SA/A/D/SD

[Gabu]

Mother to child: "Honey, if you vote for George Bush, I'll give you a piece of candy."
Father to child: "And if you vote for John Kerry, I'll take away your computer for a week."

This activity would be fined.

How exactly would you find out about it?  Putting security cameras in every home?

[Gabu]

Mother to child: "Honey, if you vote for George Bush, I'll give you a piece of candy."
Father to child: "And if you vote for John Kerry, I'll take away your computer for a week."

This activity would be fined.

How exactly would you find out about it?  Putting security cameras in every home?

Well, this kind of activity would most likely happen at the polling station.

Why?  If they knew that it would be monitored at the polling station, couldn't the parents just do it at home before leaving for the polling station?

[Gabu]

1.) Felons and those in jail should have the same voting rights as all other citizens.
Disagree

2.) Ex-felons should have the same voting rights as all other citizens.
Undecided

3.) In general, people are just too obsessed with sex.
Agree

4.) We would all be a lot better off if people followed the Golden Rule.
Strongly agree

5.) The government's main responsibility should be to keep order.
Agree

6a.) Music and the arts are essential for a community to flourish...
Strongly agree

6b.) ...and should be funded by the government.
Disagree

7.) The right to revolution in the New Hampshire state constitution is a good thing that all states should have.
Neutral

8.) Improvement of the human race through eugenics should be a goal of the government.
Strongly disagree

9.) A Department of Peace should be added to the presidential administration.
Strongly disagree; what the heck would it do?

10.) The voting age should be lowered to 16.
Disagree

11.) Immigration is one of the worst problems the United States faces.
Disagree

12.) The government should not have any business with people's library records, gun purchases, or credit card use.
Agree

13.) Restrictions on cellphone wiretapping should be loosened.
Disagree

14.) Criticism of religions such as Christianity and Islam are not protected by free speech.
Strongly disagree

15.) The drinking age should be lowered or abolished.
Agree - lowered.

(PS: "undecided" means that I don't know; "neutral" means that I don't care.)

[Gabu]

Mother to child: "Honey, if you vote for George Bush, I'll give you a piece of candy."
Father to child: "And if you vote for John Kerry, I'll take away your computer for a week."

This activity would be fined.

How exactly would you find out about it?  Putting security cameras in every home?

Well, this kind of activity would most likely happen at the polling station.

Why?  If they knew that it would be monitored at the polling station, couldn't the parents just do it at home before leaving for the polling station?

Of couse, but we are talking about 5 year olds here, they need to be reminded. But I degress, these are the kinds of arguments people brought up during the woman's suffrage movement.

That's a bad comparison.  There's nothing inherent in women that would make them less able than men to make up their own minds.  There is, however, something inherent in little kids that would make them less able than adults to make up their own minds.  At five years old, there are very, very few people that would even understand what politics is, let alone understand it enough to make an informed decision.  It's much more likely that they'd just think it's a silly, fun game that Daddy gave you where you have to put the X beside the right name on a sheet of paper.

If you're honestly declaring an equivalence between the intelligence level of adult women and that of little kids by making your argument that this is what was said about women's suffrage, don't you think that's a little insulting to women?

1.) Felons and those in jail should have the same voting rights as all other citizens.
Disagree

Gabu! You've become a Conservative! This is, you know unconstitutional?

I don't think people in jail should be able to vote.  Once they're out, I'm leaning towards fully restoring their full voting rights, but I think that if you do a crime, and hurt society as a byproduct, you should be given punishment, and one of the punishments should be forfeiting your ability to vote (and thereby have a further impact on society) while in prison.

Whether or not it's constitutional is entirely irrelevant, given that this is simply asking what you feel should be the case.

[Gabu]

Voting is a right, not a privelege. It is a fundemental right. This is my belief, and is why I believe everyone should be able to vote.

When women were given the right to vote, many people used the very same arguments you are using. I am not saying they were right, of course. I find it very offensive that you would accuse me of such things as comparing the intelligence of a woman to a five year old. Voting is not about intelligence. We already let any old idiot vote, there is nothing wrong with letting five year olds vote. Just like your average idiot, a five year old wouldn't vote.

Well, evidently, we simply see voting in two different lights, and as such, are likely going to have to simply agree to disagree.

Personally, I see voting as a means through which the citizens of a country can decide the direction in which they want their country to go.  As such, I feel that only those who actually know what they're doing should be allowed to vote - I feel that voting is not a game; it's serious business, and those who don't take it seriously and just vote for someone for the heck of it (or whatever) only serve to hinder the ability of the government to truly represent the will of the people.

Take this example as an analogy: suppose that there are five people in a car, including the driver.  The car comes to a fork in the road.  The driver and the front passenger have been through this area numerous times, and they have a pretty good idea regarding  which direction they should go.  They put it up to a vote regarding where they should go.  The two in the front both vote for the left fork, because they've been here before and are pretty sure that that's where they should go.

However, the three in the back all vote for the right fork.  They've never been here before and are totally unfamiliar with the area, but they voted purely because they wanted to have a say in the matter.  Thus, the five go down the right fork and find out that, indeed, the two in the front, who actually knew what they were talking about, were right, and that the left fork was the correct option.

Now, the three might have been correct by sheer dumb luck, but the odds are not very high.  I view this as analogous to voting on a grand scale: the people who have no idea what they're doing might steer their country onto the right track by dumb luck, but it's much more likely that their ignorance will simply lead the country astray and counteract the efforts of those who actually know what they're doing.

Now, of course, one's job is significantly more difficult when you feel this way about voting, to be sure.  It would be very nice if you could neatly separate voters into two groups - "capable of making an informed decision" and "incapable of making an informed decision" - but you can't, and as such, simple statistics must be brought into play.  Your best bet is to simply draw a line in the sand, one that minimizes both the number of knowledgable people being barred from voting and the number of unknowledgable people allowed to vote.  Personally, I think that 18 is an acceptable line, albeit slightly arbitrary, as no extensive research has yet been done into when exactly people tend to become knowledgable.  I think that such research would be very beneficial, actually.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sauvé v. Canada was not, in my opinion, correctly decided. Section 3 of the Charter of Rights cannot be interpreted in a vacuum; the right to vote granted there is not absolute, as Section 1 explicitly provides.

I think you live in a vacuum, Emsworth

This is not to be offensive.  Please do not take offense :-(

That insult sucks, ILV.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sauvé v. Canada was not, in my opinion, correctly decided. Section 3 of the Charter of Rights cannot be interpreted in a vacuum; the right to vote granted there is not absolute, as Section 1 explicitly provides.

I think you live in a vacuum, Emsworth

This is not to be offensive. Please do not take offense :-(

That insult sucks, ILV.

It does, until you realize IT'S TRUE!

I shall even make a diagram.

I was more making a lame reference to the word "vacuum".

[Gabu]

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW

oh

[Gabu]

It comes from the same fear of a segment of the population voting. It's all poppycock in the end. 

It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with responsibility and maturity.

Incidentally, do you believe that insane persons should be able to vote?

Yes, as they do now.

I'm interested in your answer to this question: what do you believe the purpose of voting is?

[Gabu]

Abolishing the voting age, giving the right to vote to 4 year olds, and fining parents who force their kids to vote the way they want them to... is nonsense.

It is extremely offensive that anyone would feel democracy is nonsense. I believe that democracy ought not be restricted based on anything, including age. Why is this so hard to comprehend? I like democracy, I think it is a good thing, it should have restrictions.  That is my belief. I dont call your beliefs nonsense.

I'll clarify my question a few pages back regarding your thoughts on the purpose of voting.  I like democracy because I feel that a large, informed populace can better dictate where a country should go than any other form of government.  If an elected official is doing a bad job, an informed populace will be able to identify this, and replace that official.  Obviously there will be disagreements, but I feel that if the people at least know somewhat what they're talking about, that the general consensus reached through democracy will steer the country in the wrong direction.

This is why I don't feel that five-year-olds should vote: five-year-olds are - face it - incapable in general of being informed at all about pretty much any issue under the sun, and are much more likely to vote purely based on who they feel like, who has the funniest name, or whatever.  Given that, in almost every case, there are a lot more wrong decisions to be made than right decisions, choosing completely randomly as a five-year-old would probably do is very likely to heavily dilute the efforts of the informed among the populace to steer the country in the right direction.  Quite frankly, I feel that allowing people who are almost 100% likely to have no idea what they're doing to steer the direction of an entire country is a very dangerous thing to do.

In short, I feel that allowing five-year-olds to vote would hurt a country, because it's essentially placing someone who doesn't know how to drive behind the wheel of a car.

On the other hand, you seem to be treating democracy as an end, rather than a means to an end - i.e., that it doesn't matter what the democracy produces - it can run a country into the ground and thrust everyone into poverty - as long as we have as much democracy as possible.  It's for this reason that I ask you what you feel the purpose of voting is.  Why is democracy a good thing even if it runs a country into the ground and makes its citizens badly off?

[Gabu]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

[Gabu]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

[Gabu]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

It's what I believe, that's why I support my plan. Of course, you don't have to agree with me. I just think it is a fundemental right.

Why?

And you say it's not about benefits; if it benefits no one whatsoever to do something, then why do it?

[Gabu]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

It's what I believe, that's why I support my plan. Of course, you don't have to agree with me. I just think it is a fundemental right.

Why?

And you say it's not about benefits; if it benefits no one whatsoever to do something, then why do it?

Well, what benefit did giving women the right to vote? The answer to this is similar to the answer the question you are asking.

It allowed a group of people to contribute to the electoral process who had been barred for no real reason whatsoever, given that they were just as able to be informed as men, which is the major difference between giving women the right to vote and giving children the right to vote.  I don't understand why you keep bringing up women's suffrage when I've repeatedly shown why the two cases are very different.

[Gabu]

There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.

Why is this a reason to make there be a lot more uninformed voters?  What benefits do you exactly see coming from allowing five-year-olds to vote?

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

That doesn't answer the question.  You can't just say "it's a fundamental right, so everyone should be able to do it".  Who gets to define what's a fundamental right and what isn't?

It's what I believe, that's why I support my plan. Of course, you don't have to agree with me. I just think it is a fundemental right.

Why?

And you say it's not about benefits; if it benefits no one whatsoever to do something, then why do it?

Well, what benefit did giving women the right to vote? The answer to this is similar to the answer the question you are asking.

It allowed a group of people to contribute to the electoral process who had been barred for no real reason whatsoever, given that they were just as able to be informed as men, which is the major difference between giving women the right to vote and giving children the right to vote.  I don't understand why you keep bringing up women's suffrage when I've repeatedly shown why the two cases are very different.

I think there are some perfectly capable people under the age of 18 as well, Gabu- who are just as informed than those over the age of 18. This is just another step in the suffrage movement.

Well, of course there are some, but each time you decrease the voting age by one year, the number of uninformed voters will increase practically exponentially.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a little kid that was on the news a few months ago because he was interested in politics. And there are a lot of 18 year olds who aren't adequately informed on political issues either.

Okay, so the news decided to do a story on the 0.000001% of little kids who are actually interested in politics (note that "interested" does not necessarily translate into "informed").  How does this justify allowing the uninformed 99.999999% to vote?

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a little kid that was on the news a few months ago because he was interested in politics. And there are a lot of 18 year olds who aren't adequately informed on political issues either.

Okay, so the news decided to do a story on the 0.000001% of little kids who are actually interested in politics (note that "interested" does not necessarily translate into "informed").  How does this justify allowing the uninformed 99.999999% to vote?

Because all informed voters have the right to vote

You still have yet to justify that statement or state why we should do that (beyond simply stating "it's a fundamental right" with no explanation or justification given).  Letting in all informed voters below 18 (a very small group, relatively speaking) will also let in all uninformed voters below 18 (a much larger group), thoroughly negating the positive aspect of gaining a handful of new informed voters.

It's the same as a court system.  In a court, there are the "obviously guilty" and the "obviously innocent" (these are very few and far between), and then there's the middle ground.  It's impossible to separate these groups, and we don't (or at least, most don't) want to convict every single person - that would convinct a ton of innocent people - or let every single person go free - that would free a ton of guilty people.  Thus, we must establish some standard of judgement that minimizes both guilty people freed and innocent people convincted.

In the voting populace, it's the same deal.  There are the "obviously informed" and the "obviously uninformed" (again, these are very few and far between), and then there's the middle ground.  Again, here, unless we want to let everyone vote, which would result in a ton of uninformed people voting, or bar everyone from voting, which would result in a ton of informed people being barred from voting, we must establish some standard of judgement that minimizes both uninformed people being allowed to vote and informed people being barred from voting.

This is a basic concept from statistics.  Of course, you want to let everyone vote purely because it's allegedly "a fundamental right" (a statement which you have neither justified nor even defined), but I would prefer to minimize those two groups, so the above must apply.

[Gabu]

Well, Gabu- the difference between you (and most everyone else) and me is that you have something against uninformed people. I on the other hand, look past their misguidedness, and still want them to have the same priveleges as the rest of the citizenry.

I don't have anything against them as people.  I simply don't see why letting all the uninformed people under the sun would be beneficial to society.  I view democracy as a means to an end - the end is the betterment of everyone under the democracy - and I feel that letting everyone vote who has no idea what they're doing would not help democracy better the lives of the people under the democracy.

The fundamental question to which I can't see an answer is this: if the democracy does not make the people's lives better, what good is it?

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a little kid that was on the news a few months ago because he was interested in politics. And there are a lot of 18 year olds who aren't adequately informed on political issues either.

Okay, so the news decided to do a story on the 0.000001% of little kids who are actually interested in politics (note that "interested" does not necessarily translate into "informed").  How does this justify allowing the uninformed 99.999999% to vote?

He asked me a question and I answered it. I don't think people should have to wait until they are 18 to be able to vote. As long as they are informed about the election. I do think that the age to vote should be around 12, not 5.

Well, why reduce it to only 12, and not to 5, if we want to let all informed people vote?