Should the voting age be lowered!

sceptre

Board@Work wrote:

I believe it there was a defeated referendum on raising the voting age to 21 in the sixties.

Other way around entirely - there was a passed amendment (fourth amendment) that lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 for the first time back in 1972.

The 26th amendment to the US constitution had carried out a similar act over there the year before, though a number of states (Alaska and Georgia to name two) already had voting ages of under 21.

passive

When I was sixteen I'd have voted for the socialist party... on the merit of that alone I oppose this idea. The electorate is half-witted and impressionable enough as is* and i see no reason to worsen the situation.

You may get some extra intelligent, well informed voters but you will also kids who vote for whoever their parents vote for, or vote for the socialist party because they agree with communism (for that year or two we all do) or vote for sinn fein because they're a celtic fan and they love rebel songs/have learned all they know about Irish history from them.

I finished secondary school last week. The majority of my year were 17 year olds. A large portion of my year still laughed heartily for about 5 minutes when someone farted in class. Right up to the last day. I think you see where i'm going with this...

*note: my opinion of humanity in general, nothing personal

Time Magazine

mycroft wrote:

The argument echos similar ones by the national association for man boy love, a group of US paedophiles who want the age of consent lowered. They argue that the age is too high and should be lowered we become sexual beings at a younger age.

They claim to not engage in predatory sexual relationships, but enjoy a consentual relationship that happens to be illegal, and campaign to have the age of consent lowered.

Now I don't dispute it's not impossible, that a 15yo or 14yo could have a healthy adult relationship, and they make a rational intellectual argument for their case, however the seriousness of the potential abuse of lowering the age of consent means that their argument should not followed through.

And your argument echos of the Shinners citing Hiroshima as an excuse for Omagh. Completely un-related and basically distracting attention from the point.

Calling on a lowering of the voting age does not in any way correspond to saying that the age of consent should be lowered.

Creating this grey area thats murky, that for some teenagers to be more mature at certain age is undoubtable true, but the law has to be an arbitary line in the sand. Open this and suddenly it's lowering the driving age for some, lowering the age of consent for others.

Agree, but I think you're taking a step too far there. To be honest the cap doesn't quite fit, and so the argument of "the others don't either" shouldn't detract from the argument at hand - that the system is unfair on those who are just as adequately able to vote. Your argument echoes that of "ah sure don't let that immigrant in, they'll all flood in".

The other and most basic argument is this. We just spent 44 million on an e-voting system that doesn't work, damned if I support funding for a program thats going to cost I don't know how sodding much so a handful of 16yos can vote.

So because Minister Cullen's ineptitude at his job means a 17 year old can't vote? Flawed logic at best.

Also your voting meritocracy, are we to assume that magically come the age of 18 everyone mysteriously gets the knowledge they lacked when they failed the test? Is it like the situation in the 80s when the backlog was too great everyone who was applying for their 2nd provisioinal automatically got the full licence.

No, we don't assume they become able, but we give them the vote anyway. That's the thing with democracy, it's the worst form of govt. Every sh*thead has a vote, but it's better than everything else. I think we all agree that some 16 year olds are capable of voting. And I think we all agree that 4 year olds should not be allowed vote. I'm offering a simple mechanism to try reconcile the two aims.

And I did some really quick figures, 5 staff would do it. 60,000 doing their Leaving so about 30,000 applications a year (because let's be honest, nobody cares). At 10 minutes each, that's 300,000 minutes of labour - or 5000 hours. That's about two people's working year. Get a bit of inefficiency and a secretary and you're looking at 5 people. Hardly that expensive?

bonkey

Angry Banana wrote:

No, we don't assume they become able, but we give them the vote anyway. That's the thing with democracy, it's the worst form of govt. Every sh*thead has a vote, but it's better than everything else.

But if its better then everything else, why do you want to introduce aspects of a meritocracy into it? You can't improve it...or else its not better then everything else.

I think we all agree that some 16 year olds are capable of voting.

And some are capable of drinking, and some of having consual sex, and your logic suggests that these "adult rights" should also be judged on merit.

Or is there some reason that the right to vote is different in nature or import to the right to, say, drive a car or drink a pint of beer?

And I think we all agree that 4 year olds should not be allowed vote. I'm offering a simple mechanism to try reconcile the two aims.

Bit its not simple. Its not simple at all.

You've offered no justification why you won't, for example, allow 15 year-olds to sit this test. Or 12-year olds. And what about that handful of child-prodigies...why not them too?

You haven't addressed how a test can be meaningful and objective and have reasonable surity that people can't learn something by rote to pass.

You haven't addressed the notion of why an informed vote should be held in higher esteem by the law than an uninformed vote, and why this distinction should only apply to a narrow age-group.

And I did some really quick figures, 5 staff would do it.

Sure it would. If you were willing to tell some 16-year-olds that the govt would get around to testing them in about a couple of months, and if that meant they missed the only opportunity to vote during their "meritocratic voting age band"....well, they shuold just accept it as the limits.

At 10 minutes each

Hopelesly optimistic for anythnig but the most meaningless of tests.

that's 300,000 minutes of labour - or 5000 hours.

If we assume that they are in a fixed location and people who want the vote come to them.

Hardly that expensive?

Staffing costs are only a tiny fraction of the total cost of any setup. And you haven't addressed how much it will cost to research and implement a fair system which addresses the issues I've already raised as well as all the ones I haven't.

jc

Board@Work

sceptre wrote:

Other way around entirely - there was a passed amendment (fourth amendment) that lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 for the first time back in 1972.

The 26th amendment to the US constitution had carried out a similar act over there the year before, though a number of states (Alaska and Georgia to name two) already had voting ages of under 21.

I stand corrected. Thanks as I wasn't sure

Boggle

I finished secondary school last week. The majority of my year were 17 year olds. A large portion of my year still laughed heartily for about 5 minutes when someone farted in class. Right up to the last day. I think you see where i'm going with this...

Not really. Someone lets one rip in the canteen in work and you'd have a similar reaction! Humour is different from the ability to consider intellectually.

At this age people are expected to be old and mature enough to sit an exam that could define their lives yet you do not credit them with enough intelligence to be able to examine a matter and decide for themselves whether its right or wrong???

You've offered no justification why you won't, for example, allow 15 year-olds to sit this test. Or 12-year olds. And what about that handful of child-prodigies...why not them too?

I gave a reason why 16 should be chosen as the age of voting but as for this meritocracy debate.... I reckon its the wrong road to start travelling as its a regression from democracy.

Time Magazine

bonkey wrote:

But if its better then everything else, why do you want to introduce aspects of a meritocracy into it? You can't improve it...or else its not better then everything else.

Personally I think that 16 year olds should be given the vote. But others don't, and so I'm throwing this method out as a means of reaching agreement. To be honest I don't think anyone will be upset at failing/not reaching the cracks in the system because there will be a massive correlation between those who don't care and those who don't attempt the test. Those that do fail, well presumably if they appeal well enough they'll show they're "suitable".

And some are capable of drinking, and some of having consual sex, and your logic suggests that these "adult rights" should also be judged on merit.

I agree that many 16 year olds are able to do of the above. However I see voting as a more important, worthy of the implementation of a test system. Ideally, I think (pretty much) everyone should be allowed to apply for driving licence/right to drink etc and face a test system to see if they're capable - but we simply wouldn't have the resources to really test each of these. However the right to vote, in my opinion, is worth the cost.

Or is there some reason that the right to vote is different in nature or import to the right to, say, drive a car or drink a pint of beer?

See above.

You've offered no justification why you won't, for example, allow 15 year-olds to sit this test. Or 12-year olds. And what about that handful of child-prodigies...why not them too?

I did, but very briefly so I take your point. It's basically cost-effectiveness. More 16 year olds would pass than 15 year olds, and so on right down to babies. So as a tax-payer who doesn't want his money squandered, I'd want something of a reasonable assumption. I don't think it's worth testing for 4 year olds, and I'm taking 16 as a base because it's the figure most often thrown around.

You haven't addressed how a test can be meaningful and objective and have reasonable surity that people can't learn something by rote to pass.

Objective? Like the driving tests? Or the Leaving Cert? I don't think objectivity can be really stated as a reason against this. Absolutely there would have to be checks and balances, and everything is somewhat political, but is it not better than nothing?

Regarding studying for the test, I'd suggest say six questions; three factual and three opinion-orientated. The former would show a knowledge, and the latterr an interest. The factual questions might on PR-STV or something, while the opinion questions could be "What's the best form of Govt?" And even if people learned by rote and passed, all the better as they'd still be more educated politically.

You haven't addressed the notion of why an informed vote should be held in higher esteem by the law than an uninformed vote, and why this distinction should only apply to a narrow age-group.

Because some people are against lowering the voting age because they're uninformed. Assuring those people that they're informed should relay the fears and hopefuly my intentions (of lowering the voting age) will be achieved.

Sure it would. If you were willing to tell some 16-year-olds that the govt would get around to testing them in about a couple of months, and if that meant they missed the only opportunity to vote during their "meritocratic voting age band"....well, they shuold just accept it as the limits.

Flaw accepted. But as I said, the cap fits a little better than the current one.

Hopelesly optimistic for anythnig but the most meaningless of tests.
..
If we assume that they are in a fixed location and people who want the vote come to them.

Right. Ten people then. Twenty if you're lucky. It's still meaningless to the state.

Staffing costs are only a tiny fraction of the total cost of any setup. And you haven't addressed how much it will cost to research and implement a fair system which addresses the issues I've already raised as well as all the ones I haven't.

I don't know where the new Dept of Environment is going to be off-hand, but I presume assigning three or four rooms to this would hardly massively hurt the exchequer. I can't see anyone really arguing that this would be a burden on the State because they'd be spending all their time protesting about e-voting, the teaching of Irish and benchmarking! .

bonkey

Angry Banana wrote:

Ideally, I think (pretty much) everyone should be allowed to apply for driving licence/right to drink etc and face a test system to see if they're capable - but we simply wouldn't have the resources to really test each of these.

But hold on...you spend quite a bit below arguing that the cost of implementing a political test would be insignificant to the state, even if it required multiples of the staff you originally envisaged. Here, on teh other hand, you're saying we couldn't afford to do more than one of these test systems....implying that its not that insignificant a cost.

However the right to vote, in my opinion, is worth the cost.

I'm still not convinced you've shown it. You've argued that the cost would be small because the interest would be low, which means the impact on our democratic process would be a relative handful of people gaining the vote early would be absolutely minimal if not entirely negligible. And would it be to the individual's advantage? Not necessarily - they may not get the chance to vote in this window to begin with, and even if they did, would not get it often, which puts serious limitations on the benefit to the education system that it would bring - which is the other benefit you mentioned: the ability to discuss voting in class with experience.

It's basically cost-effectiveness. More 16 year olds would pass than 15 year olds, and so on right down to babies.

Just as most 16-year-olds - by your assumptions - wouldn't be interested/bothered enough to even take the test, one can assume that progressivly fewer would be interested in the lower ages. Now, given that you were willing to quadruple your original staffing costs and conclude that its still insignificant, why are you still drawing a cost-effectiveness line at 16? Would you quadruple them again if shown to be necessary for the 16-year olds? But its not worth it if that quadrupling allowed us to set up a system which would allow anyone of any underage age to sit the test?

You can't have it both ways, dude, and you clearly haven't costed it in any way enough detail to be able to argue that 16 represents a cost-effective point.

So as a tax-payer who doesn't want his money squandered,

Then you should show the clear benefit of giving some 16-year olds the vote.

I'd want something of a reasonable assumption. I don't think it's worth testing for 4 year olds, and I'm taking 16 as a base because it's the figure most often thrown around.

By whom? The people I see throwing the age 16 around are usually 16 year olds. Oh, and the odd 18 "and I wish I coulda done this when I was 16" year old

Objective? Like the driving tests? Or the Leaving Cert? I don't think objectivity can be really stated as a reason against this.

So if I, as an exmainer, decide that you, as a 16-year-old applicant are a stupid little snot-nosed kid infatuated with stupid ideas about the merits of communism....its ok for me to fail you?

You make the vote more important than the driving test. I know ppl who reckon they've failed their driving test cause the instructor didn't like them. I know girls who reckon a short skirt and bit o' flirting helped them pass. But its only a driving test...right? Now...would you accept the same biases in your meritocratic approach? Or do you not think objectivity is a must?

but is it not better than nothing?

No, its not.

The "everyone gets a vote" principle does not allow subjectivity to come into it. No-one tells you what you have to know, or express a belief in, or who's shoes you have to pretend to lick in order to be able to cast your vote. No-one can deny it to you because they don't like your hairstye, your clothes, your BO, your clothes, your references to Daddeh's Mercedes, the Che Guevara t-shirt you wear, or the Russian Star pinned to your jacket.

Your system, no matter how well intentioned, opens itself up for bias, and bias - or even the risk thereof - is the absolute worst factor that you should be considering as a means of granting or denying a vote.

Regarding studying for the test, I'd suggest say six questions; three factual and three opinion-orientated. The former would show a knowledge, and the latterr an interest.

Sitting the test shows an interest, and you still haven't given a solid reason why the knowledge is in any way beneficial.

The factual questions might on PR-STV or something,

Oh right...so if I, as a 16-year old, don't quite get how the system works, I shouldn't be allowed vote for my candidate of choice whom I have excellent reasons for supporting.
You, on the other hand, who can explain the finer points of the system you've studied, but have no clue about the candidates in a forthcoming election nor who they stand for nor anything, but will vote for whoever Daddy tells you to...you should have a vote?

Or will you once more suggest that reasons for choosing candidates should no longer be private and instead be fair game in such a test? That we can show youngsters the benfits of democracy early, as long as they're willing to sacrifice some of the undelying ideals with regards to themselves in order to do so.

And even if people learned by rote and passed, all the better as they'd still be more educated politically.

You seem to be misunderstanding what by rote means. Or are you saying that we'd be better off by those few who didn't learn by rote.

Because some people are against lowering the voting age because they're uninformed.

Those people are wrong. Requiring that anyone be informed in order to pass their vote is meritocracy, not a democracy. You want a two-tier system - meritocratic-democracy for two years, then straight democracy.

It doesn't offer any meaningful chances of people ending up being more informed, because anyone who would take their politics seriously enough to educate themselves in order to sit a test in order to vote under your system isn't going to decide that once they get free access to the system they don't need to know anything about anything when voting.

Flaw accepted. But as I said, the cap fits a little better than the current one.

No, it doesn't. You just want it to.

I don't know where the new Dept of Environment is going to be off-hand, but I presume assigning three or four rooms to this would hardly massively hurt the exchequer. .

Great! So now, not only is it a meritocratic process, but also one which will require differing financial- and time-based input from people based on their geographic location. So, tough noogies if you're a really smart kid who wants the vote, but are in a poor family living too far away to afford the time and the trip....but hey...take solace that its a better system, that those rich kids can get driven there in Daddeh's Mercedes, and the poor kids in the locale can walk there, and that you just got screwed out of your vote because it would be too expensive to actually implement a fair and balanced system.

But hey...I guess thats just another flaw. How many of them before the hat doesn't fit better?

Indeed...why does the hat fit better? We're talking very few people, sacrificing some of the democratic princples that we hold dear in order to gain an insight into democracy through obtaining a vote they may not get to use having made those sacrifices, in a manner that so few of them will have an interest in that its not a practical study aid for schools...

The more you argue for it, the more you sound like the 16-year-old trying to calmly explain why he should be allowed drink, or the just-turned-18 who's trying to explain why he should have been allowed drink for the past few years, given that he doesn't feel any different now then then.

jc

Capt'n Midnight

Perhaps people should have to pass a civics test before being allowed to vote ?

In this country a lot of people don't become independent until well into their 20's because of house prices , further study etc. So in practical terms you could argue for an increase in the age.

The OP wants the people who voted for the frog (Godwin's anyone?) to be allowed to vote for real in a year or two !!!

Time Magazine

I only have 10 minutes or so, so this has to be a quick-fire answer response.

bonkey wrote:

But hold on...you spend quite a bit below arguing that the cost of implementing a political test would be insignificant to the state, even if it required multiples of the staff you originally envisaged. Here, on teh other hand, you're saying we couldn't afford to do more than one of these test systems....implying that its not that insignificant a cost.

15 insignificants make a significant. I withdraw the statement about the State not having the resources to implement a test for drinking/driving and change it slightly: I don't think it's worth it. I think voting is.

I'm still not convinced you've shown it. You've argued that the cost would be small because the interest would be low,

No I didn't, I said the interest would be low so the costs would be smaller. How much does it cost to give everybody in the State an Irish/French oral? Not a huge lot. Maybe €2m tops? And that's sending a temporary (read more expensive per unit) civil servent to every 100 kids in the country. I don't accept that the cost would be too much. And you yourself declared that labour is only a "tiny" fraction of costs. Therefore the fixed costs would actually be spread proportionally lower with more interest.

which means the impact on our democratic process would be a relative handful of people gaining the vote early would be absolutely minimal if not entirely negligible.

I don't think it would be minimal. It would be small, granted, but so is 18-21(/30?) voter turnout anyway. With regard negligible, I suppose that depends on your definition of negligible. Perhaps my standards are too high for offering those that are willing (and it others' minds "able") to vote that they should be. And I know that I was pissed off that my views on the Citizenship referendum were restricted to views and not a vote when, in all honesty, they were far more informed than 90% of the 80% of people who voted yes.

And would it be to the individual's advantage? Not necessarily - they may not get the chance to vote in this window to begin with

I know they it might not be. But it similarly might. And there is usually an election of some form every two years, be it local/general/european/referendum. I was pre-mature and simply because I was pre-mature I was allowed to vote in the recent by-election. Had I been born when due, I would not have been able to vote in the referendum and a Dáil election, which I don't see as fair. The system that I'm proposing is trying to reconcile the two views that "16 is fine" and "sure 16 is fine for some".

and even if they did, would not get it often, which puts serious limitations on the benefit to the education system that it would bring - which is the other benefit you mentioned: the ability to discuss voting in class with experience.

I don't think I mentioned that as an advantage. I'm just trying to give people votes.

Now, given that you were willing to quadruple your original staffing costs

By your measure still only a "tiny" fraction, but I still maintain that 10 people would be absolutely surplus to requirements.

and conclude that its still insignificant, why are you still drawing a cost-effectiveness line at 16?

I've already said I was using this as a theoretical marker. I haven't researched the age-limit empirically, so I'm using a marker that most people would consider fair.

Would you quadruple them again if shown to be necessary for the 16-year olds? But its not worth it if that quadrupling allowed us to set up a system which would allow anyone of any underage age to sit the test?

Of course there is an economic limit to this test. We can't be employing 50,000 people in this ffs. But I can't accept that (let's face it) ~30,000 applicants can't be judged in a less economically viable manner to an Ordinary-level Irish exam.

You can't have it both ways, dude, and you clearly haven't costed it in any way enough detail to be able to argue that 16 represents a cost-effective point.

For at least the third time, I'm not saying that.

bonkey re: tax-value wrote:

Then you should show the clear benefit of giving some 16-year olds the vote.

I think this is fairly intuitive, no? Raise an interest in politics, actually get people engaged in politics, allowing those interested (and "able") to vote?

By whom? The people I see throwing the age 16 around are usually 16 year olds. Oh, and the odd 18 "and I wish I coulda done this when I was 16" year old

The original poster, for one .

So if I, as an exmainer, decide that you, as a 16-year-old applicant are a stupid little snot-nosed kid infatuated with stupid ideas about the merits of communism....its ok for me to fail you?

Of course not. Perhaps tests could be recorded/taped? There would have to be a simple discipline mechanism. Maybe mutual adjustment or random sampling.

You make the vote more important than the driving test. I know ppl who reckon they've failed their driving test cause the instructor didn't like them. I know girls who reckon a short skirt and bit o' flirting helped them pass. But its only a driving test...right? Now...would you accept the same biases in your meritocratic approach? Or do you not think objectivity is a must?

Of course I wouldn't accept total subjectivity ffs. But the argument that there will be some subjectivity as opposed to a machine-orientated system doesn't really stand when you put against the driving-test/Leaving Cert etc. By and large, people accept these as objective tests - even though they're done by people.

The "everyone gets a vote" principle does not allow subjectivity to come into it. No-one tells you what you have to know, or express a belief in, or who's shoes you have to pretend to lick in order to be able to cast your vote. No-one can deny it to you because they don't like your hairstye, your clothes, your BO, your clothes, your references to Daddeh's Mercedes, the Che Guevara t-shirt you wear, or the Russian Star pinned to your jacket.

Meaningless tbh, I never said that. And I'm here trying to offer votes to people and the above suggests that I'd overlook people being refused for having a Che Guevara t-shirt.


Longer than 10,000 characters, will continue in next post.....

Time Magazine

Your system, no matter how well intentioned, opens itself up for bias, and bias - or even the risk thereof - is the absolute worst factor that you should be considering as a means of granting or denying a vote.

I agree. See above. But even if there is bias: let's take a theoretical marker of 10% (no I haven't conducted any empirical tests or this, just an example), 90% of people will still have a vote. As a 16 year old who would well have considered himself capable of voting, I'd prefer 90% "success" rate than 0. That's what I'm proposing.

Sitting the test shows an interest, and you still haven't given a solid reason why the knowledge is in any way beneficial.

For the umpteenth time, it satisfies the "some 16 year olds..." viewpoint.

Oh right...so if I, as a 16-year old, don't quite get how the system works, I shouldn't be allowed vote for my candidate of choice whom I have excellent reasons for supporting.

See above.

You, on the other hand, who can explain the finer points of the system you've studied, but have no clue about the candidates in a forthcoming election nor who they stand for nor anything, but will vote for whoever Daddy tells you to...you should have a vote?

See above, and the opinion questions.

Or will you once more suggest that reasons for choosing candidates should no longer be private and instead be fair game in such a test?

Once again? I never suggested that. The test is a mechanism to try and determine if people are able to make private, informed decisions. Letting a 2 year-old vote would be the same as letting a clinically insane person vote insofar they'd have no knowledge of what they're doing/they're otherwise influenced. The test would just make sure that people know what they're doing and that they have their own views: assumptions enshrined in democracy but assumed (by some) not in 16 and 17 (and 15, 14?) year-olds and therefore a test is necessary.

That we can show youngsters the benfits of democracy early, as long as they're willing to sacrifice some of the undelying ideals with regards to themselves in order to do so.

Not at all. I'm not for meritocratic voting in toto. But we all agree in some form of limit. Instead of just having a limit that many (read me) is too high, try have a mechanism to reconcile both views. Those that want 16 year olds to have the right to vote will, by and large, get it. Those that don't want immature/dumb/<insert word here> 16 year olds voting, by and large, get it.

You seem to be misunderstanding what by rote means. Or are you saying that we'd be better off by those few who didn't learn by rote.

You seem to misunderstood my post. I know what learning by rote means. If somebody learned by rote the main aims of FF, FG, Lab, PD's, SF, Greens and the Socialists, for example, all the better. They'd have a better idea of who they're "aligned" with and therefore probably make a better choice if they'd just turned up at the ballot box at 18 years and one month. A 16 year old who's read up on the local candidates/parties etc. is probably mroe capable of making an informed independent choice than a 25 year old who hasn't. And that's basically the point of CSPE, nach bhfuil?

Those people are wrong. Requiring that anyone be informed in order to pass their vote is meritocracy, not a democracy. You want a two-tier system - meritocratic-democracy for two years, then straight democracy.

Well maybe they are but their opinions are as right and just in the relativist democratic state we have.

It doesn't offer any meaningful chances of people ending up being more informed, because anyone who would take their politics seriously enough to educate themselves in order to sit a test in order to vote under your system isn't going to decide that once they get free access to the system they don't need to know anything about anything when voting.

I disagree. It's a bit like enforcing the CSPE course. I'm not for meritocratic voting, I am an absolute democrat. But as an absolute democrat, I am proposing/suggesting/throwing this mechanism out there as an attempt to extend democracy/the voting public in a way that would get a concencus - by reconciling two views.

No, it doesn't. You just want it to.

I disagree again. I don't think anyone believes that more people "unable" to vote would apply/pass the test than those who are "able". Therefore there would be a net gain of people allowed to vote who are "able" than previously.

Great! So now, not only is it a meritocratic process, but also one which will require differing financial- and time-based input from people based on their geographic location. So, tough noogies if you're a really smart kid who wants the vote, but are in a poor family living too far away to afford the time and the trip....but hey...take solace that its a better system, that those rich kids can get driven there in Daddeh's Mercedes, and the poor kids in the locale can walk there, and that you just got screwed out of your vote because it would be too expensive to actually implement a fair and balanced system.

Right, have a travelling van of polling stations as well then. Or send them to schools. And I don't think that there's many 16 year-old who's not financially capable of working a shift in Spar and getting bus-fair to x if they really want. Factoring things like that is just a pain in the arse because then you're never going to get anywhere. Is sending a SAE too over-bearing too?

Indeed...why does the hat fit better? We're talking very few people

20,000+? few

sacrificing some of the democratic princples that we hold dear in order to gain an insight into democracy through obtaining a vote they may not get to use having made those sacrifices

Well I might not need a smoke-alarm. There is usually an election in the space between two years. And sometimes there are three. Simply because that there might not be one does not take away from the fact that you could be taking away three votes from someone.

in a manner that so few of them will have an interest in that its not a practical study aid for schools...

I don't think I mentioned that. And maybe my standards for "so few" are too high/low depending on how you look at it.

The more you argue for it, the more you sound like the 16-year-old trying to calmly explain why he should be allowed drink, or the just-turned-18 who's trying to explain why he should have been allowed drink for the past few years, given that he doesn't feel any different now then then.

Now that you have your condescension out of your system, maybe I am. And so what? Being 18 does not take away from my argument that 16 year olds should be allowed vote. In fact I'd say it strengthens it in some ways because I'm "more in touch" with sixteen year olds than anyone. Granted, I don't have the age of experience as you do, but democracy doesn't look at that.

I know that this system isn't perfect. Yes, there will be some subjectivity. Yep, there's the problem with it being meritocratic. But I'm coming from the point of view that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote. The argument against it is usually "Well I know Jimmy down the road reads The Economist and subscribes to Magill, but then his sister reads Just Seventeen. Right then. Those that really want a vote and show a genuine interest can get it. It makes it that bit harder than just getting FG-loving-mammy to get you registered - and if nothing else provides an incentive for teaching CSPE.

I don't accept the cost would be a burden. As I said earlier, if you're going to complain about the cost of this you'll be spending your life complaining about costs/money squandered with regard to e-voting/Monicagate/SSIA's/State funding for elections/certain Labour TD's using Dáil presses/Bertie's €40,000 make-up/"no cutbacks planned, secret of otherwise".

mycroft

Angry Banana wrote:

And your argument echos of the Shinners citing Hiroshima as an excuse for Omagh. Completely un-related and basically distracting attention from the point.

No. For starts they're about the same thing, age of consent. In both cases, you and NAMBLA, suggest some teenagers mature earlier and the law should allow them to have sex/vote. It's pretty much the same argument.

Calling on a lowering of the voting age does not in any way correspond to saying that the age of consent should be lowered.

Do you see what I was doing there? I was drawing a parrallel. Illustrating how another group use a similiar argument for the exact same change in two different pieces of legislation.

Agree, but I think you're taking a step too far there. To be honest the cap doesn't quite fit, and so the argument of "the others don't either" shouldn't detract from the argument at hand - that the system is unfair on those who are just as adequately able to vote. Your argument echoes that of "ah sure don't let that immigrant in, they'll all flood in".

And I'm drawing unrelated arguments in that distract from the argument?

This could set a precident about other factors, drinking, joining the army, and driving, could introduce legislation allowing younger people to apply, provided they passed your test.

So because Minister Cullen's ineptitude at his job means a 17 year old can't vote? Flawed logic at best.

No, but my point is, we've already got one expense voting white elephant around this decade, you want to potentially create a system for an unknown amount of 16yos, to sit test to qualify to see if they can vote. I'm going to love the supreme court challenge when one over zealous teenager feels his democratic right has been stripped away when he "unfairly" failed a test.

No, we don't assume they become able, but we give them the vote anyway. That's the thing with democracy, it's the worst form of govt. Every sh*thead has a vote, but it's better than everything else. I think we all agree that some 16 year olds are capable of voting. And I think we all agree that 4 year olds should not be allowed vote. I'm offering a simple mechanism to try reconcile the two aims.

No, you've offered a mechanism. You've yet to present a compelling argument why we should impliment this mechanism.

And I did some really quick figures, 5 staff would do it. 60,000 doing their Leaving so about 30,000 applications a year (because let's be honest, nobody cares). At 10 minutes each, that's 300,000 minutes of labour - or 5000 hours. That's about two people's working year. Get a bit of inefficiency and a secretary and you're looking at 5 people. Hardly that expensive?

Very quick maths. :rolleyes: Why ten minutes a test? Is this mulitpile choice? Whats the ramification if someone tries to cheat? Can they be reassessed?

Time Magazine

mycroft wrote:

No. For starts they're about the same thing, age of consent. In both cases, you and NAMBLA, suggest some teenagers mature earlier and the law should allow them to have sex/vote. It's pretty much the same argument.



Do you see what I was doing there? I was drawing a parrallel. Illustrating how another group use a similiar argument for the exact same change in two different pieces of legislation.



And I'm drawing unrelated arguments in that distract from the argument?

This could set a precident about other factors, drinking, joining the army, and driving, could introduce legislation allowing younger people to apply, provided they passed your test.

1. I'm not arguing against the validity of analogies, just yours.
2. This could set a precedent for other factors, but I'm not suggesting that is should. Personally I don't think there should be, and don't see why there'

No, but my point is, we've already got one expense voting white elephant around this decade, you want to potentially create a system for an unknown amount of 16yos, to sit test to qualify to see if they can vote. I'm going to love the supreme court challenge when one over zealous teenager feels his democratic right has been stripped away when he "unfairly" failed a test.

Wouldn't be Supreme Court because it would be legislation, that could be changed prior to a High/Supreme Court challenged. And, as I said earlier, if somebody shows genuine interest in their rejection they'd probably pass by default tbh. The fact would be that those interested in voting in the first place would apply for the test, and those that wouldn't.. well wouldn't.

No, you've offered a mechanism. You've yet to present a compelling argument why we should impliment this mechanism.

They're all the arguments mentioned above. On the one hand there's why (at least) some 16 year olds should be given the right to vote, and on the other is that (at least) some shouldn't.

Very quick maths. :rolleyes: Why ten minutes a test? Is this mulitpile choice? Whats the ramification if someone tries to cheat? Can they be reassessed?

I suggest you read the large portions of text describing the suggestion that there would be two sections to the exam. Ten minutes because that's the same length that the State uses to decide your level of conversational Irish/French, so a level of knowledge (presuming that the system for the Orals has been researched etc) can be tested in 10 minutes. I presume the ramifications for cheating could be similar to those to the LC, as it would be a "state exam".

(Sorry for the delay in replying).

Zulu

Definatly not.


...you'll understand when you're older.