Should the voting age be changed to 16?

The Corinthian

Cliste wrote: »

You've made an assertion and have provided nothing to back it up, if you read over the thread you'll see that I've just disputed any times where you have claimed that stuff is a certain way or something implies something else.

Did you miss the statistics from the report that was posted earlier on? I'm actually basing what I'm saying on that, albeit limited, evidence. You're basing your objections on nothing other than a desire to be contrary.

Honestly, between your false belief that I was accusing you of supporting a lowering of the age and repeatedly misrepresenting my arguments, I don't think you've been following the discussion very well.

BluntGuy

GarIT wrote: »

I think it should be based on level of education and not age. Only people that passed the leaving cert should be allowed to vote.

I don't really see how the Leaving Cert particularly prepares you to participate in the voting process.

I can't see how lowering the voting age would benefit the political landscape.

GarIT

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't really see how the Leaving Cert particularly prepares you to participate in the voting process.

I can't see how lowering the voting age would benefit the political landscape.

The leaving cert is a very simple exam. It's the only benchmark we have in terms of intelligence of children in this country. Its not a perfect solution but it's better than basing it on age.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we should let five-year-olds vote?

Actually as an ultra-libertarian it's a question I've considered.

To a certain extent if you allow all minors to vote the process would be self-selecting. The vast majority of people under the age of c.14 would have no real interest in politics and would not be inclined to vote even if the options were available to them.

Though I initially thought that this apathy would obviate the negative aspect of an uninformed vote, in reality you would be likely to generate free votes for parents. Someone of the age of 16, at least, would feel independent of their parents' position.

However as The Corinthian said, it makes little sense to say that people are mature enough to decide the state's politics, but not mature enough to decide personal matters. Perhaps the two should be argued together, then?

GarIT wrote: »

The leaving cert is a very simple exam. It's the only benchmark we have in terms of intelligence of children in this country. Its not a perfect solution but it's better than basing it on age.

Well, it's no coincidence that 18 is also the age that people tend to complete the LC.

However, in terms of politics, it is actually the Junior Certificate that covers such matters in the form of the (mandatory?) CSPE.

The JC is also in many ways more mandatory, as people are not allowed leave school until 16, and as such would by default tend to complete the JC. The same cannot be said of the LC. As the LC is only really to give people points for third level entry, it would seem unfair to say that one's capacity to vote be predicated on having achieved this certification. However, as you say, age by itself is no particular marker of maturity; certainly not of knowledge.

...

Conmaicne Mara

View wrote: »

Given the poor quality of our political debate and decision making, it should be raised not lowered. The only question is how high should we raise it!

21 for voting and drinking IMO.

RandomName2

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

21 for voting and drinking IMO.

24, surely? :pac:

GarIT

RandomName2 wrote: »

However, in terms of politics, it is actually the Junior Certificate that covers such matters in the form of the (mandatory?) CSPE.

The JC is also in many ways more mandatory, as people are not allowed leave school until 16, and as such would by default tend to complete the JC. The same cannot be said of the LC. As the LC is only really to give people points for third level entry, it would seem unfair to say that one's capacity to vote be predicated on having achieved this certification. However, as you say, age by itself is no particular marker of maturity; certainly not of knowledge.

...

I did CSPE in 2009. Anything you hear about it is complete lies. There are no politics in CSPE. I got an A and the only political question was "Name these politicians" and it showed pictures and was worth 10% of the entire exam. The rest of the exam is all about morals, with every second question being "How would you campaign for....." and 20% of the exam went for designing a poster to promote environmental awareness.

It also is full of agenda, you cant do good in it without accepting that all charity is good, they wont allow you to actually have any input. Any primary school child could pass CSPE without any classes on it.

You should look over the exam if you are interested they can be found on examinations.ie and are clearly not a sufficient measure of eligibility to vote.

In 2012 12.5% went for matching names with pictures of the inside of 4 buildings, the Dail, the un, the EU HQ, US congress. I mean seriously, 3% for matching an American flag to US congress.

7% for knowing what the toiseach and president are. And 3% for matching gov departments with a description of their role.

10% for knowing what an age card is.

4% for saying if the police should have guns and 2 reasons why.

This is so stupid. Its so biased too, they only accept answers they want and others are wrong. The garda having guns is wrong, not matter how good you argued for it.