Young people and Politics in General (Thread)

[Keyboard Warriors]

1. Oh, good.

2. My point wasn't that the only way to be involved in politics is to join a party, but to highlight that there are many people in the world who identify with a political party, are a member of said party, subscribe to a particular ideology, but represents the extent of their political involvement. They do not contribute their own opinion, they have it given to them by others. Hence, these people aren't politically superior to anybody else due to their involvement. Their involvement is not helping them develop what sort of qualities that any country should desire in a voter, if this were a perfect world scenario. To reiterate, being politically involved does not make you a better voter.

The only way you could consider that being involved improves your political prowess would be if you included doing background research on candidates before you voted. I wouldn't consider someone who just wants to read up on candidates to be politically involved anymore than I'd consider someone who does background research on a washing machine to be a washing machine enthusiast.

3. There's a sentiment here that people are politically apathetic because they are dumb. I disagree with that sentiment and find it ludicrous. Do you agree or disagree?

1.

2. Even this partisan you despise for subsuming their own opinions and doubt to the party line, will be better informed by doing so. I am always in favor of learning more. They may chant slogans at a rally, and that does not advance their knowledge: but it does not harm it either. They will likely read more, discuss with the learned when they can, and in every way try to educate themselves. If only to serve their party better ... learning is still learning.

If later they turn against their first party, they will know the weaknesses of its ideology ... by remembering the doubts they had themselves. Cognitive dissonance is a learn experience.

3. If you see that sentiment expressed by any particular poster, then reply to them and rebut. Arguing against a general sentiment is no better than strawmanning. In fact, it is.

2. Despite the fact that it's a learning curve to realize when you're wrong, I'm not trying to convey that there is nothing good to come of this sort of relationship with a political ideology. The point I'm trying to make is that it does not make you a better voter, just by associating yourself with a political party or concept. As I've said, this is because you don't have to exercise any thought in order to select what association you want to lay claim to. Whether or not they are harmed by it or better for it in the long run is secondary here; the main point is that being a "communist" or a "capitalist' does not make you a good voter in itself.

3. A strawman is a misrepresentation. I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm attacking a sentiment without attributing it to a poster. That's not a fallacy.

Because your vote is your vote. It's not the vote of other people. Pressuring somebody else to vote for you is illegal as is selling your vote. There's a huge risk of this happening with children, hence they should not be allowed to vote.

Well let their parents vote for them then. Don't say that is a perverse incentive to have children, because one vote is a tiny thing compared to the cost and responsibility of raising a child.

It doesn't matter about whether parents will want more children or not, it's not even about the slight advantage that some parties will receive as a result of parental influence, it's about the ethics of allowing voter fraud. Personally, not having the right to vote so long as you're a child is a fair trade for an ethical and integral electoral system where influencing votes is denounced in my books.

I like your screen name, btw. Clackety-clack, gun 'em down.

Why thank you. If you don't laugh at yourself, who else will?

An early interest in politics is good, yes. Although for children, an interest in anything that's not illegal has the potential to be good because more often than not, it leads on to greater opportunities in life. But, as I said, being a teenage nazi or communist doesn't mean you have an interest in politics. More often than not, it means you just want the tag of Nazi or Communist.

And politics is just a game, when you can't even vote.

Maybe the teenagers would take themselves more seriously if they were taken seriously. We let them ride their bicycles on the road, and they don't get run over. We let them ride their bicycles on the footpath, and they don't mow down pets and young children. In some jurisdictions we let them drive cars on the road before they're allowed to vote. In some jurisdictions we let them join the military and risk their own lives (and of course, the lives of others) before they're allowed to vote.

Is the individual power to vote really so dangerous that teenagers can't be trusted with it?

Could the voting age be lowered, maybe slightly even, to reflect a more modern society where children are becoming more ideologically independent from their parents through things like social media? Yes, probably. Should it be abolished? Of course not. A person's vote is their right to a say in their country, nobody is entitled to a greater say than anybody else, even if this means a slight cost to individual liberty.

[AiliailiA]

1.

2. Even this partisan you despise for subsuming their own opinions and doubt to the party line, will be better informed by doing so. I am always in favor of learning more. They may chant slogans at a rally, and that does not advance their knowledge: but it does not harm it either. They will likely read more, discuss with the learned when they can, and in every way try to educate themselves. If only to serve their party better ... learning is still learning.

If later they turn against their first party, they will know the weaknesses of its ideology ... by remembering the doubts they had themselves. Cognitive dissonance is a learn experience.

3. If you see that sentiment expressed by any particular poster, then reply to them and rebut. Arguing against a general sentiment is no better than strawmanning. In fact, it is.





Well let their parents vote for them then. Don't say that is a perverse incentive to have children, because one vote is a tiny thing compared to the cost and responsibility of raising a child.

I like your screen name, btw. Clackety-clack, gun 'em down.

It's not so much about incentivising children, as artificially inflating the importance of one demographic. I mean, you're roughly doubling the number of votes an average family has, assuming all their children are able to vote. Even accounting for just a proportion of those being at the new younger voting age, that's still a huge increase in voting power for family-friendly policies.

Family friendly policies like education funding (primary, secondary and tertiary)? Like better state funding for child-care, and higher standards? Like abortion services, to spare parents from having to spread their efforts more widely than the childten they already have, and to spare their children from that? Like childhood health and nutrition? Like early intervention for mental illness, child abuse, and ineffective parenting which exposes the children of good parents to the incipient criminality of the children of bad parents?

Yeah. Like that. Society would be better if individual problems were dealt with earlier in life.

"Family friendly" is a revolting buzzword, usually employed by religious fanatics who want to abuse their children in the guise of "discipline" or "moral instruction". But most parents aren't like that. They want what is best for their child, and I would trust them to vote in the interests of their child.

[Frisivisia]

Ahem.

Teenage monarchists, I am one what is wrong with being a teenage monarchist.

The fact that you favor a hilariously obsolete and oppressive government.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Teenage monarchists, I am one what is wrong with being a teenage monarchist.

The fact that you favor a hilariously obsolete and oppressive government.

Don't forget the fact that your prosperity and fortune to be a teenager with internet can be traced back to the downfall of monarchy.

[Divair]

The fact that you favor a hilariously obsolete and oppressive government.

Don't forget the fact that your prosperity and fortune to be a teenager with internet can be traced back to the downfall of monarchy.

Since the UK is a monarchy, clearly the internet can exist in monarchies.
*nod*

[Frisivisia]

Don't forget the fact that your prosperity and fortune to be a teenager with internet can be traced back to the downfall of monarchy.

Since the UK is a monarchy, clearly the internet can exist in monarchies.
*nod*

In name only.

[Magna Libero]

No. 16 is too young of an age to be allowed to vote. They should wait until they are slightly more mature at 18.

[Old Tyrannia]

Teenage monarchists, I am one what is wrong with being a teenage monarchist.

In itself, nothing, but you have to ask yourself the question, why?

Regard for tradition, continuity, the experience that comes with a leader who is in office for life, predictability of succession, reduced risk of populist dictators seizing power, a non-partisan head of state, symbol of national unity, belief in balanced, mixed government and division of powers, distrust of elected leaders, a leader who is trained from birth... There are many reasons to support a monarchy. More specifically, in my experience many people of my generation in Commonwealth realms- even if they are not conservative in any other regard- have a strong affection for the Royal Family and especially Her Majesty the Queen. She's like our collective grandmother.

[Tlik]

It's not so much about incentivising children, as artificially inflating the importance of one demographic. I mean, you're roughly doubling the number of votes an average family has, assuming all their children are able to vote. Even accounting for just a proportion of those being at the new younger voting age, that's still a huge increase in voting power for family-friendly policies.

Family friendly policies like education funding (primary, secondary and tertiary)? Like better state funding for child-care, and higher standards? Like abortion services, to spare parents from having to spread their efforts more widely than the childten they already have, and to spare their children from that? Like childhood health and nutrition? Like early intervention for mental illness, child abuse, and ineffective parenting which exposes the children of good parents to the incipient criminality of the children of bad parents?

Yeah. Like that. Society would be better if individual problems were dealt with earlier in life.

"Family friendly" is a revolting buzzword, usually employed by religious fanatics who want to abuse their children in the guise of "discipline" or "moral instruction". But most parents aren't like that. They want what is best for their child, and I would trust them to vote in the interests of their child.

Ah, but those things at the expense of more controversial issues such as healthcare, better policing, stronger and more effective welfare? Sure, I want pretty much all the things you suggested, but then if it was up to me, only liberals would be allowed to vote, and everyone else would just have to suck it. The reason I don't advocate this position is because it's wrong to create a tyranny by artificial majority.

Messing with voting demographics where it will influence politics in a variety of subtly and visible ways is foolish unless you have a good reason to, and giving children rights that you yourself acknowledge will be manipulated is really not a good reason.

Additionally, abortion? Popular among families?

[Nervium]

In itself, nothing, but you have to ask yourself the question, why?

Regard for tradition, continuity, the experience that comes with a leader who is in office for life, predictability of succession, reduced risk of populist dictators seizing power, a non-partisan head of state, symbol of national unity, belief in balanced, mixed government and division of powers, distrust of elected leaders, a leader who is trained from birth... There are many reasons to support a monarchy. More specifically, in my experience many people of my generation in Commonwealth realms- even if they are not conservative in any other regard- have a strong affection for the Royal Family and especially Her Majesty the Queen. She's like our collective grandmother.

Yeaah... Okay, personally I find that most of those are possible in constitutional republics and others are just really horrible justifications. But that's okay.

[AiliailiA]

1.

2. Even this partisan you despise for subsuming their own opinions and doubt to the party line, will be better informed by doing so. I am always in favor of learning more. They may chant slogans at a rally, and that does not advance their knowledge: but it does not harm it either. They will likely read more, discuss with the learned when they can, and in every way try to educate themselves. If only to serve their party better ... learning is still learning.

If later they turn against their first party, they will know the weaknesses of its ideology ... by remembering the doubts they had themselves. Cognitive dissonance is a learn experience.

3. If you see that sentiment expressed by any particular poster, then reply to them and rebut. Arguing against a general sentiment is no better than strawmanning. In fact, it is.

2. Despite the fact that it's a learning curve to realize when you're wrong, I'm not trying to convey that there is nothing good to come of this sort of relationship with a political ideology. The point I'm trying to make is that it does not make you a better voter, just by associating yourself with a political party or concept. As I've said, this is because you don't have to exercise any thought in order to select what association you want to lay claim to. Whether or not they are harmed by it or better for it in the long run is secondary here; the main point is that being a "communist" or a "capitalist' does not make you a good voter in itself.

3. A strawman is a misrepresentation. I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm attacking a sentiment without attributing it to a poster. That's not a fallacy.

2. If all you're saying is that "associating yourself with a political party or concept" does not make 'yourself' a better votter, I won't disagree. That's easy to agree with, but I though you were saying something more than that, about being active in a political party.

I think the US system of registering as Democratic, Republican or Independant when officially registering to vote is terrible. This is a public record, which parties can use to judge positively or negatively anyone seeking to be active in their party. And if we assume that 18 year olds are just barely competent to vote, then letting them declare a public allegiance to some party is an intrusion on the privacy of the vote.

I would automatically register everyone at voting age, based on thir social security and other government records. This does not intrude on their rights at all: they would not be compelled to attend on election day. They could take the effort to vote, or not, but they would be freed of the prior requirement to register.

And as to photo ID: this should be provided to them at no cost, from before they were eligible to vote. If the government would require photo ID for any purpose, then the government should provide the damn photo ID. At no cost.

Well let their parents vote for them then. Don't say that is a perverse incentive to have children, because one vote is a tiny thing compared to the cost and responsibility of raising a child.

It doesn't matter about whether parents will want more children or not, it's not even about the slight advantage that some parties will receive as a result of parental influence, it's about the ethics of allowing voter fraud. Personally, not having the right to vote so long as you're a child is a fair trade for an ethical and integral electoral system where influencing votes is denounced in my books.

"Fair and ethical" you say, when some residents recognized as citizens and subject to the law can neither vote, nor have anyone else vote on their behalf.

I like your screen name, btw. Clackety-clack, gun 'em down.

Why thank you. If you don't laugh at yourself, who else will?

And politics is just a game, when you can't even vote.

Maybe the teenagers would take themselves more seriously if they were taken seriously. We let them ride their bicycles on the road, and they don't get run over. We let them ride their bicycles on the footpath, and they don't mow down pets and young children. In some jurisdictions we let them drive cars on the road before they're allowed to vote. In some jurisdictions we let them join the military and risk their own lives (and of course, the lives of others) before they're allowed to vote.

Is the individual power to vote really so dangerous that teenagers can't be trusted with it?

Could the voting age be lowered, maybe slightly even, to reflect a more modern society where children are becoming more ideologically independent from their parents through things like social media? Yes, probably. Should it be abolished? Of course not. A person's vote is their right to a say in their country, nobody is entitled to a greater say than anybody else, even if this means a slight cost to individual liberty.

I am open to compromise. A voting age of 16, 15, or 14 would not distort the system very much. Votes for all children can wait.

"A person's vote is their right to a say in their country" you say. Well maybe a babe-in-arms is not a person. But a teenager certainly is. Move the line down gradually, if that's the only way to get it done, and quibble when we get to five or four years old about whether they are "persons".

But teenagers are persons, the law being made now certainly affects them, now and in the future. They should have a vote.

[Kemalist]

I definitely agree. I was a member of my party's high school commision. Still an active member in the youth wing.

[Michijo]

Politicians only want to control young people. No wonder they don't care for politics, and if they do, they are considered idealists. The Party for Socialism and Liberation in the USA actually has a very strong base of very young supporters. At demos you see young people in their early teens, most of them minorities though. They run presidential candidates that are generally in their twenties, unless you count Gloria La Riva, who was an odd one out for being an older woman candidate as president.

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/

[Spoder]

I'm into politics...
so is a number of a people at my school.
But most of those people are your typical everyday liberal. You shower them with facts from MSN, CNN, and other reliable sources and they yell "Fox News!" like that will change the facts.

[Gallup]

Teens are too dumb to vote. Either they are exactly like their parents politics wise, pick a side just to piss off their parents without researching it, or don't give any fucks.

I am very active politically. I now more about foreign policy than most of my teachers and all of the kids, and I wish they would get involved more. But they aren't.

[Old Tyrannia]

Politicians only want to control young people. No wonder they don't care for politics, and if they do, they are considered idealists. The Party for Socialism and Liberation in the USA actually has a very strong base of very young supporters. At demos you see young people in their early teens, most of them minorities though. They run presidential candidates that are generally in their twenties, unless you count Gloria La Riva, who was an odd one out for being an older woman candidate as president.

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/

Any political party that parades around with a name like "Party for Socialism and Liberation" should be avoided like the bubonic plague crossed with Spanish flu.

[North East Ohio]

I'm 18 and a progressive, when I was younger around your age OP I considered my self a Marxist, but looking back at that now it was quite silly. But, I must say that I would probably consider myself more of conservative Social Democrat and I take offense when most of the people at school call me a Communist cause I'm not! But, at least here in the United States it's looked down upon to be a Socialist, but that's because we have some biased tea party teachers at our school that give bonus points for biased ideals or the Republican side of things and is pretty much a breeding ground for Republican's because the teachers spew that they're giving the true facts and that it isn't biased and not to listen to the "Liberal Biased" media, but most kids don't go out of their way to look at both sides and make their own opinions. But, I'll stop ranting now.

-P.S. It's always good to be interested into politics and political theory. The more people that are the more likely we might be able to come up with new ideas and new ways to looking at things!

-p.s.s. I don't join political parties because I try to look at it from a case by case scenario and not jaded by what's best for the party, but instead for the people. I don't really like Political Parties (or factions) like some of the founding fathers said to avoid (Federalist Papers), but I do understand why some people want to be unified.

[North East Ohio]

I'm into politics...
so is a number of a people at my school.
But most of those people are your typical everyday liberal. You shower them with facts from MSN, CNN, and other reliable sources and they yell "Fox News!" like that will change the facts.

Fox news isn't liberal my friend that sounds more like a conservative sided approach while I must admit that I read all the sites you mentioned including fox news. CNN and MSN tend to be more Liberal while Fox news is know to be conservative. But, also when reading the sites I like to look at the sources for their numbers on both CNN, Fox, and MSN and then like to go through and verify where those numbers are coming from and then you can decide whether you want to go with one side or if the numbers lay somewhere in the middle.

[Molsonian Republics]

I think we need to improve young peoples interest in politics, I am one of the youngest members of the British Conservative Party (I am 16). However, it is a difficult goal to achieve.

Agreed, I believe that political awareness should be encouraged in schools and taught in social studies classes. Everyone should be concerned about the future of their country.

[Spoder]

I'm into politics...
so is a number of a people at my school.
But most of those people are your typical everyday liberal. You shower them with facts from MSN, CNN, and other reliable sources and they yell "Fox News!" like that will change the facts.

Fox news isn't liberal my friend that sounds more like a conservative sided approach while I must admit that I read all the sites you mentioned including fox news. CNN and MSN tend to be more Liberal while Fox news is know to be conservative. But, also when reading the sites I like to look at the sources for their numbers on both CNN, Fox, and MSN and then like to go through and verify where those numbers are coming from and then you can decide whether you want to go with one side or if the numbers lay somewhere in the middle.

They say that I get all my info from Fox.

[Senyosu]

Young people in politics makes me think about right leaning libertarian hipster pre-teens. Meerp.

No. Young people need to be bloody educated on how to think in an unbiased manner first, before allowing them to run off into the peculiar world of politics.

[Coexisting Republics]

Well I've rocked back to the Democratic Party and progressivism. I still value hard work, but I think there needs to be more compassion.

I've added emphasis above because I'm genuinely curious why it is American's (which I assume you are because "Democratic Party") seem to so frequently need to emphasize the importance of "hard work."

This is some sort of mind virus, like "dear" and "sincerely" in business letters and e-mails from strangers.

Consider the following:
If people don't work hard and aren't penalized, then slowly, because humans tend(not always, but it is a tendency) not to work when they don't have to work, the economy loses their productivity. Not much, right? Wrong. As people begin to see that being lazy has no bad sides, more and more lazy people will stop being productive. Soon, a significant amount of the economy is lost, and the standard of living goes down.
The lesson to be learned? There are 2.
1: If your country has some sort of welfare program (as most 1st world countries do), make sure the system, while still combating poverty, does not enable lazy people.
2: Value hard work.

[Raurosia]

Well I'm a young person and interested in politics. But my views are basically just liberal but with a "against whoever I'm talking to on whatever we're talking about at the moment" flavor

[Coexisting Republics]

Politicians only want to control young people. No wonder they don't care for politics, and if they do, they are considered idealists. The Party for Socialism and Liberation in the USA actually has a very strong base of very young supporters. At demos you see young people in their early teens, most of them minorities though. They run presidential candidates that are generally in their twenties, unless you count Gloria La Riva, who was an odd one out for being an older woman candidate as president.

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/

Dude... you need to be 35 in order to be president.

[Renewed Dissonance]

Consider the following:
If people don't work hard and aren't penalized, then slowly, because humans tend(not always, but it is a tendency) not to work when they don't have to work, ...

I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there, and ask whether this observation is controlling for things like unemployment, education/literacy, and any number of other almost limitless factors that might prevent a perfectly willing person from working even if they very much wanted to?

Also: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=287720&p=19271508#p19271508