LOWERING THE VOTING AGE
shelley
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Calgary and the Dunlop in Regina
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject: Why not?
If you can drive or have a job and pay taxes, why not have the vote at age 16. What do you think?
Guest
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:49 pm Post subject:
A brilliant suggestion. The main arugment against it, though, would be the assumed maturity level of overall people of that age. I know that a lot of people are immature at that age, but an equal number are immature at all ages. I think it's brilliant as we should ALL have a say in who leads, not just people who we call adults.
shelley
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Calgary and the Dunlop in Regina
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:47 pm Post subject: maturity
The argument is about maturity and we tend to err on the side of caution. I must say, though, that of the people that I have known, those who are uninformed tend not to vote.
I always thought it was my civic duty, but more importantly, a priveledge. Does anyone else feel this way?
drkwylie
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 13
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:33 pm Post subject: Vating Age
I agree that it would be a privledge. I also agree that most adults would be against it because they think that kids are too immature but most of the kids I know realize that voting for who runs your country, province or even city is a pretty serious thing and they wouldn't try to make a joke out of it. A lot of us are immature, but not totally stupid.
I would have to say that right now in my life I don't pay attention to politics or voting at all, mainly because I don't have to make a decision. But if I was able to be apart of that I know that I would pay more attention to current events and to the election campaign.
I think that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Us teenagers are affected by the government more than even I probably realize and those of us that are willing to pay attention, treat the campaign and election process with respect and make a serious decision should have the right to be apart of choosing who should run it.
_________________
Dr. K. Wylie
Guest (TheKwas)
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:30 am Post subject:
The main arguement against lower the age limit is that kids simply aren't knowledgable enough about politics to make an informed decesion. From personal experiance, I know that this is partly true, but there are many kids under the 18-year threshold that are far more knowledgable about politics than the average 18 and older voter. Whether or not the average 16 year old is less informed and less responisble as a voter as the average 18 year old is an issue that is completely debatable and unproven on both sides. However, in my opinion, the crux of the arguement has nothing to with who's more informed than who. The main goal in this push shouldn't be just to allow the few intelligent 16-year olds to vote, but to get young people in general more involved in politics and the democratic process.
The uninformed 16-years olds most likely won't bother voting anyway. They will have better things to do than marking an X for the sake of marking an X. But now with politicans and society concerned with educating kids about partisian politics at a young age, you'll see more politicans and campaigners targetting the High Schools. Kids will be surrounded by politics and that enviroment at an earlier age and at a more organized and close-at-hand instiution (school). So instead of having the 18-21 bracket having the least interested members and the lowest voting rates, they will be vetern voters and the 16-18 bracket will in turn replace them as the least interested and having the lowest voting rates. Which will have an overall effect of more educated voters out voting and being involved in the democratic elements of our society.
Jash
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 11
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:37 am Post subject:
Totally agree with Kwas. The problem is as you all said is the lack of knowledge that most of us have in the politics area. I'm almost 100% positive that if they age was lowered to 16, I would deffinetly take part in those boring thanksgiving conversations at the supper table. And try to learn more about voting, and who to vote for ! ^_^ Again, another great topic.
spencerchad
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 15
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:53 pm Post subject:
Anonymous wrote:
The uninformed 16-years olds most likely won't bother voting anyway. They will have better things to do than marking an X for the sake of marking an X.
I totally agree on this. If they changed the voting age to 16 I don't think immaturity would be a problem. I really can't see any teenagers who don't seriously care about voting going to vote just for the sake of it.
shelley
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Calgary and the Dunlop in Regina
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:14 am Post subject: I'm impressed!
You all say that young people would pay more attention if they were actually participating in the process. Glazed-over eyes at the Thanksgiving dinner table are completely understandable for those under 18. (Well put, Jash.)
I think you're right theKwas when you say the reason for lowering the voting age is to encourage young people to get more involved. Check this out from Statistics Canada and ctv
Young people seem to be more involved in the democratic process than we tend to think.
I also agree with drkwylie that the majority of us, teens and adults, understand what an important responsibility voting is. If you're going to vote, you should be paying attention all the time. You have to be registered to vote which can mean registering -> read chore. Like spencerchad and theKwas I agree that people don't vote just for the sake of it.
But then again maybe they do. What happens if people just go in and mark an x like guessing at a multiple choice exam? What if a lot of people do that?
Last edited by shelley on Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
TheKwas
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 5
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:05 am Post subject:
If there is, then democracy in general doesn't work, and letting the small demographic of the 16-18 bracket vote is the least of our problems.
Even if there are those that throw away votes like that, given the fact that a party only needs a plurality, not a majority, of the votes to win a riding, there's a 1 out of 5 (give or take some parties) chance their vote won't change the outcome in any sort of way. At the very most they'll give $1.75 to whatever party they choose at random.
The problems of First Past the Post voting is really a bigger problem with our electoral system than not getting young people out voting.
Jacob
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 10
Location: Regina
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:56 am Post subject: Mandatory Voting?
Hello everyone,
Related to the current topic of lowering the voting age I thought I might introduce the idea of mandatory voting. I believe that (as some of the previous posters have indicated) lowering the voting age would immerse young people in the political process sooner and therefore producer a larger, more informed body of voters.
However, perhaps more importantly than lowering the voting age I believe that perhaps a system of mandatory voting should be introduced in Canada. While others here have asserted that voting is a privilige, I believe that in a democracy it is a responsibility and an obligation. Other nations such as Australia have mandatory voting laws, and I believe such a system would force people to become engaged in the political process and not sit idly by.
While others around the world die every day and struggle for democracy, Canadians live it and acknowledge this by turning out in lower numbers each election to vote. It's an insult to those who fight for the vote every day and mandatory voting could make citizens aware of the gravity of their decisions.
What do you think?
_________________
Assistant Curator
Dunlop Art Gallery
TheKwas
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 5
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:24 am Post subject:
Mandatory voting is a bad idea. First off, voting is neither a responsiblity nor a privilage, it's a right. No one should have the ability to take away your right to vote, and no one should have the ability to take away your right not to pratice your rights. The "none of the above" option is just as valid as any other.
Really, do we want people who know nothing about politics to be forced to vote anyway? Sure, maybe a few people will take the extra time to educate themselves before being forced to vote, but I doubt the average non-voter will bother with properly educating himself whether or not he's forced to vote or not. The progress of immerging a few non-voters into educated votership would be cancelled out by many non-voters turning into non-educated voters.
Also, as I said, for many "educated folks", the none of the above option remains the best. There's numerous "libertarian socialists" (anarchists) who refuse to take part in (what they call)"bourgeoisie elections", and view it as an uneffective and unlegit method of democracy that doesn't properly represent the masses. For them, to support such an undemocratic process only hinders their pursuit of better alternatives. Not that I nessarly agree with these folks, but they should have their right to pursue democracy in their own way.
shelley
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Calgary and the Dunlop in Regina
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:52 pm Post subject: Young voters
It's hard not to be bombarded with all the campaigning right now. Are there any parties that seem to speak to you? Has anyone said anything that made you think "if I could vote - they'd get mine"?
_________________
Alyysa
Guest
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject: Losing Generation
I don't see why the voteing age should be at 16. The whole reason they want to lower it is because our parents teachers and other adults think that there being fed crap. It's like one more thing to worry about they made the voteing age at 18 because adults should be making the hard choices not the kids. Were the new generation but if we screw up and vote for the wrong people we willl being paying for it the reast of our lives and so will our kids. Plus we have so much other stuff the stress out over we don't need another.
spencerchad
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 15
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject:
So are you saying because I am only 17 I am not capable of making an intelligent decision for myself? I think your statement that adults should make the hard decisions not the children is a total cop out for not showing any pride or knowledge of whats going on in your country. No matter what age you are the leader of your country affects you, wouldn't you want some say in who it is?
Guest
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:10 am Post subject: Sending a message
I don't think you can ever make a mistake by voting. I also being aware of what is going on in Canadian politics is really important. During my interviews a lot of people talked about taking action by not going to stores or restaurants where they are treated differently. No one would say they are officially on a BOYCOTT. Call it what you like, but boycotting is an effective tool in social activism and political change. Voting or not, you can be involved in the decision making process in a lot of other ways.