FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


should teens be allowed to get involved in politics?






should teens be allowed to get involved in politics?
sure, they're smart people!
42%
 42%  [ 16 ]
they can run, but they won't get my vote!
10%
 10%  [ 4 ]
nice idea, but teens just aren't ready
34%
 34%  [ 13 ]
there's no way some punk's gonna lead me!
13%
 13%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 38

thadnation
i read a lot of political stuff, I have well-founded opinions, and I love to debate. I have decent looks, ande I'm great a t giving speeches. I piss my opponents off like a pro. I also have a clear head, and I understand many of the issues affecting us today to a better degree than many people. I think that I should be allowed to run. besides, your cabinet advises you on nearly everything, so no worries!!

Would you vote for me? and should others get a chance to be senators/VPs, mayors, etc

aren't we the future?

what do you think?
Bikerman
My own opinion is that anyone old enough to pay taxes should have the vote - no taxation without representation (I read that somewhere Smile )
thadnation
Bikerman wrote:
My own opinion is that anyone old enough to pay taxes should have the vote - no taxation without representation (I read that somewhere Smile )


so employed teens should have a say?
pampoon
No, I can't say you'd have my vote. No offense, you would probably be a much better politician than some of the ones that we have already, but assuming that you are about 15-18 (old enough to care, but too young to be involved in the process), I think we need someone a bit more mature and experienced to get the job done.

I'm not trying to say you're immature, but seeing as you've only a teenager, I can guess that you haven't had that much experience in politics.

So no, I don't think teenagers are a good choice for office.

God bless Wink ,
Pampoon
Bikerman
thadnation wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
My own opinion is that anyone old enough to pay taxes should have the vote - no taxation without representation (I read that somewhere Smile )


so employed teens should have a say?

Absolutely - yes!

PS - providing, of course, they pay tax on their earnings. Here in the UK most teens would not, because the personal tax allowance is about £6k per year.
thadnation
pampoon wrote:
No, I can't say you'd have my vote. No offense, you would probably be a much better politician than some of the ones that we have already, but assuming that you are about 15-18 (old enough to care, but too young to be involved in the process), I think we need someone a bit more mature and experienced to get the job done.

I'm not trying to say you're immature, but seeing as you've only a teenager, I can guess that you haven't had that much experience in politics.

So no, I don't think teenagers are a good choice for office.

God bless Wink ,
Pampoon


fair enough, but do you think i should be able to run?
thadnation
what about voting, should i be able to vote? im 14
Bikerman
thadnation wrote:
what about voting, should i be able to vote? im 14

Personally I would say not. You are still a dependant - your parents/guardians have legal responsibility for you. You are also very unlikely to be a tax payer since you will still be in the public education system.
pampoon
thadnation wrote:
what about voting, should i be able to vote? im 14


No, because if you are allowed to vote then every 14-year-old will want to vote. That can't happen since I don't think teenagers, especially in the US, are smart enough or mature enough to make that kind of decision.

Just my opinion...

God bless Wink ,
Pampoon
thadnation
pampoon wrote:
thadnation wrote:
what about voting, should i be able to vote? im 14


No, because if you are allowed to vote then every 14-year-old will want to vote. That can't happen since I don't think teenagers, especially in the US, are smart enough or mature enough to make that kind of decision.

Just my opinion...

God bless Wink ,
Pampoon


well duh, of course you'd have to allow every other 14-year-old. all im saying is that if you have a job, you do pay some taxes, and we should be able to say what is done with those taxes, to some degree. now, one could argue that at our age, we'll just vote for whom are parents vote for. personally i wouldn't but if that's true, then really the numbers but not the percentages would increase.
deanhills
thadnation wrote:
i read a lot of political stuff, I have well-founded opinions, and I love to debate. I have decent looks, ande I'm great a t giving speeches. I piss my opponents off like a pro. I also have a clear head, and I understand many of the issues affecting us today to a better degree than many people. I think that I should be allowed to run. besides, your cabinet advises you on nearly everything, so no worries!!

Would you vote for me? and should others get a chance to be senators/VPs, mayors, etc

aren't we the future?

what do you think?


I LOVE this idea. A Junior President and Junior Vice-President. That is an excellent suggestion. Why not make a proposal and submit it to Obama and McCain?

You are so right. Young people are the future and the earlier the better. You've already sold me on the idea, so can imagine the world has to be your oyster Smile

PS: I think we could get past paying taxes. I imagine you will need to do lots of fundraising, and so perhaps a percentage of the funds that have been raised can go for taxes or in lieu of that for a worthy cause?
thadnation
deanhills wrote:
thadnation wrote:
i read a lot of political stuff, I have well-founded opinions, and I love to debate. I have decent looks, ande I'm great a t giving speeches. I piss my opponents off like a pro. I also have a clear head, and I understand many of the issues affecting us today to a better degree than many people. I think that I should be allowed to run. besides, your cabinet advises you on nearly everything, so no worries!!

Would you vote for me? and should others get a chance to be senators/VPs, mayors, etc

aren't we the future?

what do you think?


I LOVE this idea. A Junior President and Junior Vice-President. That is an excellent suggestion. Why not make a proposal and submit it to Obama and McCain?

You are so right. Young people are the future and the earlier the better. You've already sold me on the idea, so can imagine the world has to be your oyster Smile

PS: I think we could get past paying taxes. I imagine you will need to do lots of fundraising, and so perhaps a percentage of the funds that have been raised can go for taxes or in lieu of that for a worthy cause?


a junior pres/vp? sounds interesting. but what power would tey have. there's already this boys congress thing that takes two rich kids from every state and they sit around and debate for a day. would a "junior" president have any power? or would we just have the president on speed dial?
deanhills
thadnation wrote:
a junior pres/vp? sounds interesting. but what power would tey have. there's already this boys congress thing that takes two rich kids from every state and they sit around and debate for a day. would a "junior" president have any power? or would we just have the president on speed dial?


The Junior President will have power for issues to do with juniors in the United States, juniors can be registered to vote for a Junior President (seniors cannot vote for juniors). Junior President can have a speed dial to the President AND advise on matters that affect juniors. The President can consult with the Junior President on matters that require the input of Juniors. But of course a Junior is not an adult, so cannot vote on adult issues until the Junior is of voting age. Also Juniors still need to have study time as they need to attend school.

I can only imagine after all of that experience as a Junior President (if elected) you would have so much experience, be all connected with speed dials and other important people and prepared to take on the world of adult politics.
ccube921
Teens should pay no taxes to the government, but Im a little stuck teens get sent to Juvie thats like jail so shouldnt they be able to influence their legislature Judicial and Executive branches.
liljp617
thadnation wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
My own opinion is that anyone old enough to pay taxes should have the vote - no taxation without representation (I read that somewhere Smile )


so employed teens should have a say?

I've made that argument many times in the past. I mean, it is kind of one of the main things this country started from. Doesn't make sense that a 16 or 17 year old who is working 20 hours a week and pays taxes on all his income has absolutely no say in who taxes him/her.

I don't think teens should be able to run for any office though.
ccube921
they should be able to run for office not vote if anything, think about it, only good teens will get to office as you know who is running, but any teen would vote and screw up our president
ocalhoun
Wisdom does not always automatically come with age, but it will hardly ever come without it. Teens are usually extremely idealistic, but this could have serious downsides as well for anyone who happened not to agree with that ideology. One main thing is just learning that sometimes other people actually are right when they argue with you.

As for just teens voting, voters should be as well educated as possible, and though the level of ignorance for the average voter is still appalling, we can at least wait for them to get out of high school!
Perhaps an exception could be made for 17 year olds who enlist in the military though. That wouldn't be too extreme, and they are out of high school, which is as much education as many people will get.

edit:
Perhaps a high school diploma should serve as a voter's registration card... (or be required to get one, with no other requirements besides citizenship) That way we could exclude moronic adults while allowing child geniuses.
ccube921
yeah but it would take alot of political power to doo that because its unconstitutional and it violates amendments. Plus people will have lots of things to say bout that, cant write now.
johnny_metronome
teenagers should not be able to run for office. who cares if they're passionate about politics; once they're in office (if people actually voted for them) they'll have their brains focused on school, their friends, hitting puberty, chores- everything except the duties that the office requires of them. that's not a knock against teenagers, that's just part of being young. they have other shit to worry about.
Stubru Freak
I once did an exam on this subject, so I thought about it a lot.
If you don't agree, feel free to try and change my opinion.

I'm young myself, but still I think young people shouldn't be allowed to vote or run for office.
About voting:
The main reason is that most teenagers just haven't formed an opinion yet. There are of course exceptions like you and me, but most teenagers I know can't even name me three political parties. I live in a multi-party system, and currently 6 parties are in the government, so that should be easy. Even a lot of young adults don't know anything about politics. I wouldn't oppose to a minimum age of 25. Of course there are still dumb people after that, but I hope they are becoming a minority by that age. That excludes me from voting, but if me being able to vote means all those people are also allowed to vote, why would I want to vote?
Another thing is that the political preferences of well-thinking young people probably don't differ a whole lot from the political preferences of older people, so the only difference would be more dumb people. And that's not what a country needs.

About running for office, I do understand that you want that, but really I think that people, especially smart people like you (and me Razz) should first complete their education. That way, when you don't get elected, at least you still have your diploma. And studying and doing a serious job like that at the same time is sure to hurt one of both.
Additionally, I think allowing young people would mostly result in another Miss Teen USA contest, instead of electing actual politicians like you. But of course I could be wrong on that.
thadnation
Stubru Freak wrote:
I once did an exam on this subject, so I thought about it a lot.
If you don't agree, feel free to try and change my opinion.

I'm young myself, but still I think young people shouldn't be allowed to vote or run for office.
About voting:
The main reason is that most teenagers just haven't formed an opinion yet. There are of course exceptions like you and me, but most teenagers I know can't even name me three political parties. I live in a multi-party system, and currently 6 parties are in the government, so that should be easy. Even a lot of young adults don't know anything about politics. I wouldn't oppose to a minimum age of 25. Of course there are still dumb people after that, but I hope they are becoming a minority by that age. That excludes me from voting, but if me being able to vote means all those people are also allowed to vote, why would I want to vote?
Another thing is that the political preferences of well-thinking young people probably don't differ a whole lot from the political preferences of older people, so the only difference would be more dumb people. And that's not what a country needs.

About running for office, I do understand that you want that, but really I think that people, especially smart people like you (and me Razz) should first complete their education. That way, when you don't get elected, at least you still have your diploma. And studying and doing a serious job like that at the same time is sure to hurt one of both.
Additionally, I think allowing young people would mostly result in another Miss Teen USA contest, instead of electing actual politicians like you. But of course I could be wrong on that.


alright, time for dr. contradction to have his say.
earlier this year, I had qualms about the class president. i figured it would be a huge popularity contest, and I'd have no chance. but although I never actually ran, many people said they would have supported me. this suprised me, but I realized that a lot of people will ignore social trends and vote for someone they can relate to, and for who they think is the right person. sure, it was a class election, but the principle still holds.

i have no plans to run for office, and I don't think I would have a chance. but I do think I can vote responsibly.

So, her's why I think that teens should be allowed to go into politics:

1. most teenagers are stupd and lazy. the ones who would get off their asses and vote are the ones who will have an opinion. The ones who are willing to wait in line for hours are not the jokers, they are the ones with a level head.

2. with the electoral college system, the votes can be skewed a few thousand either way, so the government could simply compensate for our say. it would be unconstitutional, but at least we could say we voted, and the butt-wipe politicians would have it their way.

3. the president may have the final say, but their cabinet has a strong influence over them and your cabinet basically tells you what to do. even if I was a moron, I could still be a fine president, I'd just get my info spoon fed to me like every other moron who made it into the whitehouse.

4. im not asking for support, not really. I'm asking for the chance to try and fail, or at least try

5. the few teens that would try are the teens that would actually care about more than just themselves.

6. still not convinced? how about this: if you're a girl, I'll let you feel my bis'.
PMK-Bear
I believe that everyone should be involved in politics, and not only by voting, but more in a direct democracy style involvement, where everyone participates in some way, even if only through public debate. That includes teenagers. Once that has happened, maybe teens might find their way up the executive power ladders.
farsheed
agree with this:

No, I can't say you'd have my vote. No offense, you would probably be a much better politician than some of the ones that we have already, but assuming that you are about 15-18 (old enough to care, but too young to be involved in the process), I think we need someone a bit more mature and experienced to get the job done.

I'm not trying to say you're immature, but seeing as you've only a teenager, I can guess that you haven't had that much experience in politics.

So no, I don't think teenagers are a good choice for office.

God bless Wink ,
Pampoon
{name here}
Most of them are too naiive or apathetic for politics - they feel the happenings on capital hill are too distant for them to give a hoot. Younger people don't seem to vote as much anyway, though it'd be great if they did because anyone that can rally that base could probably bring about a great, positive change.

I feel that parents would just force teenagers to vote in order to vote twice. I also think they need a little more experience in politics before they are allowed to vote, and 18 is a decent enough age as that is when we are ready to go to college and possibly politically charge themselves with a unique opinion.
Insanity
I believe that a while back there was a bill being passed around that allowed 17 year olds the right to half a vote -- and 16 year olds would have a quarter of a vote. This was a while back and obviously it didn't get anywhere but it did bring up some interesting points.

I honestly believe that while there are many apathetic teens who don't know anything about politics, there are also plenty more adults who throw their vote away because of their ignorance in politics as well. Giving the youth the right to vote might serve to encourage them to learn more about the political system, which is a good thing. In high school, they can learn about voting in their history class, and if they're given the right to vote, it's a winning combination. They learn about the system and can exercise their right to participate in it.
thadnation
{name here} wrote:
Most of them are too naiive or apathetic for politics - they feel the happenings on capital hill are too distant for them to give a hoot. Younger people don't seem to vote as much anyway, though it'd be great if they did because anyone that can rally that base could probably bring about a great, positive change.

I feel that parents would just force teenagers to vote in order to vote twice. I also think they need a little more experience in politics before they are allowed to vote, and 18 is a decent enough age as that is when we are ready to go to college and possibly politically charge themselves with a unique opinion.


the keyword here is most. most kids are too naive. most people don't vote. most people barely understand their own political system. im just saying give the 1% that care a chance
deanhills
Stubru Freak wrote:
The main reason is that most teenagers just haven't formed an opinion yet. There are of course exceptions like you and me, but most teenagers I know can't even name me three political parties. I live in a multi-party system, and currently 6 parties are in the government, so that should be easy. Even a lot of young adults don't know anything about politics. I wouldn't oppose to a minimum age of 25. Of course there are still dumb people after that, but I hope they are becoming a minority by that age. That excludes me from voting, but if me being able to vote means all those people are also allowed to vote, why would I want to vote?
Another thing is that the political preferences of well-thinking young people probably don't differ a whole lot from the political preferences of older people, so the only difference would be more dumb people. And that's not what a country needs.



If they can be properly educated at school, the existence of a Junior President would motivate them to be better informed. And to learn more. There would be a good reason for being better informed. It could make things more exciting at school as well. I see so many teenagers that are a million times more enlightened than I could be, especially when I watch them debating one another in public forums. I believe they have an important contribution to make exactly at the level they are. They have fresh ideas, are completely uninhibited, super idealistic. Gung-ho.
{name here}
thadnation wrote:
{name here} wrote:
Most of them are too naiive or apathetic for politics - they feel the happenings on capital hill are too distant for them to give a hoot. Younger people don't seem to vote as much anyway, though it'd be great if they did because anyone that can rally that base could probably bring about a great, positive change.

I feel that parents would just force teenagers to vote in order to vote twice. I also think they need a little more experience in politics before they are allowed to vote, and 18 is a decent enough age as that is when we are ready to go to college and possibly politically charge themselves with a unique opinion.


the keyword here is most. most kids are too naive. most people don't vote. most people barely understand their own political system. im just saying give the 1% that care a chance

People that are ignorant of their own system shouldn't even be allowed to vote. If we give the oppertunity to the rest of these kids and they take it, it risks digging the political system into a deeper hole than it is now.
Genesiz
It seems to me that this argument can be split into two:

- running fopr president
- voting

Now whilst i agree that having a teenager as Junior President would bring about a lot of change, we have to be realisic about this. How many teenagers aged 14-18 actually now what such a postition entails? How many of those teenagers have actually studied politics so they have an understanding of the political system close to that of current politicians, and therefore would be able to deal with any issues? You may say that all politicians are morons, but they have actually studied politics at school and probably uderstand the system a lot better than the average joe.

In my opinion, the voting side of this should be looked at as a seperate argument from the running for president aspect. A lot of people have said that they feel they are mature enough to vote, and that they should be given the chance, despite how their peers may act. But in reality, such a thing would be a waste of time. If 1 child in every 100 aged 14-18 voted maturely and not stupidly (which seems to be a good estimate), what would be the point. All that would happen is that the votes would not be representative of what the people actually feel. Yes that 1% should be given the chance, but don't forget the other 99%. Shoukd that 1% be given the chance to vote if the other 99% do not deserve the chance? The statistics prove themselves.

It is clear that the 14-18 age bracket should not be allowed to vote, but what if we changed that to say just 17 year olds. People at this age will probably begin to get an interest in politics, and it is at this age that they become more independent, with getting a job and learning to drive. I think a good estimate of the statistics would probably show a clear 1:1 ratio of people that would vote properly against those that wouldn't. Not only would it cancel out any results, but it may make more 17 year olds interested in politics. And if the ration is higher say 2:1 than it may actually prove some good.

A lot of you have also said that you think only 17 year olds paying taxes should be allowed to vote, but how many 17 year olds are actually working enough to pay taxes. Most of those people would be those that have left school at 16 and are working full time, and i'm probably not insulting ayone when i say that these are probably the people that will not vote properly. Open it up to all 17 year olds, and you will also have those that are still at school and properly have more of an interest in the political system.

I notice that a lot of the people posting here are quite young, so i'd be interested to see the opinion of someone 'more mature in age'.
liljp617
Genesiz wrote:
A lot of you have also said that you think only 17 year olds paying taxes should be allowed to vote, but how many 17 year olds are actually working enough to pay taxes. Most of those people would be those that have left school at 16 and are working full time, and i'm probably not insulting ayone when i say that these are probably the people that will not vote properly. Open it up to all 17 year olds, and you will also have those that are still at school and properly have more of an interest in the political system.

A lot. You don't think there's a lot of 17 year olds working enough in a whole year to have to file taxes? Having just graduated high school, I can assure you there are plenty of 17 (even 16) year olds working enough to have to pay taxes. Even if some aren't, the people who are getting taxed for their work should ALWAYS have a voice in who is taking their tax dollars. I mean...it is one of many major reasons we revolted against the British. I don't see what it hurts to uphold that.

Genesiz wrote:
In my opinion, the voting side of this should be looked at as a seperate argument from the running for president aspect. A lot of people have said that they feel they are mature enough to vote, and that they should be given the chance, despite how their peers may act. But in reality, such a thing would be a waste of time. If 1 child in every 100 aged 14-18 voted maturely and not stupidly (which seems to be a good estimate), what would be the point. All that would happen is that the votes would not be representative of what the people actually feel. Yes that 1% should be given the chance, but don't forget the other 99%. Shoukd that 1% be given the chance to vote if the other 99% do not deserve the chance? The statistics prove themselves.

Most teenagers given the right to vote are unlikely to even register. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you're implying every person in that age group who is given the right to vote is going to vote. It's more likely that those interested/knowledgeable in politics are going to vote, and those who aren't won't even care about the right to vote. It's not like if you give them the right to vote they're going to immediately jump up, go register, and vote in every election (you grossly overestimate the desire of the American people, especially young/teenage Americans, to vote if you think that).

I also don't know how the statistics prove themselves. What statistics? Without any bit of backing information, one can only assume those are hypothetical numbers/statistics in your post based on your estimation (which, honestly, isn't really useful for proving anything of this nature).

Genesiz wrote:
I notice that a lot of the people posting here are quite young, so i'd be interested to see the opinion of someone 'more mature in age'.

Smile I've given mine.
daljirman
My option:
Quote:
they can run, but they won't get my vote!


Yes, experience is the leader, there's something true with the theory of "being old gives you the capacity to think more before making decisions." But as long as every human born free, they can run.
liljp617
daljirman wrote:
My option:
Quote:
they can run, but they won't get my vote!


Yes, experience is the leader, there's something true with the theory of "being old gives you the capacity to think more before making decisions." But as long as every human born free, they can run.

The current administration had quite a bit of experience...I disagree that experience in the field automatically makes you more capable of doing the job. If anything, the longer you spend in Washington the more corrupt and less capable you become.
missdixy
I think it would just be a bad idea to let teenagers run, at least for very powerful/important positions. I think that life and experience has a lot to do with maturing enough to be able to make such important decisions. I just don't think that 14, 16, or even 18 years is a long enough time-span of experience to be a good leader. Of course, there may or may not be some exceptions to this, but not enough to let teenagers run.
ccube921
I saw an article on Wikipedia, that said that the age of responsibility, meaning the age you can get convicted for stuff is approximately 7 in most of the States. It said that you could be sent to a regular jail but most states have juvie, so legally I have a reason teens and kids should vote like man if your going to jail sure you can vote! But sensibly I wouldnt let 7 year olds screw up my country, so im saying lets say 15 and up (random number) but then again I dont want 15 year olds to screw up my country so you would need some sorta test to sort out the twisted kids ( not the idiots just the evil drugged out kids ) so uh take your pick. Ill come up with something later I think.
Bikerman
So, it's OK for a 16 year old to make the decision that he will get married. It's OK for a 17 year old to sign-up for the armed forces and potentially die for his/her country. It's OK for an 18 year old to buy weapons which could potentially wipe out many fellow citizens. It's not OK, however, for any of them to stand for office....hmmm.....
ccube921
That my friend, is different, they are rights explicitly granted as well as obviously no duh, you can. they are things they want to do and why should we stop them, you have right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness you also have a right to withdraw those rights. I dont see your argument. They certainly have rights to the 16 17 and 18s but I suppose they feel that the child is not FORCED to be a part of the country so they are not going to vote.[/code]
Bikerman
ccube921 wrote:
That my friend, is different, they are rights explicitly granted as well as obviously no duh, you can. they are things they want to do and why should we stop them, you have right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness you also have a right to withdraw those rights. I dont see your argument. They certainly have rights to the 16 17 and 18s but I suppose they feel that the child is not FORCED to be a part of the country so they are not going to vote.[/code]

Err...I don't understand any of that I'm afraid. Standing for political office is a right, just as marrying is a right, just as owning a gun is a right (in some countries). I see no major difference. I don't understand what you mean by a child not being forced to be part of the country....surely all children are citizens of the country they are born in (regardless of their feelings on the matter)?

PS - the legal age of responsibility varies in the US from state to state. The Federal age is 10 (as it is here in the UK) and most states go along with that, but some states have it as low as 6. Personally I think 10 is far too low and I would set it much higher - 14-16.

PPS - my original posting was a response to the one before yours from missdixy...
liljp617
ccube921 wrote:
I saw an article on Wikipedia, that said that the age of responsibility, meaning the age you can get convicted for stuff is approximately 7 in most of the States. It said that you could be sent to a regular jail but most states have juvie, so legally I have a reason teens and kids should vote like man if your going to jail sure you can vote! But sensibly I wouldnt let 7 year olds screw up my country, so im saying lets say 15 and up (random number) but then again I dont want 15 year olds to screw up my country so you would need some sorta test to sort out the twisted kids ( not the idiots just the evil drugged out kids ) so uh take your pick. Ill come up with something later I think.

As opposed to 50 year olds screwing up your country? Age becomes irrelevant at some point. That point comes long before 35 years of age.
deanhills
Genesiz wrote:
It seems to me that this argument can be split into two:

- running fopr president
- voting

Now whilst i agree that having a teenager as Junior President would bring about a lot of change, we have to be realisic about this. How many teenagers aged 14-18 actually now what such a postition entails? How many of those teenagers have actually studied politics so they have an understanding of the political system close to that of current politicians, and therefore would be able to deal with any issues? You may say that all politicians are morons, but they have actually studied politics at school and probably uderstand the system a lot better than the average joe.

In my opinion, the voting side of this should be looked at as a seperate argument from the running for president aspect. A lot of people have said that they feel they are mature enough to vote, and that they should be given the chance, despite how their peers may act. But in reality, such a thing would be a waste of time. If 1 child in every 100 aged 14-18 voted maturely and not stupidly (which seems to be a good estimate), what would be the point. All that would happen is that the votes would not be representative of what the people actually feel. Yes that 1% should be given the chance, but don't forget the other 99%. Shoukd that 1% be given the chance to vote if the other 99% do not deserve the chance? The statistics prove themselves.

It is clear that the 14-18 age bracket should not be allowed to vote, but what if we changed that to say just 17 year olds. People at this age will probably begin to get an interest in politics, and it is at this age that they become more independent, with getting a job and learning to drive. I think a good estimate of the statistics would probably show a clear 1:1 ratio of people that would vote properly against those that wouldn't. Not only would it cancel out any results, but it may make more 17 year olds interested in politics. And if the ration is higher say 2:1 than it may actually prove some good.

A lot of you have also said that you think only 17 year olds paying taxes should be allowed to vote, but how many 17 year olds are actually working enough to pay taxes. Most of those people would be those that have left school at 16 and are working full time, and i'm probably not insulting ayone when i say that these are probably the people that will not vote properly. Open it up to all 17 year olds, and you will also have those that are still at school and properly have more of an interest in the political system.

I notice that a lot of the people posting here are quite young, so i'd be interested to see the opinion of someone 'more mature in age'.


Why would someone be better qualified to vote as a citizen of the United States when they are paying taxes? Does this then mean that people who pay taxes are knowledgeable enough about their Government and country to cast a vote? I wonder if all people who are qualified to vote (i.e. those who are paying taxes and are 18 years and older) could be given a very simple and basic test. Very simple questions such as who is the present President of the United States, who is his Vice-President, how many states are there in the USA, is New York on the East or West Coast. In which State is Washington DC? How many parties are involved in the election? Who are all the candidates for the election? Would be interesting to see how many people get it right. Once that test has been made, put the same test to all students aged 15 to 17. Will be interesting to see what the results will be.

Why can't there be a general standard of knowledge and test of maturity and judgment established, such as the one for a learner driver license. Perhaps a simple digital test with all the pictures in it where you touch-screen your way through it. And if people pass it, they can receive a license to vote. Perhaps this can be retested periodically or at a certain age, i.e. once passed the test does not need to be redone until perhaps at a very advanced age.

Particularly in the case of the Junior President in the age group 15-17 years, a test can be put together, not only to test basic knowledge, but level of judgment and "maturity", and if passed, the person can be put on a voter's list for Junior President. When they become 18 years old the right to vote for Junior President will automatically default to right to vote for President (and no longer for Junior President).

Here are some stats to ponder over:

US total population at 1 July 2007: 301.621 million people
15 to 17 year age group (4.3%): 12.967 million people
18 to 24 years age group (9.9%): 29.860 million people

60 years and over (17%): 51.275 million people
75 years and over (6.1%): 37.401 million people

18 years and over (75.4%): 227.422 million people

Source: http://factfinder.census.gov
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Why would someone be better qualified to vote as a citizen of the United States when they are paying taxes? Does this then mean that people who pay taxes are knowledgeable enough about their Government and country to cast a vote?
No. The argument is not based on knowledge or maturity. Certainly many adults would fail if it was.
The argument is based on fairness. If the state takes your money in taxes then you should have a say over how that money is spent. That means you should have the vote. That also means you should be free to propose a different way of spending the money - or even advocate taking less or more money. That means you should be free to stand for political office.
In practice this is not likely to be a massive issue here in the UK, except perhaps in a very small number of cases. Most young adults are in full time education and do not earn enough to be paying tax. There are probably a reasonable number of 16-17 year olds who do pay tax and I believe they should be allowed to vote. For others the right to vote should probably stay where it is - 18 (although I can see an argument for reducing it).

I don't see how you could introduce a 'test' for voters and still call the country a democracy. Do you think ignorant people have less rights than smart people? Do you think the uneducated deserve no voice? It is a very small step from that position to euthanasia or the concentration camps.
I could make an argument that only scientists, engineers and academics should be allowed to vote. They have the highest IQ. Most businessmen/women are stupid compared to the people who work for them in R&D and engineering. Why should stupid people have the vote?

I have a friend who is a sociologist specialising in political theory. Every time he votes he mutters - "25 years of study, expertise, and work goes into my vote, and some yob with no idea about anything cancels it out in a second." Ask him, however, whether the yob should be denied the vote and you will get a reluctant, but firm, NO.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
No. The argument is not based on knowledge or maturity. Certainly many adults would fail if it was.
The argument is based on fairness. If the state takes your money in taxes then you should have a say over how that money is spent. That means you should have the vote. That also means you should be free to propose a different way of spending the money - or even advocate taking less or more money. That means you should be free to stand for political office.
In practice this is not likely to be a massive issue here in the UK, except perhaps in a very small number of cases. Most young adults are in full time education and do not earn enough to be paying tax. There are probably a reasonable number of 16-17 year olds who do pay tax and I believe they should be allowed to vote. For others the right to vote should probably stay where it is - 18 (although I can see an argument for reducing it).

I don't see how you could introduce a 'test' for voters and still call the country a democracy. Do you think ignorant people have less rights than smart people? Do you think the uneducated deserve no voice? It is a very small step from that position to euthanasia or the concentration camps.
I could make an argument that only scientists, engineers and academics should be allowed to vote. They have the highest IQ. Most businessmen/women are stupid compared to the people who work for them in R&D and engineering. Why should stupid people have the vote?

I have a friend who is a sociologist specialising in political theory. Every time he votes he mutters - "25 years of study, expertise, and work goes into my vote, and some yob with no idea about anything cancels it out in a second." Ask him, however, whether the yob should be denied the vote and you will get a reluctant, but firm, NO.


Good point. I have not thought about it that way. Something in addition has occurred to me too while reading the response. Perhaps ignorance is bliss. Those with education may tend to come up with more preconceived views than those who are uneducated. Probably why I am all for youth as well. Their minds are relatively untainted by that with which we are fed on a daily basis. So they can think fresher, freely, uninhibited, passionately and come up with much more original suggestions and creations. Their enthusiasm is catching. Energizing.

Another thought occurred to me too. If uneducated deserve a voice, why not the youth as well? If an uneducated person is eligible to vote, surely an uneducated 15-year old deserves the same right as they are citizens too aren't they? What is the difference here?
ccube921
That is the whole argument over here
romeo123
There's no way a punk is gonna lead me! OMG A teen is not even in collage! Why should they run when they don't even have a job yet? All they'l do is scout girls @ the beach! They dont know how to run a country! They'll order troops to kill iraqis with no freaken plan. Theyll have a whole country dumb becuz of no homework nor education! *This post is not meant to be offensive* Runing a country is no game!
ccube921
Maybe take a look at Bush Im sure many kids that arent even in high school could make some better decisions
Moonspider
deanhills wrote:
Another thought occurred to me too. If uneducated deserve a voice, why not the youth as well? If an uneducated person is eligible to vote, surely an uneducated 15-year old deserves the same right as they are citizens too aren't they? What is the difference here?


Is a 15-year old able to consent to sex with an 18 year old? Think about it.

For similar reasons, they can't vote.

Respectfully,
M
thadnation
let's be rational here

i am not saying NECESSARILY that a teen would lead. This debate isn't entirely about that. it's about whether or not one should have a chance. this is about getting the opportunity!!! if a teen were allowed to be a candidate (say,for the green party) if enough people voted for a different candidate (and seriously, who listens to the minority parties?) then they wouldn't lead. simple as that.

now as for the voting issue, here in america, 90% of the working kids I know will pay taxes. not tons, but the. gov't will be taking their cut. I soon will get a job and also pay taxes. my cash is going to the IRS. My cash would be used for missiles, wildlife, medicare, medicaid, research, scholarships, etc. shouldn't I be able to say what a think should go where? did you people fail third grade: no taxation w/o representation.
jmlworld
I have never thought of the question related to teens leading, but frankly as teenager, I had a dream of being a young president! Surely, a teenager would be ready, since they've the feeling of leadership.

Leadership is not something magic, that needs more power than that entrepreneurship run by teenagers. Being a president doesn't mean do it all, it's the law that governs, and presidents do not do whatever their old brain says, but they consult with the legislation and law. It would be nice to have "Law Makers" on board (on Frihost), so they would tell us what is really very necessary to for politics. Then we would discuss that qualifications and finally we would (together) figure out the least necessary (such as age, etc) and the most necessary (i.e. Capacity, IQ, etc...)

Finally, my question is, who is ready to put the question "Should teens be allowed to get involved in politics?" in public? Pull off from this forum and write in the news papers? Say it in the public avenues?

Are my above questions too advocate?
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
Is a 15-year old able to consent to sex with an 18 year old? Think about it.

For similar reasons, they can't vote.

Respectfully,
M


Guess this is a different argument, however now that you mention it, yes, it is against the law, but have you looked around you lately as to how mature 15-year olds are? What is real? Instead of what is "ought to"? For that reason I think they should have a vote, but for Junior President, which is different from President, i.e. Junior President has the ear of the President, consults, gets listened to, but still has to go to school too. I seriously believe that the President can benefit hugely from input from the Junior President.
thadnation
deanhills, i completely agree. oh, and for th other guy, I put this here in the forums because I tried going public with this but no one , not even other kids, agreed with me. besides, Im not real good at expressing myself. So, I wanted to know what the general feel towards this isssue was before contacting an official
liljp617
Moonspider wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Another thought occurred to me too. If uneducated deserve a voice, why not the youth as well? If an uneducated person is eligible to vote, surely an uneducated 15-year old deserves the same right as they are citizens too aren't they? What is the difference here?


Is a 15-year old able to consent to sex with an 18 year old? Think about it.

For similar reasons, they can't vote.

Respectfully,
M

Are they able to consent (supposing you mean agree to and choose) to have sex with an 18 year old? Yes, obviously. Is it legal? Not so much.

I don't know what your point is really. Perhaps you can explain it so I don't have to make assumptions about what you're inferring?

I think there are plenty of 15 year olds around these days that have the mental capacity and ability to make wise decisions. Again, the young teens who care about politics will be as informed as any voter in this country. The ones who don't give a crap about politics or voting aren't going to vote....just like the rest of the people in this country. I still don't see a problem. It's not like the votes of teens are going to completely throw an election. We have millions of people who do that already.

The idea that aging automatically grants leadership and the ability to make the good choices is absurd and false. Proof? Look around.
Moonspider
thadnation wrote:
deanhills, i completely agree. oh, and for th other guy, I put this here in the forums because I tried going public with this but no one , not even other kids, agreed with me. besides, Im not real good at expressing myself. So, I wanted to know what the general feel towards this isssue was before contacting an official


I personally disagree with the notion and I don’t think you’ll find much support for it. I was a precocious child and remember arguing politics with adults before I reached twelve. When I was fourteen I would have loved to have had the right to express my opinions at the ballot box.

However, if I could hit a magic button to send a ripple back through the decades to grant teenagers that right back then, I would not. From my current perspective I would tell my fourteen year-old self that he has no business voting, that despite his knowledge he does not possess the maturity and the level of responsibility required. I’d argue with my elder self until my unwrinkled face was blue, but to no avail would I change my mind. Wink

Sure, some people younger than eighteen are more mature, responsible, and knowledgeable than some adults. But I doubt the majority are. A limit has to be placed somewhere, and I’d personally rather it be at the age of 18 instead of 17. It’s a logical choice since only then are most teenagers free of required education and legally free to hold a full-time job. Only then are they at least somewhat free of parental control. Only then do most step onto the road of complete financial independence, to succeed or fail on their own. And only then does the full weight of civic responsibility fall upon their shoulders, everything from jury duty to registering for the military draft.

To give children the right to vote, one must also consider allowing them to serve in the military, to do away with the juvenile justice system for all children of legal voting age (is someone capable of making an informed, mature decision for president of the United States incapable of thinking as an adult when committing a crime?), do away with all statutory rape laws regarding children of voting age, etc. Voting is a privileged right granted only to those who bear the full weight of civic responsibility as citizens, who face the ultimate civil consequences for their actions and who may even be called upon to give the ultimate sacrifice for their nation.

That being said, when I moved to California in 2004 a congressman here actually tried to get a constitutional amendment passed that would have allowed 14 year old children to vote and be counted as one quarter. At 16 their vote would count as one half. And then of course at 18 they’d have full voting rights. It made a few headlines but no headway.

When the day comes that you’re looking back on this year from the perspective that I look back on mine at your age, I wonder if you’ll still feel the same about teenage suffrage?

Respectfully,
M
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:

Are they able to consent (supposing you mean agree to and choose) to have sex with an 18 year old? Yes, obviously. Is it legal? Not so much.


If it's not legal, they can't. No matter how often she says "yes" the law states that she has not the maturity level required to responsibly say "yes." Hence the reason if you're over 18 and assume that her "yes" means "yes," then you may be arrested for so doing. Because you, as an adult, know better, knows that a child lacks the maturity to consent to sex.

Likewise, children are not subject to the adult judicial system (except in extreme circumstances where it is determined that they may be tried as an adult).

And likewise, as I argued above, they should not be allowed to vote.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:

When the day comes that you’re looking back on this year from the perspective that I look back on mine at your age, I wonder if you’ll still feel the same about teenage suffrage?

Respectfully,
M


That is just the problem. I think people of that age has something to offer that is untainted by years of wisdom. it has a uniqueness that stands in its own right. And if given to the President in their capacity as Junior President exactly at that time, could be of a service to the Government and the country. If they are listened to at that age, then this may also serve to motivate and inspire them to keep their dreams alive, instead of to "grow up" and remember that once they had some good ideas. Smile
Genesiz
Wow, this must be the first topic where my post has actually sparked off an argument.

Reading through the replies, i can see that there is a clear divide between those that believe it is right and those that believe it is wrong. However, i still stand by my original statement:

  1. teenagers of any age regardless of whether they pay taxes should not be able to run. Period
  2. 17 year olds should be able to vote as long as they pay taxes

I notice that alot of people believe that 16 year olds should be able to vote if they pay taxes. I'm kind of divided on this as i know that there are a lot of 16 year olds who would be eligible to vote (i'm using the word eligible here in the sense that they would vote maturely), but would this be enough to quantiff all 16 year olds. And where do we draw the line. There are some mature 13 year olds. Do we let them vote. What about 6 year old child prodigies. In every case there is always going to be exceptions, it is whether these exceptions make up a big enough majority.

deanhills wrote:
Why would someone be better qualified to vote as a citizen of the United States when they are paying taxes?

I do not live in the US so i do not know what the legal system regarding taxes and such are, so i am basing my argument on UK laws.

liljp617 wrote:
also don't know how the statistics prove themselves. What statistics? Without any bit of backing information, one can only assume those are hypothetical numbers/statistics in your post based on your estimation (which, honestly, isn't really useful for proving anything of this nature).

In a situation like this when we are talking about people might do, estimates are all we have to base any statements. If you have any statistics that go against what i have said i would be happy to say that i was wrong. I would like to point out however that the statistics i did use were based on my own opinions together with what other people had said.

Finally, i would like to pose a question. Say this really happened and a teenager did run for president. Would anybody here actually take them seriously, and actually vote for them? I myself wouldn't, not only because of the reasons posted above, but also because i would feel that they weren't really doing it for serious reasons, but just for a joke.
liljp617
Genesiz wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
also don't know how the statistics prove themselves. What statistics? Without any bit of backing information, one can only assume those are hypothetical numbers/statistics in your post based on your estimation (which, honestly, isn't really useful for proving anything of this nature).

In a situation like this when we are talking about people might do, estimates are all we have to base any statements. If you have any statistics that go against what i have said i would be happy to say that i was wrong. I would like to point out however that the statistics i did use were based on my own opinions together with what other people had said.

Finally, i would like to pose a question. Say this really happened and a teenager did run for president. Would anybody here actually take them seriously, and actually vote for them? I myself wouldn't, not only because of the reasons posted above, but also because i would feel that they weren't really doing it for serious reasons, but just for a joke.

You miss the point. You can't make up hypothetical numbers and statistics and say they prove themselves or prove something that hasn't happened. If there were past statistics to base your estimates on, it would be different. But there isn't. Statistics/Estimates in a discussion of this nature hold no weight if they have nothing backing them up. So you can't say statistics prove themselves and represent what would happen in the future when they clearly do not. You also can't make estimated statistics based on your own opinion and lump everyone else in with that...makes the statistics even more flawed/biased and really worthless to be honest.


Would I vote for them or not? I'm not going to base that upon their age. I would vote for the person with the best policies, best goals, best character, best integrity, best details on how they will accomplish their goals/policies, etc. etc. Just as I would for any election. Age, again, is irrelevant. If he/she were running against someone older, that older person wouldn't automatically have better leadership just because of their age. Again, to assert that leadership skills and responsibility automatically come with age is absurd. And there are plenty of things in the every day news that back that up.


On a side note in relation to the taxing: It's extremely simple. If you are being taxed by the federal and state governments for your work, you must be able to vote on who is going to be taking your money and how they will be using it. If not, it defeats the purpose of our government to represent the people and do things with tax dollars that will benefit the people.
Drawingguy
As a teenager, I don't think that my age group should be allowed to vote. The prevailing reason, I think, is just the lack of independence. Now, I understand that there are quite a few around this age that are relatively 'on their own,' but for the most part, I feel that a lot of people in their late-teens just aren't independent enough to have valuable political opinions.

What creates a valid political point? I think that one needs to experience how the government really affects them, in order to correctly determine how the system should change. I think it's relatively easy to say that a lot of young people are pretty naive about everything, and optimistic about change and whatnot, and tend to lean liberally. But upon seeing the drawbacks of a liberal government, especially the high taxes, many become less excited about such a system. That's probably a poor illustrative example, but I'm basically just trying to say that without experiencing the full scope of life, we don't understand the entire function of the government.

So, that leads us to teenagers- most depend on their parents. Most don't have to pay the rent, pay taxes, or pay the bills in general. We don't have woes, we have idealistic goals, untempered by reality. In one sense, that's good, but in the other, it's not so great- is someone unaffected by problems going to really, and I mean REALLY, care about them?
liljp617
Drawingguy wrote:
So, that leads us to teenagers- most depend on their parents. Most don't have to pay the rent, pay taxes, or pay the bills in general. We don't have woes, we have idealistic goals, untempered by reality. In one sense, that's good, but in the other, it's not so great- is someone unaffected by problems going to really, and I mean REALLY, care about them?

There are many problems/policies current voters are completely unaffected by. Should they not get to vote because of that?
deanhills
Genesiz wrote:
Say this really happened and a teenager did run for president. Would anybody here actually take them seriously, and actually vote for them? I myself wouldn't, not only because of the reasons posted above, but also because i would feel that they weren't really doing it for serious reasons, but just for a joke.


Just to qualify. My proposal has been for teenagers to run for a Junior President position, as part of a system that has the current President in place. The Junior President would act as a consultant to the President on a regular basis and would be consulted on matters where teenagers' point of view would be of value. The election would be by teenagers in the age group 15 to 17. In other words teenagers can vote for their own Junior President, and not for the regular President. The other way round, only teenagers in the age troup 15 to 17 can vote for the Junior President.
Genesiz
liljp617 wrote:
You miss the point. You can't make up hypothetical numbers and statistics and say they prove themselves or prove something that hasn't happened. If there were past statistics to base your estimates on, it would be different. But there isn't. Statistics/Estimates in a discussion of this nature hold no weight if they have nothing backing them up. So you can't say statistics prove themselves and represent what would happen in the future when they clearly do not. You also can't make estimated statistics based on your own opinion and lump everyone else in with that...makes the statistics even more flawed/biased and really worthless to be honest.

Businesses use estimates to judge how to proceed in the future all the time, and this situation is no different in that repsect. Also, you speak as if i have simply picked these numbers out at random, which i can certainly say i did not. I based them on my own experiences regarding people i know, and on what other people had posted:

thadnation wrote:
the keyword here is most. most kids are too naive. most people don't vote. most people barely understand their own political system. im just saying give the 1% that care a chance

Are you saying that the age of the person would have no effect whatsoever. Also, would they have enough knowledge and maturity to argue and/or run against someone older than them. In my opinion, it would be a waste of time them even running.

liljp617 wrote:
On a side note in relation to the taxing: It's extremely simple. If you are being taxed by the federal and state governments for your work, you must be able to vote on who is going to be taking your money and how they will be using it. If not, it defeats the purpose of our government to represent the people and do things with tax dollars that will benefit the people.

If you look at my post you will notice that i actually agree wth what you say. If you are being taxed you should have a say. To a point. Whilst some 16 year olds may pay taxes, the majority do not have the maturity to go with it. The fact they pay taxes cannot be the only reason they are allowed to vote, there are other variables involved.
deanhills
Genesiz wrote:
Whilst some 16 year olds may pay taxes, the majority do not have the maturity to go with it. The fact they pay taxes cannot be the only reason they are allowed to vote, there are other variables involved.


What is meant with "maturity" and what "other variables" are involved?

For example would you regard the following people as "mature" to vote: senile people, alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics, people in mental hospitals? How about the elderly who are unable to look after themselves, being carted en mass to voting stations, being encouraged to vote?

Intelligence or maturity is not the basis upon which the right to vote is granted, if that were the case all voters would need to pass a test before voting, which I think has already been mentioned, is against the law. Bottomline, lack of education or information about election issues is not a basis for withholding the vote. So what are the other variables involved? Why can't teens vote?
Genesiz
deanhills wrote:
What is meant with "maturity" and what "other variables" are involved?

I used the word mature in the sense that they would vote for who they thought was right, and not randomly or on what their parents thought (unless they thought the same). Maybe I should have been clearer in my use of the word, thank you for picking up on that.

By other variables, i simply meant that the fact they pay taxes should not be the sole reason for making the decision, as there are other things to consider (such as public feeling, any laws against it etc.)

Hope this clears up your question.
Wuppie
I'm a teen myself, and I think I'm ready to vote. But there are many teens that are clearly not ready. Most teens don't understand political issues, or they think too simple about it. And teens are a wide group. The older teens know way more about politics than the young teens.

Another thing I'm worried about if teens vote is that their parents have a great influence of them. If you're voting, you should be able to think independent, and vote what you think is best and not because of the influence the people around them have. And that, I think, is what most teens don't really do. In general, 18 year olds are way more independent and think more on their own than younger people. If people of 16 years could vote, I think voting would be worth less, and making it possibly less important.

So, it's a nice idea, but teens just aren't ready.
sondosia
A few years ago, an 18-year-old was elected mayor of Hillsdale, Michigan. A few others did the same in other towns, as well. From what I've read, he was probably a better mayor than a great deal of middle-aged ones.
liljp617
Wuppie wrote:
I'm a teen myself, and I think I'm ready to vote. But there are many teens that are clearly not ready. Most teens don't understand political issues, or they think too simple about it. And teens are a wide group. The older teens know way more about politics than the young teens.

Another thing I'm worried about if teens vote is that their parents have a great influence of them. If you're voting, you should be able to think independent, and vote what you think is best and not because of the influence the people around them have. And that, I think, is what most teens don't really do. In general, 18 year olds are way more independent and think more on their own than younger people. If people of 16 years could vote, I think voting would be worth less, and making it possibly less important.

So, it's a nice idea, but teens just aren't ready.

The teens that aren't ready are likely to not give any care in the world to politics or voting...so they won't vote...just like the other 70% of the population or whatever it is. Giving younger people the right to vote doesn't mean they're all going to vote. I would be surprised if 20% of teens from age 15-17 would vote. It's unlikely there would be a big turnout and definitely nothing that would throw an election one way or another. But you give the ones who do care and the ones who do pay attention the right to vote and they're likely to make as informed a decision as any other voter. Everybody keeps saying teens don't pay attention to politics and don't really know what's going on. Well, who the hell does? There's a very small percentage of voters that actually pay close attention and try to choose the candidate based on policy.

The majority of people declare their party because it's the household they grew up in and it's the political party their parents/family were a part of. I don't see why it's a big deal if a teen were to base their vote on the house they grew up in at 15 or they base their vote on the house they grew up in at 30. People tend to base their votes on how they were raised...it's going to be like that regardless of age. Not only that, teens tend to be quite rebellious so that assessment could possibly be wrong.
deanhills
Genesiz wrote:
deanhills wrote:
What is meant with "maturity" and what "other variables" are involved?

I used the word mature in the sense that they would vote for who they thought was right, and not randomly or on what their parents thought (unless they thought the same). Maybe I should have been clearer in my use of the word, thank you for picking up on that.

By other variables, i simply meant that the fact they pay taxes should not be the sole reason for making the decision, as there are other things to consider (such as public feeling, any laws against it etc.)

Hope this clears up your question.


Thanks Genesiz, it did clear up my question. However, not sure whether the variables are some form of test that is being imposed on one section of the population, whereas the other sections of the population do not necessarily make the grade according to those variables. Teens are only a small percentage of the total population 4.4%. Cannot possibly be a problem, especially if you count the heads that could be a problem, and who are eligible to vote. Think this experience would enrich teens. Will empower them in a positive sense. Consider that some of them will shortly be joining the military to fight the war in Iraq. Possibly this would be good preparation for them as well. To think about and debate about political issues that really matter to them and to come to responsible decisions about their futures.
Pantherus
Well being 17 and being in the British legal system I currently cannot vote but I don't really see why not although I'm still in full-time education I made that decision and if I'm old enough to make a decision to decide my own future I'm old enough to decide about everyone elses. I forget who said about one you pay tax you should be entitled to vote but we've paid VAT on everything we've ever bought. I personally believe that it should be changed to 16 as should alcohol regulations and the smoking age should be put back to 16. But i also think there should be no allowances made for 16-18's when it comes to the law, if people are old enough to make major decisions then they should also be accountable for their actions.

And I'd do a better job of running our country than that fat media controlled puppet.
liljp617
Pantherus wrote:
Well being 17 and being in the British legal system I currently cannot vote but I don't really see why not although I'm still in full-time education I made that decision and if I'm old enough to make a decision to decide my own future I'm old enough to decide about everyone elses. I forget who said about one you pay tax you should be entitled to vote but we've paid VAT on everything we've ever bought. I personally believe that it should be changed to 16 as should alcohol regulations and the smoking age should be put back to 16. But i also think there should be no allowances made for 16-18's when it comes to the law, if people are old enough to make major decisions then they should also be accountable for their actions.

And I'd do a better job of running our country than that fat media controlled puppet.

It was more in relation to income tax. If the government is taking money from your hard work and using that money on whatever they see necessary, you should at least have a voice in saying who gets to spend your money. That was the general point.
Pantherus
No I understand that but I agree from the age of 16 you should be made to pay income tax based on your earning and as not many under 18's earn more than £2320 then maximum tax on savings will not be more than £232 which is affordable and there is no formal income tax.

Anyone back me for government?
Bikerman
Pantherus wrote:
No I understand that but I agree from the age of 16 you should be made to pay income tax based on your earning and as not many under 18's earn more than £2320 then maximum tax on savings will not be more than £232 which is affordable and there is no formal income tax.

Anyone back me for government?
Not unless you do your sums better Smile
The UK personal tax allowance (on which you pay no tax) is £6035 for this tax year (that includes savings income). Earnings above that are taxed at the basic rate (20%) up to £34,800 and at 40% after that.
Pantherus
Hehe sorry forgot about personal tax, difficult to keep track of things you don't pay for :p

I see you're from Cheshire mind me asking where.

I could be your future MP ???
Bikerman
Pantherus wrote:
I see you're from Cheshire mind me asking where.
Frodsham (Weaver-Vale constituency)
liljp617
Pantherus wrote:
No I understand that but I agree from the age of 16 you should be made to pay income tax based on your earning and as not many under 18's earn more than £2320 then maximum tax on savings will not be more than £232 which is affordable and there is no formal income tax.

Anyone back me for government?

Well I'm from the US, so I tend to speak from that point of view.
phpc0d3r
I personally feel that that if you're mature enough to get your driver's license (16 years old in the US) and hold down a job, You should be able to have a voice in the political system. Issues affecting teens are being discussed every day, however we remain without a voice. If we go by maturity, Who's there to govern who's "mature" enough to vote? Some adults would no longer be able to vote. As for dependency, I would like to point out that someone can be emancipated from their guardians provided they have a steady job and housing.

Quote:
If people of 16 years could vote, I think voting would be worth less, and making it possibly less important.


Really? Most adults already think voting is worthless. If teens could vote, how could that possible make your vote worth less?
{name here}
Quote:
Really? Most adults already think voting is worthless. If teens could vote, how could that possible make your vote worth less?

Say that this country had three people. Each of your votes are worth 33%. Add one more and your vote is now worth 25%. Add six more and your vote is now 10%. Adding more people to voting will make each vote hold less power Razz, not that that is a bad thing.
Rosanova
Hi there,

Why shouldn't teens could getting involved into politics?

I started my political career when I was 14, and I still think that it's a right age to start. As soon you have learned to read and write, and understanding the diffrent between right and wrong, you have a good basic to start to make your own oppinion.

There is many NGO's that can be the gate into the political world like;

Greenpease
WWF
etc.


Cheers!
liljp617
{name here} wrote:
Quote:
Really? Most adults already think voting is worthless. If teens could vote, how could that possible make your vote worth less?

Say that this country had three people. Each of your votes are worth 33%. Add one more and your vote is now worth 25%. Add six more and your vote is now 10%. Adding more people to voting will make each vote hold less power Razz, not that that is a bad thing.

This country has 300 million people. Every vote counts the same. How is the power of my vote dependent upon the power of my neighbor's?
LumberJack
If the merits and skills are there, I don't see why not. But, There are legal ramifications in doing so. Can they legally sign a contract, and have it enforced?
thadnation
the thing is, i am better researched, balanced, capable than most adults. i maintain a 3.8 gpa, have a near-college level reading score, scored a 22 on the act last year (that's after 7th grade) am elligible to work (which means tax) and i can get my temp in a few months. most teens won't vote, and then ones who would , would be the teens like me. now, read that last paragraph, look me in the eyes (figuratively speaking) and tell me that the guy you bought your groceries from is more entitled to the right to vote than i am.
Related topics
Justification for War in Iraq
The exploition of children by the ACLU
F. Nietzsche
Three teens suspected in Vancouver bank robberies
Define Religion?
Is Islam really a menace?
China Olympics, boycott or not?
$frih up for grabs!
$frih up for grabs! Read on for more info...
Let the gutter politics begin
Trillion Dollar Stimulus
Like politics, scoialising or just having fun? Join this...
Religion in Politics
Is 13 too young to sail round the world solo?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.