To what degree do you think young people or even other groups should be allowed to vote?

[fakename]

To what degree do you think young people or even other groups should be allowed to vote?

In Aristotle’s Politics, the philosopher says that young people, because of their tendencies towards pleasure-seeking are not fit to learn political science. Now IMO, no one who is ignorant of political science should be running a government, so in a democracy, I can definitely doubt that young people should have their say.

But then again, I’m young too, and I seem to know something about political philosophy, so shouldn’t I vote?

Well, (and maybe I’m not in this following group), but I think that prodigies and other such smarter-than-average youth should be allowed to vote but most young people probably shouldn’t. And indeed, most young people today are both too sensual and too liberal to be any good to the general society. So perhaps some non-criminals should not be allowed to vote. Do you agree or not?

 

[meltzerboy]

To what degree do you think young people or even other groups should be allowed to vote?

In Aristotle’s Politics, the philosopher says that young people, because of their tendencies towards pleasure-seeking are not fit to learn political science. Now IMO, no one who is ignorant of political science should be running a government, so in a democracy, I can definitely doubt that young people should have their say.

But then again, I’m young too, and I seem to know something about political philosophy, so shouldn’t I vote?

Well, (and maybe I’m not in this following group), but I think that prodigies and other such smarter-than-average youth should be allowed to vote but most young people probably shouldn’t. And indeed, most young people today are both too sensual and too liberal to be any good to the general society. Oh, the irony of trying to get-out-the-vote to the same age group that swooned over Obama! So perhaps some non-criminals should not be allowed to vote. Do you agree or not?

No one should be allowed to vote. Believe me, we’d be better off that way.

 

[jmcrae]

To what degree do you think young people or even other groups should be allowed to vote?

Everyone who has an opinion ought to vote, and should be allowed to vote. Aristotle was a smart guy, but he also believed that exposing infants was a good idea in times of overpopulation, so I wouldn’t look to him for moral guidance.

 

[St_Francis]

The main restriction I would like to see is residency. It drives me crazy that people who haven’t lived somewhere for more than a few weeks can vote for whose going to run the place. It is worse when the people are there only temporarily so do not have to live with the consequences of who they vote in.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The whole point of democracy is that government isn’t limited to people who understand it. It may (does) cause some inefficiencies at times, but allowing even “stupid people” (whether stupid from lack of age/experience, focus on self, whatever) to have a say theoretically, at least, makes sure that stupid people’s rights etc aren’t completely ignored by politicians who don’t have to pay attention to them to get elected.

Granted, it doesn’t work perfectly, but I have yet to see anything that consistently works better. I mean, if we could trust politicians not to just play to the interests of those who they have to convince to vote for them then there’d be no reason for democracy at all. Allowing everyone to vote means that you add self interest to the motivations for paying attention to the needs of all different types of people.

You do end up with bad things happening occasionally, of course, but I doubt that that’d be any rarer in any other circumstances.

 

[Equites_Christi]

The issue is self-resolving, most young people I’ve seen have no interest in voting or politics whatever.

 

[paulrus]

I think a weak monarchy, limited by a class of nobility, is probably the best system of government. If we must have a form of democracy, it ought to be a republic with strict voting rules. A good place to start would be limiting the franchise to net-taxpayers who have children; these are the people who actually have some skin in the game and can be trusted to make better decisions. The real problem though is the size and demography of the political territory. I don’t think any government can work well in a country with millions (let alone hundreds of millions) of people of every imaginable ethnic and religious background. Small, homogeneous societies work best and are the easiest to govern.

 

[Lokabrenna]

I find it interesting that you single out young people when you talk about voting rights. I’m a young person and I make sure to vote in every election that I’m eligible to vote in (the only time I didn’t is when I was very sick on voting day). I might not understand the ins and outs of politics, but I do look up party platforms and I will vote for candidates who I feel best represent my values. Yes, there are lots of people who don’t vote, but that doesn’t mean you can just take that away from them, that’s not democracy, it’s tyranny (in the modern sense of the word, of course).

Women in North America endured jail time, beatings, force-feedings, and sometimes died to give women like me the vote, and I certainly wouldn’t let anyone take that away from me due to an ageist assumption that I’ll think with my genitals.

 

[Alder]

The main restriction I would like to see is residency. It drives me crazy that people who haven’t lived somewhere for more than a few weeks can vote for whose going to run the place. It is worse when the people are there only temporarily so do not have to live with the consequences of who they vote in.

This.

I don’t favour any specific restrictions per se. However, I would like children, while still in school, to be taught basic political philosophy. Currently In my country, future voters are only taught “VOTE OR GET FINED”.

 

[boclucky14]

I think a weak monarchy, limited by a class of nobility, is probably the best system of government. If we must have a form of democracy, it ought to be a republic with strict voting rules. A good place to start would be limiting the franchise to net-taxpayers who have children; these are the people who actually have some skin in the game and can be trusted to make better decisions. The real problem though is the size and demography of the political territory. I don’t think any government can work well in a country with millions (let alone hundreds of millions) of people of every imaginable ethnic and religious background. Small, homogeneous societies work best and are the easiest to govern.

As far as limits to voting, I would argue (and this would count me out ) that only land-owners get to vote. By owning land, you’re making an investment in the country, and have a stake in it’s success, because failure and the eventual collapse of your government may indeed mean the loss of your land, among other things.

As far as the scope goes, referring specifically to the United States, I would agree. The Federal government isn’t meant to be a government over millions, but simply a government over 50, by the current count - a government of governments, but not necessarily a government governing governments.

Any real political decisions ought to be made at the lowest denominator. The decisions that affect the residents the most ought to be made the lowest level. As far as a possible example goes, I would love for the Feds to tax the various states x amount of money based on population, while the various states can decide how to raise that money…aka, remove all other taxes, except tariffs)

 

[Bradski]

There’s only one thing you can definately say: If you don’t vote then you don’t get to complain about whoever is running the show.

 

[Spirithound]

To what degree do you think young people or even other groups should be allowed to vote?

I think parents should be able to cast a ballot for every child they have, until that child reaches the age of majority.

 

[austenbosten]

To what degree do you think young people or even other groups should be allowed to vote?

In Aristotle’s Politics, the philosopher says that young people, because of their tendencies towards pleasure-seeking are not fit to learn political science. Now IMO, no one who is ignorant of political science should be running a government, so in a democracy, I can definitely doubt that young people should have their say.

But then again, I’m young too, and I seem to know something about political philosophy, so shouldn’t I vote?

Well, (and maybe I’m not in this following group), but I think that prodigies and other such smarter-than-average youth should be allowed to vote but most young people probably shouldn’t. And indeed, most young people today are both too sensual and too liberal to be any good to the general society. Oh, the irony of trying to get-out-the-vote to the same age group that swooned over Obama! So perhaps some non-criminals should not be allowed to vote. Do you agree or not?

The voting age should be raised back to 21…you can’t have a beer yet…but you can decide the fate of a nation!?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The voting age should be raised back to 21…you can’t have a beer yet…but you can decide the fate of a nation!?

So far as I remember, it was only lowered to 18 because people were complaining about being able to be drafted before they could vote. This makes sense to me, I have to say. I suppose you could make registering for the draft optional until 21, but you must register for the draft at 18 to vote at 18 or something, but not sure how that’d actually work.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As far as limits to voting, I would argue (and this would count me out ) that only land-owners get to vote. By owning land, you’re making an investment in the country, and have a stake in it’s success, because failure and the eventual collapse of your government may indeed mean the loss of your land, among other things.

The dignity of the human person, which the Church teaches is more important than land or any other mere possessions, would seem to indicate otherwise… Even people without land ownership have invested in the country with a much more valuable investment - their own lives.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The voting age should be raised back to 21…you can’t have a beer yet…but you can decide the fate of a nation!?

Of course, what business does the government have telling people whether or not they can drink?

 

[stinkcat_14]

The dignity of the human person, which the Church teaches is more important than land or any other mere possessions, would seem to indicate otherwise… Even people without land ownership have invested in the country with a much more valuable investment - their own lives.

That would be the ultimate injustice, to be drafted to fight in a war that you had no say in.

 

[Seeker1961]

Sorry-but this sounds an awful lot like “only people who think the way I do should be allowed to vote”.

 

[manualman]

I’ve been called all sorts of evil names for this opinion before, but I think we should have an election system in which EVERYBODY is a write-in candidate and nobody is allowed to bring in notes. If you don’t care enough to learn who you want to vote for, you have no business being in the booth. And no straight party voting either.

This would weed out all the irresponsible voters who pull levers based on party or on how nice they think the candidate’s name sounds…

Minor spelling issues can be ignored (is there any question what is intended if someone writes Obomba?) But you have to prove you cared enough to learn who was running by memorizing their names.

 

[fakename]

Everyone who has an opinion ought to vote, and should be allowed to vote. Aristotle was a smart guy, but he also believed that exposing infants was a good idea in times of overpopulation, so I wouldn’t look to him for moral guidance.

Very true, but I have yet to crack his eugenics-abortion sentiments since he also supplements his statement by saying “what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation.” as if to say that he had not settled the question yet. I just happen to go to Aristotle for my ideas a lot since the Church seemed to have done the same, and even more so than with Plato (I don’t think Aristotle was infallible).