work? I see kids working in TV commercials and movies all the time? Are their rights violated? I think you are mixing up Rights and Protections. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/79 "2009-09-24T19:19:09Z")
Kids can’t vote because no one wants Lil Wayne to run for President with Miley Cirus as his running mate. ---
**Author:** ![North\_Going\_Zaxian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b3f665/32.png) [@North\_Going\_Zaxian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/North_Going_Zaxian)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053/80 "2009-09-24T19:36:04Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I’ll answer that if you can point out anywhere I said anything remotely like that. I apologize; I misread your comments, mixing up posts. I was thinking you were comparing voting to other youth rights, and how this was protecting society, when you were just having a side argument with DrCube. I redirect my statement of restricting voting is not protecting society to: > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Kids can’t vote because no one wants Lil Wayne to run for President with Miley Cirus as his running mate. Because 1) Lil Wayne and Miley Cirus can’t legally run yet; 2) This won’t get many votes; and 3) I want Lil Wayne to run, it would be funny, and make a skit on SNL. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youth-rights-suffrage/511053.md?page=5)