JKOZZY, I, too follow politics closely, and I have more sense than many adults when it comes to it. I'm not sure the age should be 16. In fact, I don't think there should be an age at all. I think that anybody who registers to vote should be given a comprehension test. That way, those of us who are underage could vote, and those who don't deserve to vote won't.
Secondly, I think Mary Carrey should have won. Just my opinion. But the whole thing in California was a joke, anyway.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Testing for political awareness is a. impractical and b. would create a two-class system. Those who had passed the test for the vote would be seen as superior to the disenfranchised underclass.Fixing it at an age may be inexact but it IS fair.
a) Why?
b) Proof? And even if it's true, so what? People who are paid more are also viewed as superior (often) to people who are poor; does this mean we should pay everyone exactly the same amount, to prevent this?
Originally posted by Gregory
a) Why?b) Proof? And even if it's true, so what? People who are paid more are also viewed as superior (often) to people who are poor; does this mean we should pay everyone exactly the same amount, to prevent this?
a. Because you have to decisively pin down what such a test would consist of, which is basically impossible
b. It is incredibly obvious this will happen, and an allegory to money really doesn't strike me as having any bearing at all. This will DIRECTLY cause the establishment of one class with a vote and one class without- this is something to be very strongly opposed at all costs. It is something we moved on from centuries ago. It will also very quickly become clear that the affluent and well educated will be more likely get the vote, whilst the poor do not, as the well-educated will be more likely to pass whatever test is set. You will effectively disenfranchise a section of society and create a system of vote by merit only, and so only their views will be reflected in elections.
It is a very, very, very bad idea, to be strongly opposed by anyone with sense.. The only reasonable way to do it is by a fixed age of rough esitmation of maturity, which is what we have.
Originally posted by UshgarakIt is incredibly obvious this will happen, and an allegory to money really doesn't strike me as having any bearing at all. This will DIRECTLY cause the establishment of one class with a vote and one class without- this is something to be very strongly opposed at all costs. It is something we moved on from centuries ago. It will also very quickly become clear that the affluent and well educated will be more likely get the vote, whilst the poor do not, as the well-educated will be more likely to pass whatever test is set. You will effectively disenfranchise a section of society and create a system of vote by merit only, and so only their views will be reflected in elections.
You seem to be saying that it's a bad thing because the people who aren't qualified to vote will not be allowed to. If you think this is a bad thing, I will not try to change your mind. I disagree, however.