Age vote to 16

[cub1c]

This is a real question and in my part of the country, more and more people are debating the subject.

The only reason why we can't do this in Québec is because it would promote the idea of sovereigty.

Since we know that old people aren't more enclined to vote better than young people (look at the US), wouldn't be right to let our younger citizen to vote?

It's an important issue, and I would like to hear what people here have to say.

Thanks.

 

[Ten Packs]

Since we know that old people aren't more enclined to vote better than young people (look at the US), wouldn't be right to let our younger citizen to vote?

In what way are the results of recent American elections a matter of age?

 

[Reverend Blair]

It's a great idea. 16 year olds are more affected by a lot of policies than us old folks. It should have an impact on educaton policies and environmental concerns, just to name two areas that concern them more.

 

[cub1c]

Since we know that old people aren't more enclined to vote better than young people (look at the US), wouldn't be right to let our younger citizen to vote?

In what way are the results of recent American elections a matter of age?

Sorry I didn't wanted to associated recent American elections with age. You misunderstood me.

 

[Munkustrap]

At 16, I probably knew at least as much as the average Canadian about poltics. (It's not hard when my high school provides free news papers.) I am completely open to 16 years to vote. By this age you can take an interest in politics, and that's all you need, as well as an opinion of course.

 

[Ten Packs]

Re: RE: Age vote to 16

It's a great idea. 16 year olds are more affected by a lot of policies than us old folks. It should have an impact on educaton policies and environmental concerns, just to name two areas that concern them more.

I wonder though, Rev - how often does someone of that age ask themselves "Where is the money to pay for all this coming from?"

I know I certainly didn't ask that question back then; neither did anyone I can remember.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I know I certainly didn't ask that question back then; neither did anyone I can remember.

Your parents must have been a tad more generous than mine and my friends. It was a question that was always on our minds..."Who will pay for all this beer?" we'd ask each other. :wink:

I wonder though, Rev - how often does someone of that age ask themselves "Where is the money to pay for all this coming from?"

I think it's more a matter of the government having to find ways to fund the programs we want. Most people don't ask themselves where the money for the programs they support will come from. It doesn't matter if they are 16 or 96...they want something and they want somebody else to pay for it. The people that are 96 tend not to think so far ahead though because they won't be around for as long. The difference is in what they want, not how much they want.

The 16-18 demographic won't be a major force at any rate. They will give more power to an under-represented youth vote that already exists, but in the over-all picture will have little influence on their own.

I'd love to see this accompanied by a mandatory course that actually taught them how the system works and required them to do a paper out-lining and contrasting the platforms of all of the major parties.

 

[s_lone]

I certainly agree with 16 years old being allowed to vote. Reverend Blair's idea of a mandatory course to teach them the basics of politics is great! I mostly agree because young folks tend to think in an idealistic way. It is a needed voice to give our governments high standards on environment and social equality. As people get older, they tend to think more "realistically" but also more selfishly! Older generations just don't care as much as the young ones for the environment (of course, I'm not talking for every individual...)

 

[mrmom2]

Maybe we would get more people to precipitate in the electoral process.I'm all for it!

 

[Munkustrap]

I'd love to see this accompanied by a mandatory course that actually taught them how the system works and required them to do a paper out-lining and contrasting the platforms of all of the major parties.

Such a course exists. In grade 10 you have to take two smooshed courses Careers & Civics. Together they are one semestre, you get half a credit for each. In Careers you learn about different jobs, you take personality tests, career tests, a whole lot of crap like that.

Civics, teaches you basics of the government, how it works, what it is, the laws, the conventions, parties. Then you have a mock election at the end. The class is split up into "parties" and you vote for the party you would most like to win.

My party came last. That's what happens when you try to introduce crazy new ideas to try and change the traditional conventions of the government. Whatever! It was all for fun!

Also, when the election happened, all the schools I believe in the OCDSB got voting booths and all the students could vote. (It didn't count of course, but it was interesting to see how the students would vote.)

I think I can confidently say my generation knows how to vote properly.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Is that course mandatory, Munkustrap? Do you study the platforms of the various parties?

I know back when I was in school, there was a little bit in Social Studies if it happened to be an election year, but not the rest of the time. Social Studies was an optional course after grade 8.

 

[Ten Packs]

I think it's more a matter of the government having to find ways to fund the programs we want. Most people don't ask themselves where the money for the programs they support will come from.

Well, youre talking to one who does - so do a lot of folks my age, that I know.

"finding ways" to fund programs always means it will come from you and me - either directly though taxes, or indirectly in the cost of items that producers, who are taxed, add in to their prices.

I don't mind paying for things that are neccessary, but I'm not so sure others think about it. Not picking on teens, but I don't think that's on the top of their list.

 

[Munkustrap]

Yeah, you can't graduate high school without that course. Though to be honest, it's not that extensive, it's an O course. (O for open. So students from all different acedemic programs (gifted, emersion, regular stream, and applied stream) are put in the same class. I mean it isn't an extensive course, especially since you have one semestre to complete two courses. (You switch half way through the course to the other.)

When I did, as I said we had a mock election, we also read up on all the parties, their general platforms (as they are always subject to change) and a brief history of where they came from. As shaudy as the Ontario public system may seem, it does have some pros. (But I can't say whether or not the other provinces have the same kind of course.)

 

[lefthour]

Yeah, your right Munkustrap it is open. I had it last year and I thought it was a fun course, the civic part, not so much careers. I don't know what other high schools have now but I wish in my school there were some political science courses or something along that line. I think the voting age should be lowered also but you should have to take a course to know what the parties are about like civics but more in depth.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Well, youre talking to one who does - so do a lot of folks my age, that I know.

That's not exactly what I mean, Ten Packs. Look at the people from various political stripes...they all have their pet programs and they want the cash for that to come out of the general coffers. Even those who would kill every social program we have...even education...would spend a lot on the military and policing.

"finding ways" to fund programs always means it will come from you and me - either directly though taxes, or indirectly in the cost of items that producers, who are taxed, add in to their prices.

Our government, no matter who gets elected, is not in a position to raise taxes so they have to work with the money they have. That's the political reality of today. They have to "find" money by making sure the number of people they can tax keeps expanding.

I don't mind paying for things that are neccessary, but I'm not so sure others think about it. Not picking on teens, but I don't think that's on the top of their list.

They aren't a big enough demographic to change the fact that a government that raised taxes today would be committing political suicide. They could be (depending how many actually vote) influential enough to bring changes to issues that concern them though. That means that the government will have to find money from within existing revenues.

These are the people who could take the subsidies to the gas, oil and coal industries and get them applied to environmental programs, for instance. No new money, not even a brand new issue, just added impetus to something that already exists.

 

[cub1c]

I wonder though, Rev - how often does someone of that age ask themselves "Where is the money to pay for all this coming from?"

I'm not confortable with you bringing money issues over ideas, values and dreams of this generation.

I think the voting age should be lowered also but you should have to take a course.

:?
Should that course be mandatory for every citizen to be able to vote? This is no way close to democracy.

[/quote]

 

[mrmom2]

finding ways" to fund programs always means it will come from you and me - either directly though taxes, or indirectly in the cost of items that producers, who are taxed, add in to their prices.

How about are politicians stop giving are tax dollars to there friends that would probably free up billions for stuff like these courses :x

 

[Munkustrap]

Well if they become mandatory to vote, you better make sure they come in both languages...

But seriously, if you had to take an in depth course on all the parties, what would be the point of a campaign?

It's like choosing a jury, lawyers can't be on a jury because they already have an outside perspective of the law. You need people who don't understand the law that in depth, so they only really know what the judge tells them.

I'm not saying smart people shouldn't vote, but it's the same principal, listen to the party leaders and they'll (hopefully) tell you what their party wants to do for the next few years if they're elected.

 

[cub1c]

They could be (depending how many actually vote) influential enough to bring changes to issues that concern them though. That means that the government will have to find money from within existing revenues.

I think you hit the heart of the question.

It's not a matter if the youngs care or not about politics, it's a about giving them a reason to care: to vote. It can only be good for them since, like you said, the government will have a real mission to meet their needs if they want their support. I find this HIGHLY constructive and can only motivate younger generation to take an active part in real democracy. Would it be the solution to their desperate search of identity, unity? I don't know, but it could only help.

Would it be right to say that even if only one 16 years old feels like he has the right to vote, he should be able to do it?
I say yes.

Election Canada
http://www.elections.ca/eca/eim/article_search/article.asp?id=53&lang=f&frmPageSize=&textonly=false
(I am having a hard time finding this exact paper translated in English on Election Canada, if someone can help.)

You can find on this paper (2003) the comparision between 2 studies, on 16-18, (1990, 1998 (already so old!!)), that there is cleary more than one teenager that want's to vote! 45,5% as of 1998!

Someone feel confortable denying the right to vote to 45.5% of the 16-18? I don't.

Also on this paper;

Ainsi, l'enthousiasme et le zèle des « jeunes » justifieraient un abaissement de la majorité électorale profitable à l'ensemble de la société; d'autres, au contraire, associent le zèle de la jeunesse à une fougue excessive et à une inexpérience qui commandent la plus grande prudence. Les jeunes ne seraient tout simplement « pas prêts » à voter! La réversibilité des arguments tend à montrer la nature proprement politique – non réduite à une dimension partisane8 – des décisions relatives à l'abaissement de la majorité électorale. Non pas que la politique soit typiquement irrationnelle, mais elle suppose des choix parfois décidés plus ou moins indépendamment de l'opinion publique.

In résumé, it says that some (the PQ, Parti Québécois) says that the enthousiasm that teenagers shows toward politics would justify the lowering the the voting age, but others (the PLQ, Quebec's Liberal Party), on really opposite position, says that teenagers attitude and inexperience should be taken very carefully. The teenagers are just not ready to vote!

It says also: ...These really opposite arguments tends to illustrate the politic nature of the decisions around the electoral majority.

It follows by: ...Not to says that politics is typicaly irrationnal, but it suppose that decision taken were not always dependant of the public opinion.
[/u][/url]

 

[cub1c]

I'm not saying smart people shouldn't vote, but it's the same principal, listen to the party leaders and they'll (hopefully) tell you what their party wants to do for the next few years if they're elected.

The NPD, federaly, and the PQ, provincialy, have clearly stated having electoral majority age lowered to 16 in their agendas.