Originally posted by Gregory
Um...the majority of adults didn't vote, last I checked (in America, anyway). Why should sixteen-year-olds be held to greater standards?
They shouldn't. Frankly their interest in voting strikes me as irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to or not...
BTW, the NUS is for people 18+. In fact, anyone under 18 who joined the other two organisations you quoted did so because they have an active political interest. We need a survey of people in general, not people who join political organisations! So those figures are no good.
I dunno about the Washington Post survey but as far as I have seen such people have little interest. But like I say... their interest in it makes no difference to me- it is their capacity I doubt, not their interest. And I am pretty sure their interest is relatively low.
Originally posted by Fire
the results of a survey say nothing without the circumstances so indeed it is a very weak arguement
I can, however, tell you where these results came from:
"In 1992, Sesame Place, a children’s amusement park in the Philadelphia area, conducted a survey of young people aged eight to twelve. It found that 89% wanted the right to vote.17 Among teens, this interest in voting persists. A 1991 poll taken at a mock election in Minneapolis, Minnesota found that 73% of teens 12-17 supported a voting age of sixteen."
Whoa, that's no good... that just says they want the voting age lowered! That tells us nothing as to whether they are interested in politics or not! You ask most 13 year olds if they want the age of consent lowered to 13, they would say yes; of course people want to be able to do more!
I think it is obvious that most teens people under 18 would say they wanted the vote if asked, that is a whole different bundle to them having an active political interest.
Originally posted by UshgarakWhoa, that's no good... that just says they want the voting age lowered! That tells us nothing as to whether they are interested in politics or not! You ask most 13 year olds if they want the age of consent lowered to 13, they would say yes; of course people want to be able to do more!
But
"Kids Voting USA [a mock election program] has been a huge success at getting young people to vote. In 1996, almost five million cast ballots in local, state and national elections. While five million is only a fraction of the number of people aged 5-17, Kids Voting USA only reached 40 states in 1996. In many of these states, only a few school districts operated the program."
(Same source)
So when given a chance, kids are eager to participate in politics.
I say no they shouldn't. When you are old enough to go to war (18) then you are old enough to vote. 18 is when people go out on their own (generally) and thats when the government is going to be important to them. Before that, its your parents that are important and they are already voting for needs that fit you best.
well kids between 8 and 12 have no clue whatsoever about politics (I honnestly believe that politics is too hard of a bussiness for a kid of that age to understand)
so ofcourse they will vote yet
and the other poll was taken at a mock election (which normaly already includes a big portion of kids who are interested -maybe only temporary- by politics)
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Errr... well, it would be helpful to know what proportion that programme actually made more interested; the figures seem rather blank as it is.
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but...
"In 1994, in the District of Columbia, more than half of all eligible students cast ballots.21 This is especially impressive in an off-year election in which 40% of District adults voted. In 1996, Lee’s Summit, Missouri saw 7,000 students turn out to vote, almost 60 percent of its student population.22 In 1996, in Wake County, North Carolina, 43,000 students turned out to vote when only 30,000 had been expected, causing polling places to run out of ballots.23 In 1998 mid-term elections, truly impressive turnout was seen in Shawnee County, Kansas. Among students, 78% turned out to vote.24 This is especially high considering some children under fourteen were kept from voting by nonvoting parents. Young people were determined to cast their ballots, and did so in enormous numbers."
Originally posted by Fire
but dont you fear that candidates will make some weird statements to get youngsters to like them?
That did occur to me. But then I thought: even if they have a high voting turnout, teenagers are still very likely to be in the minority. After all, we're only talking about a very small age-group (people age sixteen and seventeen) who can't already vote. If candidates get too weird, they'll lose the support of the adult population, and thus the election.
Originally posted by FireThat's why forcing everyone to vote is better
I've never really got that, to be honest. If someone doesn't care about the nation, should they be forced to have a hand in running it? You wouldn't go to a doctor who didn't care whether you live or die, or hire a lawyer who didn't care whether you won your case, but you put the nation in the hands of people who don't care about it? I don't get it.
Originally posted by Gregory
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but..."In 1994, in the District of Columbia, more than half of all eligible students cast ballots.21 This is especially impressive in an off-year election in which 40% of District adults voted. In 1996, Lee’s Summit, Missouri saw 7,000 students turn out to vote, almost 60 percent of its student population.22 In 1996, in Wake County, North Carolina, 43,000 students turned out to vote when only 30,000 had been expected, causing polling places to run out of ballots.23 In 1998 mid-term elections, truly impressive turnout was seen in Shawnee County, Kansas. Among students, 78% turned out to vote.24 This is especially high considering some children under fourteen were kept from voting by nonvoting parents. Young people were determined to cast their ballots, and did so in enormous numbers."
That is actually more helpful... but wanting to vote, and having an active political interest that would warrant a vote in the way some have espoused, are two very different things.