this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
516 points (87.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43138 readers
1688 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yep. I'd say 12 is a good age to start, because most will be able to read and understand government.
People with dementia and other mental illnesses don't lose their voting rights, neither is it coupled to IQ. And imo with good reason.
So I am actually not sure why we are applying this hurdle to children to begin with, when we aren't doing it in other situations.
That's part of my point. We don't require old people to do anything other than... exist for a while? And yet when you start taking about young people all these qualifications start coming out. But stupid people get old too, and nobody keeps them away from the polls.
Agreed. And it's good that we aren't keeping those away. Always a slippery slope to make rules about who can or can't vote.
Honestly I might even go as far as stripping down the requirements to the very basics:
Citizenship (including special cases that e.g. EU citizens can vote in regional elections of other EU countries if they live there)
the desire to vote
Just let them start voting when they express their desire to do so.
If you are too young to work you shouldn't have to vote I think, but if you can get a job you should be able to vote. This of course won't solve all the parties being shit tho.
Makes it sound like a chore, not sure if that was intended. The phrasing however somewhat leads to another completely different discussion, whether or not it would be a good idea to require everyone to vote (even if they just mark their ballot invalid) to combat low voter turnouts.
But as with other arguments, we again don't tie voting rights to having a job otherwise we would deny them from the elderly or sick aswell. I think in this context the argument is sometimes made that when you have a job you are forced to pay taxes and therefore should be allowed to vote, but there are other taxes like sales tax that everybody pays earlier.
Now that is the truth.
I meant if you are too young to work you shouldn't be able to vote, but forgot about people too old or sick too work yeah.
I feel like this reasoning would change character of the right to vote from something inherent, to something that has to be earned. Which i am not really a fan of.
I agree with you, but a baby can't read a ballot or pull a lever. Help is always available to anyone who asks, so I suppose we could just eliminate the age requirement altogether and let anyone who is able to register go to the polls.
I would be concerned about a certain type of person trying to make as many little voters as they can crank out, but I suppose some people do that anyway and just wait until they turn 18.
I absolutely get the sentiment, but with arguments like these i always end up running into hypocrisy and double standards. There are plenty of illiterate adults and we are rightfully allowing them to vote, so do the blind. Paralyzed people are also voting despite them not being physically able to move a lever. As you said, there should always be help available.
In practice i doubt many babies will articulate a desire to vote and the number of extremely young children will also be limited. So to me if a 6 year old comes up and says "i want to vote" i say let him, he certainly is affected by the consequences of the elections regardless.
I would note that depending on the implementation this can also be a unneccesary hurdle and be abused as seen in the US.
As an inherent right it really should be as automatic as practial limits allow it to be (some sort of register is ofc needed to prevent voting multiple times).
Here in Germany for example it's simply tied to your registered primary residence, which means that only people without such have to actively seek out registration wherever they live.
And that's the slippery slope: Who gets to decide that "certain type of person"?
To go with your example of the number of children: I think statistically poor people have more than the rich. Is that what we want to fight? Also who is to say that children vote the same as their parents?
Children are not autonomous and are beholden to another citizen for their existence. That's a civic relationship too easy to abuse with, what I see to be, very little net benefit.
I'm in support of not taxing children, but how will you distinguish an intentional purchase made by a child vs a purchase made on behalf of someone else for the benefit of a tax-free purchase?
An illiterate or blind adult can ask for help. A poll worker will read the ballot or provide a braille version to help them, and will fill out the ballot with them if requested.
I'm still agreeing with you, you've convinced me that any age barrier is arbitrary and hypocritical.
As for registration being a hurdle, the courts have long held that the effort to be registered is minimal, as again there are resources to help people get registered. There are outreach programs, and you can actually go to your local post office or dmv and they will help you register. Children would have an even easier time, since anyone in school could have a teacher or school staff help them.
Children are particularly beholden to their parents for support, though, and by "certain type" I mean the type of person who thinks that having a child is a means to an end. There's a whole spectrum of quality parenting decisions, but as a general rule, anyone who is having more kids to have more votes is probably a bad parent.
I just want to say thank you. It's... so unbelievably rare to find someone else on the right side of this in the wild. To not have to fight this fight alone.
Thank you for stepping up, for speaking out, for... all of it.
Glad to hear that! I think there are plenty of us, it's just really hard to to have these kind of discussions online and other voices are just louder.
12 year olds voting, Jesus Christ
What are you afraid they'll do?
What are you afraid they'll do that old people don't already do?
Lack understanding and life experiences
Which would end in...?
You go in the booth, it's Option A or Option B. You fill in the box. Nobody cares why.
What you've said here is a meaningless non-answer based on culturally ingrained prejudice.
In reality, we already don't require old people to actually have or demonstrate either of those things.
Sheltered people and hermits aren't denied the vote. They don't have to have experienced anything but the passage of time, regardless of how little they've filled it with.
People who watch lies on purpose aren't denied the vote. They might have no understanding but misunderstanding and still are able to steer the course of the country based on delusions and propaganda.
Think of every garbage politician you've seen get elected. All the damage they've done. And realize that old people elected every single one of them.
Even dumber shit than we now have
At this point I have to conclude you're not ready to address this conversation in good faith.
You are arguing for 12-yo voters.
At least you followed that far.
Yw
Why not? Have you talked to a twelve year old recently?
I have and that's exactly why. I have also been one.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Is a 12 year old actually worse in any way?
Yes, they are
Because...
Because they're like the average person, but even worse since they don't have the life experience and understanding older people have.
We are talking about 12-yo people ffs. Even compared to average adult they're totally retarded.
I know 12 year olds that are working part time to help raise siblings, and I know 30 year olds that have never left their hometown or read a book that wasn't required in school. Old people with lots of life experience don't understand data privacy and think climate science is a fad. Young people have a unique perspective on issues like education, social security, and economic investment in the future. Why is that life experience less valid at 12 than at 18? Why is life experience necessary at all?
Why does intelligence factor into your objection? We don't ask adults to pass a test, nor should we. While I object to you using "retarded" to call children stupid, your slur undercuts your own argument. Adults with intellectual disabilities are able to vote without any obstacles or tests. The average 12 year old is perfectly capable of understanding complex topics and making informed decisions. They may not make the decisions we would like them to make, and they may regret their decisions, but again how is that different from any adult?
Calling 12-yo's takes "unique" is certainly one way to phrase it.
Because you have to set the bar somewhere.
Have you actually met any 12-year-olds? Their understanding of stuff is retarded.
I'm happy to debate this with you, but that's the second time you've used a slur disparaging people with disabilites. Hope your day is as pleasant as you are.
What, do you mean retard? Does it mean something other than mentally retarded or what's the issue
It is an outdated term for intellectually disabled, and using it when you mean "stupid" is offensive. Intellectual disability is not the same as intelligence. Calling someone disabled as an insult is offensive. People with disabilities are not lesser than you, and it is the height of arrogance to look down upon people who overcome adversity to educate themselves while simultaneously being objectively wrong and demonstrably ignorant on the subject.
I'm saying they are intellectually deficit compared even to the average adult. Would you be happier if I called them illectually disabled? Dunno what that even changes.
No, because they aren't intellectually disabled, and calling someone intellectually disabled should not be something you say to insult people. The only difference is that you're not using a slur to do it.
They're not mentally retarded, they're just on the same level intellectually