NationStates

Ethel mermania wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:Most 18 year olds haven’t faced the real world yet and often gravitate towards naive ideas, such as if a politician was proposing giving out free money. Very little college aged kids are informed enough to make an educated decision

Indeed, but if a military can draft you, You should have some say in how you are being used. So I think 18 is the right age for the franchise

Drafting varies by country, I don’t think a draft should exist and if it does, it should apply to everyone, not just males

Vassenor wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:Most 18 year olds haven’t faced the real world yet and often gravitate towards naive ideas, such as if a politician was proposing giving out free money. Very little college aged kids are informed enough to make an educated decision

So in other words because they might not vote the way you want they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Not really, 18 year olds haven’t faced the real world though, which imo starts after graduating college or graduating secondary school if you choose not to go to college

Personally, I think that as long as the voter has no mental problems, there should be no maximum age. I also think that minimum voting age should be lowered to sixteen, and that in an alternate world where it would be feasible, then everyone should have a mandatory IQ test once that reach sixteen, and that people who score below one hundred on that test should be barred from voting.

Great Kysilia wrote:I do seriously question the wisdom in disenfranchising the group which objectively has the most life experience under their belt all because they lean Republican.

This was about ALL old people. If you're feeling triggered, it's most likely a subconscious realization that you made a bad choice. Don't be mad at other people for that.

Piscina wrote:Personally, I think that as long as the voter has no mental problems, there should be no maximum age. I also think that minimum voting age should be lowered to sixteen, and that in an alternate world where it would be feasible, then everyone should have a mandatory IQ test once that reach sixteen, and that people who score below one hundred on that test should be barred from voting.

Almost everything about this is wrong

Aureumterra wrote:

Piscina wrote:Personally, I think that as long as the voter has no mental problems, there should be no maximum age. I also think that minimum voting age should be lowered to sixteen, and that in an alternate world where it would be feasible, then everyone should have a mandatory IQ test once that reach sixteen, and that people who score below one hundred on that test should be barred from voting.

Almost everything about this is wrong

In what way? Constructive criticism is appreciated.

Piscina wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:Almost everything about this is wrong

In what way? Constructive criticism is appreciated.

If you think IQ tests should be reason for disenfranchisement then you don't know what an IQ test is.

Piscina wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:Almost everything about this is wrong

In what way? Constructive criticism is appreciated.

You're essentially calling for franchisement based on genetics.

Great Kysilia wrote:

Scymira wrote:
This was about ALL old people. If you're feeling triggered, it's most likely a subconscious realization that you made a bad choice. Don't be mad at other people for that.

I made the bad choice because I don't wanna disenfranchise people?

Interesting.

Nice try. You know that's not what I was talking about (if you're still mentally able to vote legitimately, that is).

Piscina wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:Almost everything about this is wrong

In what way? Constructive criticism is appreciated.

1. Sixteen is even worse, because in almost every democratic country, 16 year olds are still in secondary school, which means they are barely directly affected by any policies made and have not faced the real world at all

2. IQ should be used to decide who gets to vote? IQ is the single worst measure anyone could take

Piscina wrote:Personally, I think that as long as the voter has no mental problems, there should be no maximum age. I also think that minimum voting age should be lowered to sixteen, and that in an alternate world where it would be feasible, then everyone should have a mandatory IQ test once that reach sixteen, and that people who score below one hundred on that test should be barred from voting.

That's awesome, I guess. However, IQ test has it's share of flaws and while it can help in diagnosis of various intellectual disabilities, it may not determine exact level of intelligence. Example: According to ol' Wechsler, I do have awesome 133, but sometimes, I can do or say pretty stupid things. And not all cases of my screw ups are explained by Asperger's I have.

Aureumterra wrote:18 year olds haven’t faced the real world though

Okay, boomer.

Piscina wrote:Personally, I think that as long as the voter has no mental problems, there should be no maximum age. I also think that minimum voting age should be lowered to sixteen, and that in an alternate world where it would be feasible, then everyone should have a mandatory IQ test once that reach sixteen, and that people who score below one hundred on that test should be barred from voting.

How about no? We had literacy tests to vote. They were rigged to be nearly impossible to pass. Their intent was to keep certain people from voting so let’s not reopen that door

Piscina wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:Almost everything about this is wrong

In what way? Constructive criticism is appreciated.

I think the main issue I'd have with this is people under 100 IQ being barred from voting. IQ tests aren't a static thing, and are inaccurate for a lot of people including most rural dwellers and poor childrens who often face many problems in school (including this one). Plus, an IQ north of 75 or so is generally considered to be capable.

Great Kysilia wrote:

Scymira wrote:
Nice try. You know that's not what I was talking about (if you're still mentally able to vote legitimately, that is).

Oooh, attacking someone's mental health now, are we?

Classy.

Btw, I'm 22.

Doesn't change anything I said.

Iwassoclose wrote:Just like there is an age restriction for when people can vote there should also be an age restriction for when people have to stop voting.

These group of people are most actively chased after by politicians to the detriment of young people who are the main or future participants in the economy and future of a country.

Do you agree with this proposition?

This sounds like one step closer to a dead democracy. Also you assume that older people have no interest in younger generations or do you forget about their children or even grandchildren.

This isn't about the "oppression" of the young at all it is about the fact of todays culture where if someone disagrees with your opinion then they should be ridiculed or barred from their own opinion and in many cases many older people disagree with many younger people. This sounds like an argument I heard in the Brexit debate time and time where because someone disagrees is too old then their decision was naïve or not of sound mind.

Gagium wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:18 year olds haven’t faced the real world though

Okay, boomer.

I am technically a zoomer because I was born just after 1995

But I don’t think “generations” as we put them have any meaning at all, someone born in December 1995 probably has similar life experiences as someone born in January 1996 (assuming factors such as economic position and country are the same)

Great Kysilia wrote:

Gagium wrote:Okay, boomer.

It's kind of true. You're just leaving high school at that point.

Unless you dropped out of high school once you legally could to work - Or dropped out for any reason, for that matter, like 6% of students (here in America, at least)..I suppose that they've faced "the real world".

Or if you've enlisted in the armed forces. I'd say that constitutes "facing the real world" enough..

EDIT: And that's in the Western world. I'm sure there's several, several millions of people who live in third-world countries who never got the chance to graduate from a high school and have to work practically all day every day for their families to be able to survive.

Gagium wrote:

Great Kysilia wrote:It's kind of true. You're just leaving high school at that point.

Unless you dropped out of high school once you legally could to work - Or dropped out for any reason, for that matter, like 6% of students (here in America, at least)..I suppose that they've faced "the real world".

Dropouts and enlistees are a minority as compared to the larger population

Everyone has made some very good points, and I recognise that such a system would be incredibly, horribly flawed in real life. I was simply annoyed at some people I know of that vote for or against candidates for really random and stupid reasons. Sorry if I vented my annoyance onto you.

Magnum Exitium wrote:No. This is ridiculous lol. Elderly people have significantly more life experience than the younger generation and will make far better decisions. This is crazier than "voters should be 16", because at least that one isn't completely dumb

no, they won't.
I disagree with the OP, but simpky living more does not make you wiser.
They just vote for things that
a. benefit them, or
b.benefit billionaires.
That's the simple logic.

Um, no. Everyone has a *right* to vote, regardless of opinion or backgrounds. Putting restrictions on that could act as a gateway for politicians to manipulate elections in their favor.

Iwassoclose wrote:Just like there is an age restriction for when people can vote there should also be an age restriction for when people have to stop voting.

These group of people are most actively chased after by politicians to the detriment of young people who are the main or future participants in the economy and future of a country.

Do you agree with this proposition?

There is one thing that affects old people the most. It is called death. Nothing aggravates me more than dead people voting.

Aureumterra wrote:

Gagium wrote:Unless you dropped out of high school once you legally could to work - Or dropped out for any reason, for that matter, like 6% of students (here in America, at least)..I suppose that they've faced "the real world".

Dropouts and enlistees are a minority as compared to the larger population

Great Kysilia wrote:

Gagium wrote:Unless you dropped out of high school once you legally could to work - Or dropped out for any reason, for that matter, like 6% of students (here in America, at least)..I suppose that they've faced "the real world".

Or if you've enlisted in the armed forces. I'd say that constitutes "facing the real world" enough..

Yes, they might have.

But those aren't the majority of high school students.

They're enough to prove your overgeneralizations that "18 year olds haven’t faced the real world though" wrong.

Regardless, I could certainly bring up every conceivable instance in which a number of 18 year olds have "faced" the "real" world (Do most highschoolers live in a simulated virtual world until they're 18??), though I believe you get the point.

Next you'll say the elderly should be dumped on a mountain.

Great Kysilia wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:I am technically a zoomer because I was born just after 1995

But I don’t think “generations” as we put them have any meaning at all, someone born in December 1995 probably has similar life experiences as someone born in January 1996 (assuming factors such as economic position and country are the same)

No, you're a Millennial.

1997 was the cutoff point for Millennials.

I was born in ’97