16 years old voters

[thir]

Again where I come from originally there is a debate whether the age to vote should be changed from 18 years as it is now, to 16.

Is that a good idea?
When are you old enough to vote?
What is the definition of a good voter/citizen?

I think it is ok, they are no worse or better than the rest of us, lacking in experience but often having ideals or ideas. Might be good to take responsibility for their society as well.

What do you think?

[SadisticNature]

While I'm not entirely sure that 16 year olds can vote responsibly, I'd rather have them making some irresponsible votes initially and then actually voting throughout their lives rather than never learning to vote (which seems to be the case these days). I think the ideal voting age would be such that every individual would be able to vote once during high school (regardless of what year they are in). This would enable tie-ins to civics classes, etc. Of course the education curriculum has to be there for this to make sense.

[DuncanONeil]

Not knowing where you are some of this may not seem to make sense. But in my little corner, well not that little, of the world. The educational system is a failure. The students are not prepared for the world. When I went through school national history, as well as world, was taught. And there were classes on Civics. I also used to rail against a test I had to take as a condition of Graduation from, the same subject test, elementary, high school and college. A test on the Constitution, It felt like taking a loyalty test. Maybe that is why Civics isn't taught anymore?
But back to the subject at hand. I would be against lowering the age to 16. Primarily as these children do not have a basic understanding of the origins of the country, the mechanisms by which it works, or the discipline to consider all aspects of a decision.
All through school they have not been held to a disciplined approach of work. Under these circumstances i am not even sure that 18 year olds are qualified to vote. Though they are expected to make their own decisions as a functioning adult.


Again where I come from originally there is a debate whether the age to vote should be changed from 18 years as it is now, to 16.

Is that a good idea?
When are you old enough to vote?
What is the definition of a good voter/citizen?

I think it is ok, they are no worse or better than the rest of us, lacking in experience but often having ideals or ideas. Might be good to take responsibility for their society as well.

What do you think?

[DuncanONeil]

You do realize, as a general rule, that the young are often the most liberal. Which condition often changes in the other direction over time.
No one has, as far as I know, endeavored to explain why. But perhaps it is that the life of a child is not governed by what they earn but by what is given to them by their parents. This mind set is likely altered by their entry into the world as an adult, but such surely takes time.
Many mock elections have been held in schools and the results are often far from those of the nation as a whole. Now based on today some may say that is a good thing, but I am sure many others would not agree. Think "Logan's Run"! Imagine if this idea had been successful during the Counter Culture Period when the mantra was never trust anyone over 30. And do not forget these folks are now running many of our institutions anyway!


While I'm not entirely sure that 16 year olds can vote responsibly, I'd rather have them making some irresponsible votes initially and then actually voting throughout their lives rather than never learning to vote (which seems to be the case these days). I think the ideal voting age would be such that every individual would be able to vote once during high school (regardless of what year they are in). This would enable tie-ins to civics classes, etc. Of course the education curriculum has to be there for this to make sense.

[steelish]

You do realize, as a general rule, that the young are often the most liberal.

That's because most young kids only know how it is to be "taken care of" and believe that is the role of the government. Even kids who are taught the lesson of hard work still don't quite "get it" and some never grow out of it.

Do I believe kids as young as 16 should vote? No.

Personally, I think they should RAISE the age to 21...the same as the legal drinking age.

[denuseri]

And here I was going to saw if anything it should be raised to 30.

Especially after seeing some of the 20 somthings betray their total cluelessness when interviewed during the last election.

[Thorne]

Again where I come from originally there is a debate whether the age to vote should be changed from 18 years as it is now, to 16.

Is that a good idea?
I doubt it. The average 16 year old is not generally interested in politics, or his fellow man. While some may be, most are more interested in the latest fashions, who's boinking who in school, and who's going to win on American Idol (or whichever version goes on in your country.)


When are you old enough to vote?
I think that varies. I think I would give the right to vote to anyone who's completed the first year of their enlistment in the military, but not draftee's. Anyone, including draftee's, who is honorably discharged from the military. Anyone who completes four years of college, or equivalent, at an accredited university. I don't think I would give anyone else the right to vote before age 25.


What is the definition of a good voter/citizen?
A good voter is someone who will vote for the person best qualified for the job, regardless of political affiliation or popularity.

A good citizen is someone who will work to help the elected officials do their jobs, regardless of whether he voted for them or not.

[SadisticNature]

I doubt it. The average 16 year old is not generally interested in politics, or his fellow man. While some may be, most are more interested in the latest fashions, who's boinking who in school, and who's going to win on American Idol (or whichever version goes on in your country.)


I think that varies. I think I would give the right to vote to anyone who's completed the first year of their enlistment in the military, but not draftee's. Anyone, including draftee's, who is honorably discharged from the military. Anyone who completes four years of college, or equivalent, at an accredited university. I don't think I would give anyone else the right to vote before age 25.


A good voter is someone who will vote for the person best qualified for the job, regardless of political affiliation or popularity.

A good citizen is someone who will work to help the elected officials do their jobs, regardless of whether he voted for them or not.

I think a good voter is almost non-existent then. I believe choices like Gore vs Bush, Kerry vs Bush, and Obama vs McCain have consistently reflected a choice of evils. I have a hard time believing that either of the two opposing candidates in any case was the best person to be president.

Bush and Obama both won largely on Charisma, and both have at times seemed overwhelmed by the job.

Furthermore, voting based on qualification suggests that the entire values voters movement is wrong.

As for the voting age over 30, as it is there are some incredibly ageist policies in place in the government and that would be likely exacerbated by increasing the voting age. Running up the national debt is something that punishes the youth of the nation. Similarly social programs related to retirement and old age operate on pay it forward pyramid schemes and the deductions made for them don't actually pay for the programs themselves. The people with the most incentive to fix this are in fact people under 30, who will be facing the raised fees to pay for these programs during their prime earning years. A large portion of the people over 40 are probably a lot more accepting of the idea of running up the national debt and taxing someone else down the road to pay for social programs they will use but aren't adequately funding. Or running up the debt to keep taxes low now while they are in the best earning years of their life, even if that means unfairly taxing people down the road.

[thir]

Not knowing where you are some of this may not seem to make sense.


I was in Denmark which is where this discussion is taking place.



But back to the subject at hand. I would be against lowering the age to 16. Primarily as these children do not have a basic understanding of the origins of the country, the mechanisms by which it works, or the discipline to consider all aspects of a decision.


This begs the question: How many of their elders do??



All through school they have not been held to a disciplined approach of work. Under these circumstances i am not even sure that 18 year olds are qualified to vote. Though they are expected to make their own decisions as a functioning adult.

But at 18 your are personally responsible and must take care of yourself, you can sign a contract, you can become a soldier. Surely you must be considered old enough to vote?

[SadisticNature]

I doubt it. The average 16 year old is not generally interested in politics, or his fellow man. While some may be, most are more interested in the latest fashions, who's boinking who in school, and who's going to win on American Idol (or whichever version goes on in your country.)


I think that varies. I think I would give the right to vote to anyone who's completed the first year of their enlistment in the military, but not draftee's. Anyone, including draftee's, who is honorably discharged from the military. Anyone who completes four years of college, or equivalent, at an accredited university. I don't think I would give anyone else the right to vote before age 25.


A good voter is someone who will vote for the person best qualified for the job, regardless of political affiliation or popularity.

A good citizen is someone who will work to help the elected officials do their jobs, regardless of whether he voted for them or not.

This system of second class citizenry reminds me a lot of a certain Heinlein novel, which most people recognize by its rather weak but populist movie form.

It also reeks of selecting for outcomes. On what basis do you say that someone who volunteers to serve in the military (possibly with only a peacetime deployment or even a non-front role that doesn't give exposure to the actual situation on the ground) is somehow more qualified to vote than someone who instead:

(A) Volunteered in a homeless shelter and in so doing met several veterans who were driven insane by the war and left to their own devices. Someone who believes the government ought to do something about it.

(B) Someone who instead went to college and majored in US history, and thus learned about the events you describe as necessary to understanding the country in far more depth.

(C) Why 30? Why not 21? Why not 25? The answer based on your posts is either a small amount of anecdotal evidence, or a belief that Under 20's made the wrong choice in the last election and didn't elect your candidate.

Note that voters can't even agree on a question like: "What is the most important problem facing our nation today?"

And I think you'll find answers to questions like that change who the better of the two candidates were.

There are a sizable percentage of people who feel the middle class lifestyle has completely tanked, and that the American promise that hard-work will be rewarded is not available to them.

Many people feel much of the success of the middle class in America was based on unionized manufacturing, which ensured someone who was willing to work hard and get the job done would be guaranteed a wage that ensured a comfortable living. Unfortunately, unions of late have focused too much on job security and not enough on salary and benefits to the point where people feel union workers are lazy and hard to fire. Car companies that have been run into the ground by management for years are instead forcing massive pay-cuts through on unions then paying out management bonuses with government bailouts. Where did it all go so wrong?

In this day and age it is rare for someone to earn a middle class living on hard work and a high school diploma. Some people feel things like this are the biggest problem with America. They can't even agree on how to fix it, but what solution someone believes in could easily change the outcome of which of the two candidates was better.

[Losalt]

My personal view on the world is that it's always better with a bad but democratically elected government then a good one that isn't.
So from my point of view anyone with a genuine opinion and that is affected by a governments decisions directly that live in the country and have lived there a while should have voting rights.
Off course I do see the point that it might not always be possible.
For instance I can easily picture kindergarden kids being bribed to vote for a party with sweets (not that the political parties don't try to do the exact same thing with grownups, but still)
At any rate maturity comes with experiences (don't need to have anything to do with age)
And why should a government try to pick out who is mature enough to vote or not?
If they do it by age it will be unreliable because age don't actually equal maturity and if you do it by experience you're discriminating against people with a different set of experiences then you and the lack of diversity will apart from making your society less stable also no longer be a true democracy and therefore not have legitimacy.
Meaning that anyone who's views are not represented in a government have the right not to acknowledge the government.
Well, that's my two cent.

[SadisticNature]

Different people have different life experiences. It's also debatable how much the politics of individuals actually shift. I know plenty of people who are just as liberal or conservative at 40 as they were at 15. At least part of the reason that people are more conservative when they are older is that the politics of just about every country in the world shift to the left over time.

One particularly polarizing issue was race relations, which has historically been progressed by the left-wing party of the day in the US (Republicans in the civil-war era, and Democrats once the parties had switched who was on the right and who was on the left). In analyzing this issue we can look at two questions:

(I) Are people born in year X more likely to be anti-minority rights over their lifetimes than people born in year Y?
(II) Are people more likely to become anti-minority rights as the grow older?

I think the answer to (I) is without a doubt yes for X < Y by a generation. The answer to (II) is probably yes in some cases as well, but my own experiences based on my life and my interactions with people of different generations is that (I) is the much larger factor.

If you want to take a less touchy example consider the following:

Someone who voted Democrat for social programs in their 20's and 30's might be voting Republican in their 60's because they trust the Republicans to maintain the specific programs they believe in while they fear the Democrats will expand them or add ones they don't. Has their view of policies shifted to the right, or has the nation shifted to the left while their views have remained pretty consistent?


You do realize, as a general rule, that the young are often the most liberal. Which condition often changes in the other direction over time.
No one has, as far as I know, endeavored to explain why. But perhaps it is that the life of a child is not governed by what they earn but by what is given to them by their parents. This mind set is likely altered by their entry into the world as an adult, but such surely takes time.
Many mock elections have been held in schools and the results are often far from those of the nation as a whole. Now based on today some may say that is a good thing, but I am sure many others would not agree. Think "Logan's Run"! Imagine if this idea had been successful during the Counter Culture Period when the mantra was never trust anyone over 30. And do not forget these folks are now running many of our institutions anyway!

[MMI]

What does it matter how sensible voters are when the courts can award the victory to the loser?

[Thorne]

My feeling is that the voting age should be based primarily on maturity, not on age alone. Granted, there may be some 16 year olds who are mature enough to handle the responsibility of voting. And there are some 60 year olds who aren't. But in general, I don't think the average high-school graduate is mature enough. Showing maturity by enlisting in the military (or yes, other forms of service organizations as well. I admit, I didn't think about those) should reflect well upon people. Even during a draft, coming out of a military term with an honorable discharge will generally indicate an acquired maturity, as does gaining a college degree. Perhaps even an Associate's level degree would be enough, I don't know.

But I never advocated denying anyone the right to vote permanently, nor did I say anything about 30 years old. My first thought was 25 years. Maybe that's too old, maybe not enough, I don't know.

Immigrants who apply for citizenship must pass a citizenship before they earn the right to vote. Maybe we should have all citizens take such a test. I doubt that most American adults today could pass such a test, which is not a good thing. As SadisticNature noted, several of the latest presidents, and I would venture to guess Congressmen and Senators as well, won because of their popularity and charm, rather than their qualifications.

And lest you think my answer is just sour grapes, I don't think the under-20's elected the wrong candidate. Obama was, in my opinion, the lesser of two evils. Alas, history may prove me wrong.

[denuseri]

The idea of democracies placing restrictions upon who could vote who could not and when and where they could do it is nothing new; its been around from the beginning of...well...democracies.

The Athenians often had things set up so that only their male population ever served in any governmental capacity which couldn’t begin until they had become propertied and reached the age of 30 (past their conscription age).

Voting was done during certain days, if you made it for the votes you participated directly in legislative process. They didn’t employ voting by proxy or "elections" like we have today. It was usually a group of around 6000 men packed around beneath the areophagus or into the agora.

The vote was in the open assembly which generally was done almost always by show of hands and repeatable if necessary until a clear enough majority was established under the direction of the elders. They never went through and actually counted every vote, it was more like a silent cheering contests in a battle of the bands (using secret votes with beads or disks generally wasn’t done in the open assembly only in smaller councils)

To be eligible one had to be enrolled in their respective demos under both patrilineal and matrilineal proof of Athenian lineage at age 18, but couldn’t actually vote until completion of their mandatory military training which btw took 2 years.

Women, children, foreign nationals (called metics), or men of less than full Athenian lineage from both parents had no say at all.


PS: When the United States first got off the ground, many of the founding fathers didn’t want un-propertied men to have a vote at all.

[SadisticNature]

My feeling is that the voting age should be based primarily on maturity, not on age alone. Granted, there may be some 16 year olds who are mature enough to handle the responsibility of voting. And there are some 60 year olds who aren't. But in general, I don't think the average high-school graduate is mature enough. Showing maturity by enlisting in the military (or yes, other forms of service organizations as well. I admit, I didn't think about those) should reflect well upon people. Even during a draft, coming out of a military term with an honorable discharge will generally indicate an acquired maturity, as does gaining a college degree. Perhaps even an Associate's level degree would be enough, I don't know.

But I never advocated denying anyone the right to vote permanently, nor did I say anything about 30 years old. My first thought was 25 years. Maybe that's too old, maybe not enough, I don't know.

Immigrants who apply for citizenship must pass a citizenship before they earn the right to vote. Maybe we should have all citizens take such a test. I doubt that most American adults today could pass such a test, which is not a good thing. As SadisticNature noted, several of the latest presidents, and I would venture to guess Congressmen and Senators as well, won because of their popularity and charm, rather than their qualifications.

And lest you think my answer is just sour grapes, I don't think the under-20's elected the wrong candidate. Obama was, in my opinion, the lesser of two evils. Alas, history may prove me wrong.

Apologies I mixed up your post where you said 25, and denuseri's which suggested 30 (although perhaps not whole-heartedly).

[DuncanONeil]

I was in Denmark which is where this discussion is taking place.



This begs the question: How many of their elders do??
Some of what I said for 16 yo applies as well to many of their parents. The US school system, at least, no longer teaches civics. Many school systems refuse to keep score during sporting events and give a trophy to all participants so nobody FEELS slighted!




But at 18 your are personally responsible and must take care of yourself, you can sign a contract, you can become a soldier. Surely you must be considered old enough to vote?
Many of those 18 year olds get in serious trouble with those contracts as well. They almost never read them, believe what the sales agent tells them. Many kids are facing bankruptcy when they clear college. Not from student loans, although some of the companies involved in that business are little better than loan sharks!

[DuncanONeil]

Non Sequitor! Expressing serious bias as well!

This system of second class citizenry reminds me a lot of a certain Heinlein novel, which most people recognize by its rather weak but populist movie form.

It also reeks of selecting for outcomes. On what basis do you say that someone who volunteers to serve in the military (possibly with only a peacetime deployment or even a non-front role that doesn't give exposure to the actual situation on the ground) is somehow more qualified to vote than someone who instead:

(A) Volunteered in a homeless shelter and in so doing met several veterans who were driven insane by the war and left to their own devices. Someone who believes the government ought to do something about it.

(B) Someone who instead went to college and majored in US history, and thus learned about the events you describe as necessary to understanding the country in far more depth.

(C) Why 30? Why not 21? Why not 25? The answer based on your posts is either a small amount of anecdotal evidence, or a belief that Under 20's made the wrong choice in the last election and didn't elect your candidate.

Note that voters can't even agree on a question like: "What is the most important problem facing our nation today?"

And I think you'll find answers to questions like that change who the better of the two candidates were.

There are a sizable percentage of people who feel the middle class lifestyle has completely tanked, and that the American promise that hard-work will be rewarded is not available to them.

Many people feel much of the success of the middle class in America was based on unionized manufacturing, which ensured someone who was willing to work hard and get the job done would be guaranteed a wage that ensured a comfortable living. Unfortunately, unions of late have focused too much on job security and not enough on salary and benefits to the point where people feel union workers are lazy and hard to fire. Car companies that have been run into the ground by management for years are instead forcing massive pay-cuts through on unions then paying out management bonuses with government bailouts. Where did it all go so wrong?

In this day and age it is rare for someone to earn a middle class living on hard work and a high school diploma. Some people feel things like this are the biggest problem with America. They can't even agree on how to fix it, but what solution someone believes in could easily change the outcome of which of the two candidates was better.

[DuncanONeil]

The original "Progressives" were highly racist.
Were it not for Republicans the various Civial Rights Acts would never have passed!


Different people have different life experiences. It's also debatable how much the politics of individuals actually shift. I know plenty of people who are just as liberal or conservative at 40 as they were at 15. At least part of the reason that people are more conservative when they are older is that the politics of just about every country in the world shift to the left over time.

One particularly polarizing issue was race relations, which has historically been progressed by the left-wing party of the day in the US (Republicans in the civil-war era, and Democrats once the parties had switched who was on the right and who was on the left). In analyzing this issue we can look at two questions:

(I) Are people born in year X more likely to be anti-minority rights over their lifetimes than people born in year Y?
(II) Are people more likely to become anti-minority rights as the grow older?

I think the answer to (I) is without a doubt yes for X < Y by a generation. The answer to (II) is probably yes in some cases as well, but my own experiences based on my life and my interactions with people of different generations is that (I) is the much larger factor.

If you want to take a less touchy example consider the following:

Someone who voted Democrat for social programs in their 20's and 30's might be voting Republican in their 60's because they trust the Republicans to maintain the specific programs they believe in while they fear the Democrats will expand them or add ones they don't. Has their view of policies shifted to the right, or has the nation shifted to the left while their views have remained pretty consistent?

[DuncanONeil]

What does it matter how sensible voters are when the courts can award the victory to the loser?

Now! Now! That is long over and done with. Unless you are talking about Al Franken?

[SadisticNature]

The original "Progressives" were highly racist.
Were it not for Republicans the various Civial Rights Acts would never have passed!

Actually the original Republicans were the progressives. Democrats were the political right. Republicans in the civil-war era were by and large allied with the Whig party on federal government infrastructure spending, while democrats were opposed. Similarly on issues like state rights (Republicans supported a stronger federation, Democrats wanted strength to go to the state governments). Other parallels include regionalization (Democrats controlled a base that is similar in geography to the modern Republican base, and vice versa).

It's only in the 1896 when the pro-business Bourbon Democrats lost control and the party reinvented itself as the party of the left.

You may want to read about the realigning elections of 1896 and 1932 before implying Republican in the civil-war era has ties to Republican now in terms of values and policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Democrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

[Bren122]

One could conceivably argue that the 'Me, me, me' views of the majority of baby boomers shows a distinct lack of societal awareness incompatible with the proper exercise of voting and thus should disqualify that whole generation from voting. One could conceivably argue that parents are unusually influenced by thoughts of issues affecting their children to be expected to vote rationally and should be banned from voting. One could conceivably argue that the failure to vote in an election even once demonstrates a lack of faith and understanding in the electoral process and that they should be subsequently banned from ever voting again.
The voting age has reduced to eighteen because this is the general consensus on when a person is deemed to become an adult and the idea that every adult has the right to determine who represents them in a democracy. The notion of taking away the right to vote of any adult based on a perceived lack of maturity is effectively condemning them to a second class status.

[IAN 2411]

I have waited until now, as I wanted to know others views, and I think that all the posts have at least one good point for and against. I don’t think that a 16 year old should be anywhere near a polling booth. I have four daughters between the ages of 16 and 26, and over the last few days I have asked them all about voting. The 26 year old is more worried about her house price falling before she has a chance to move, and asked me, which was the best ones to vote for? The 23 year old has told me that because she has a young baby, she will vote for the one that offers the best family taxes. The 19 year old, is more interested in knowing how much I am going to give her to drive 70 miles to see her boy friend, and told me to ask her sisters. Then the 16 year old told me that as she hasn’t got a job and she wouldn’t vote for anyone unless they paid her. She then told me to stop asking daft questions, and get out of her space and let her get back to more important things, and she immediately started talking to her friends on face book. This is the sex that is more mature than boys at the same age, voting age at 16? God give me strength that it never happens.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

There has been a change in the direction of the major political parties over the years. But the accepted progenitor of the Progressive movement is Woodrow Wilson. Now that I have gotten that far I wonder if you are caught in the Progressive "trap", equating "Progressive" with progress? They are in no way equivalent!
BTB Woodrow was a democrat.


Actually the original Republicans were the progressives. Democrats were the political right. Republicans in the civil-war era were by and large allied with the Whig party on federal government infrastructure spending, while democrats were opposed. Similarly on issues like state rights (Republicans supported a stronger federation, Democrats wanted strength to go to the state governments). Other parallels include regionalization (Democrats controlled a base that is similar in geography to the modern Republican base, and vice versa).

It's only in the 1896 when the pro-business Bourbon Democrats lost control and the party reinvented itself as the party of the left.

You may want to read about the realigning elections of 1896 and 1932 before implying Republican in the civil-war era has ties to Republican now in terms of values and policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Democrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

[DuncanONeil]

Mostly interesting. Causes some thinking.


One could conceivably argue that the 'Me, me, me' views of the majority of baby boomers shows a distinct lack of societal awareness incompatible with the proper exercise of voting and thus should disqualify that whole generation from voting. One could conceivably argue that parents are unusually influenced by thoughts of issues affecting their children to be expected to vote rationally and should be banned from voting. One could conceivably argue that the failure to vote in an election even once demonstrates a lack of faith and understanding in the electoral process and that they should be subsequently banned from ever voting again.
The voting age has reduced to eighteen because this is the general consensus on when a person is deemed to become an adult and the idea that every adult has the right to determine who represents them in a democracy. The notion of taking away the right to vote of any adult based on a perceived lack of maturity is effectively condemning them to a second class status.

[SadisticNature]

There has been a change in the direction of the major political parties over the years. But the accepted progenitor of the Progressive movement is Woodrow Wilson. Now that I have gotten that far I wonder if you are caught in the Progressive "trap", equating "Progressive" with progress? They are in no way equivalent!
BTB Woodrow was a democrat.

Actually I used the word in the way the rest of the modern world uses the word to refer to the movement of social progressivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_progressivism

One has to be careful when using words that are rather overused, and refer to multiple movements each with different ideologies values and beliefs.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada

Progressive has a radically different meaning in this context, the one I am most familiar with.

[denuseri]

It does help if we can all agree on the terminology.

And I thought ole Teddy Rosevelt was a progressive and came before Wilson.

[thir]

I have waited until now, as I wanted to know others views, and I think that all the posts have at least one good point for and against. I don’t think that a 16 year old should be anywhere near a polling booth. I have four daughters between the ages of 16 and 26, and over the last few days I have asked them all about voting. The 26 year old is more worried about her house price falling before she has a chance to move, and asked me, which was the best ones to vote for? The 23 year old has told me that because she has a young baby, she will vote for the one that offers the best family taxes. The 19 year old, is more interested in knowing how much I am going to give her to drive 70 miles to see her boy friend, and told me to ask her sisters. Then the 16 year old told me that as she hasn’t got a job and she wouldn’t vote for anyone unless they paid her. She then told me to stop asking daft questions, and get out of her space and let her get back to more important things, and she immediately started talking to her friends on face book. This is the sex that is more mature than boys at the same age, voting age at 16? God give me strength that it never happens.

Regards ian 2411

I see your point, and thank you for this little research from the homefront :-)
But, I maintain the thought: Are adult voters really thinking differently? Do we all follow the political situation closely? Do we see things in the big picture? Or do we vote to our immediate (percieved) benefit?

[thir]

Many of those 18 year olds get in serious trouble with those contracts as well. They almost never read them, believe what the sales agent tells them. Many kids are facing bankruptcy when they clear college. Not from student loans, although some of the companies involved in that business are little better than loan sharks!

Ouch. Not a good way to start. But I am reminded of the lastest talk here (UK) about just how much people owe. It is thought that this over-consumption is brought about by the ease with which to get credit cards. You run up debt and it is growing out of control by the interest.
In addition the banks were handing out loans left and right to anyone who could sign their name.

My point is, of course, that we adults don't always to so well either. Surely experience is important, very important. But fresh ways of thinking might also?

I am thinking of programs from high school in DK where the students made mock elections as a project in connection with an actual election, and their discussions about why they would vote for X or Z, or start their own party ;-)

[DuncanONeil]

Interesting pair of definitions. However neither really compare to the US Progressives.
Perhaps the worst part of the Progressives is that they fervantly wish the Constitution did not exist!


Actually I used the word in the way the rest of the modern world uses the word to refer to the movement of social progressivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_progressivism

One has to be careful when using words that are rather overused, and refer to multiple movements each with different ideologies values and beliefs.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada

Progressive has a radically different meaning in this context, the one I am most familiar with.

[DuncanONeil]

As I said many give credit to Wilson, but there is some indication that Taft and Roosevelt were also involved in the movement.

True Roosevelt was President before Wilson but the Progressives came to be in 1912, the year Wilson was elected.


It does help if we can all agree on the terminology.

And I thought ole Teddy Rosevelt was a progressive and came before Wilson.

[DuncanONeil]

I see your point, and thank you for this little research from the homefront :-)
But, I maintain the thought:

[QUOTE=thir;847233] Are adult voters really thinking differently?

Probably not!

Do we all follow the political situation closely?

Usually once every four years!

Do we see things in the big picture?

NO!

Or do we vote to our immediate (percieved) benefit?

Most likely!

[DuncanONeil]

Schools use mock elections here as well. But many don't like the idea, often based on the results almost always being overwhelmingly liberal.

Know what you say about the growth of debt. Sold a property and used a portion of receipts to, literally, clear my CC debt. In roughly two years right back at the same level.

With CC one of the major problems is that it is not really seen as money!


Ouch. Not a good way to start. But I am reminded of the lastest talk here (UK) about just how much people owe. It is thought that this over-consumption is brought about by the ease with which to get credit cards. You run up debt and it is growing out of control by the interest.
In addition the banks were handing out loans left and right to anyone who could sign their name.

My point is, of course, that we adults don't always to so well either. Surely experience is important, very important. But fresh ways of thinking might also?

I am thinking of programs from high school in DK where the students made mock elections as a project in connection with an actual election, and their discussions about why they would vote for X or Z, or start their own party ;-)