Voting Age

[LOLseph Stalin]

This is just a little issue that I have been thinking about. What do you guys think about the current age of suffrage? As i'm sure most of you know it's 18 in most places, but I have talked to some people who feel it should be raised as high as 25. These people feel that is when you fully mature and are best capable of making important decisions. There are also people on the other side who feel the voting age should be lowered to allow youth to have more of a say in national issues. This would also get more youth interested in politics as they would actually have a reason to be interested. I'm sure many are thinking "why bother? I can't vote anyway."

[jake williams]

Eliminate it.

[Comrade B]

I am 18, I think I could have represented myself appropriately for the last few years, however I know people who have gotten kicked out of their homes for doing less. Some families are fucked up. Some parents will just use their children for extra votes.

[jake williams]

Some parents will just use their children for extra votes.
People said that when it was suggested that perhaps women be allowed to vote. "They'll just vote however their husbands tell them".

[LOLseph Stalin]

People said that when it was suggested that perhaps women be allowed to vote. "They'll just vote however their husbands tell them".

Yes, but that has proven to not be the case.

[jake williams]

Yes, but that has proven to not be the case.
I'm sure plenty of wives vote exactly how their husbands do without much questioning, even still, and I'm sure there are millions of 40-year-olds who vote exactly how their parents did without a whole lot of questioning either.

[Niccolò Rossi]

What do you think should happen to the current ages of suggerage?

I think a much better question, and also a more fundamental one we need to answer before approaching this question is: Does the age of suffrage matter and why?


These people feel that is when you fully mature and are best capable of making important decisions.I draw contention to this on the grounds that I don't think voting in bourgeois election is an important or significant decision to have to make.


There are also people on the other side who feel the voting age should be lowered to allow youth to have more of a say in national issues.Again, this statement rests on an assumption, that being able to vote in federal, state and local (etc.) elections gives the voters "more say in national issues".


This would also get more youth interested in politics as they would actually have a reason to be interested.I think that the recent wave of anger and revolt amongst students and young people most notably in Greece but also in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Senegal and Morocco, show very clearly that the proletarian(ised) youth most certainly have an interest and stake in political matters faced with the crisis of capitalism and bourgeois state repression.

[jake williams]

I draw contention to this on the grounds that I don't think voting in bourgeois election is an important or significant decision to have to make.
I understand the point, but again, similarly, one could say that women don't need the vote because we shouldn't be bothering with bourgeois elections etc. etc. I don't think that's a valid argument.

[Patchd]

I think a much better question, and also a more fundamental one we need to answer before approaching this question is: Does the age of suffrage matter and why?

I was waiting for someone to say this. I would agree with Rossi in saying that the vote in Capitalist society means nothing, we are still exploited either way and therefore to extend voting rights to another section of society does nothing but say, "now you can be as oppressed as these lot!".

I still however see a distinction between referenda and general elections/parliamentary elections though, to me referenda are a clear way of exposing either the flaws within liberal democracies, or being able to make a difference in favour of the working class.

[Comrade B]

People said that when it was suggested that perhaps women be allowed to vote. "They'll just vote however their husbands tell them".
This was proved wrong though because we enter into mutual decisions to be married. If a people in a relationship cannot agree politically they end it.
For children you are forced to live with those that support you. If you don't like it, too bad. This is not a good thing, but it is reality.

[teenagebricks]

Think of all the BNP kids, I'm not speaking from experience but the fash are pretty good at forcing their beliefs on those around them.

[Vincent P.]

Think of all the BNP kids, I'm not speaking from experience but the fash are pretty good at forcing their beliefs on those around them.

Absolutly, yet I'm pretty sure there is no difference between an endoctrinated 18 yo dude and an endoctrinated 16 yo dude.

I'll make a proposition, even though I see the "dang the elitist" argument from here, but to them I'll simply say that it wouldn't be elitist but anti-elitist since it would increase the people's knowledge and thus its power:
Why, instead of relying on age, we couldn't have a kind of exam about the major political trends of history, the position of political parties and such, after giving them some neutral and critical documentation to study. The worst it could do is giving people some more practical knowledge... and avoid that they waste their vote for "that guy with da mustache who looks honest".

[Niccolò Rossi]

I understand the point, but again, similarly, one could say that women don't need the vote because we shouldn't be bothering with bourgeois elections etc.

I don't think it's right to say we shouldn't be bothering with bourgeois elections as a principle. Equally I wouldn't say that the struggle for women's sufferage in the 19th century was useless, quite the contrary I think it was a real progressive struggle.

I think however it's important to understand the nature of decaying capitalism today in contrast to the ascendant capitalism of the 18th and 19th centuries and what it means for the working class and it's struggle.


I don't think that's a valid argument.

Why not?

With regard to Palachinov's post, I understand and appreciate your point but would disagree slightly, see above.

[Revy]

I'm for lowering it.
The Socialist Party USA's platform calls for lowering it to 15.
I agree with that.

[NecroCommie]

Well, in current society I would keep the age same, as children are clearly unable to make informed decisions (since they are barely informed on their age most of the time). Teenagers on the other hand commonly think with their genitalia instead of their brain, with exceptions ofcourse. However, in a socialist and communist society I would see voting being in correlation with community participation. In english this would mean: If you work, you vote.

[Patchd]

I'm for lowering it.
The Socialist Party USA's platform calls for lowering it to 15.
I agree with that.
Why do they draw the line at 15? In addition, this is somewhat similar to the "age of consent", it doesn't take into account that different people develop differently to one another, some faster, others slower etc. It's ridiculous to draw the line anywhere, because by doing so, it rejects the notion that people mature at different rates.

[NecroCommie]

It is ridiculous not to draw the line somewhere, since it completely ignores the notion that immaturity still exists, regardless of its quantity.

[Patchd]

It is ridiculous not to draw the line somewhere, since it completely ignores the notion that immaturity still exists, regardless of its quantity.
So we are to repress the ability of many to make rational decisions because others around are too immature?

In addition, I've already stated my opposition to liberal democracy, in a workers' democracy, I believe there will be more of an impetus to make decisions when a person can, or if they want to without being pressured by parents or such like, because afterall, in post-revolutionary society, the collective can take care of children who no longer wish to live with their parents.

To take current bourgeois society as an example of how post-revolutionary society will look like is immature in itself.

[F9]

Abolish those stupid age limits!:rolleyes:I cant see the reason of keeping this..There are matters that affect the <18 and still only the above have a choose.Fuck this.Everyone interest, has the "power" of participating.

Fuserg9:star:

[NecroCommie]

So we are to repress the ability of many to make rational decisions because others around are too immature?

In addition, I've already stated my opposition to liberal democracy, in a workers' democracy, I believe there will be more of an impetus to make decisions when a person can, or if they want to without being pressured by parents or such like, because afterall, in post-revolutionary society, the collective can take care of children who no longer wish to live with their parents.

To take current bourgeois society as an example of how post-revolutionary society will look like is immature in itself.

Rational and informed teenagers and children are anomalies in a sea of irrational ignorance. I will promise to take your point of view, if you can just show me empirically that children and/or teenagers can be tought to make informed and rational decisions as masses.

Second of all, I thought we were talking nowaday politics, and what is realistic right now. It is true that post revolutionary society would allow us to enforce more realistic regulations when it comes to decision making on an earlier age, but I think that it is irrational to think there is some sort of magic freedom in allowing everything for everyone. More than patronizing about youth freedom, I would like to see people arguing on what is justified decision making. Children dont build this society. Neither do teenagers. Let them make the decisions when they are part of enforcing them.

The "high philosophy" behind my stance on child care is the fact that if you allow a child to grow up an asshole, he will be a burden on the rest of the community. It is therefore vital for a healthy society to raise their children to the rules of that said society, which is somewhat impossible without authority and authoritarian actions of elder citizens, let them be biological parents or other members of society.

[ibn Bruce]

I believe that it should be lowered to the age of puberty. The idea of children as voiceless bodies is a creation of a society that has the intent to exploit them. There are entire children's unions in Bangladesh and many countries in South Asia, entirely staffed and organised by children under the age of 17. If children in Europe and America are ignorant and child-like, it is because they are treated and created as such. In human society the idea of 'children' is a fairly new thing, a creation of societies with the leisure and the life expectancy to act as though 25 is 'young'. If someone is able to work at 14 and 9 months, they should be able to vote.


Not that votes mean anything.

[teenagebricks]

Yes, if anything I would agree with lowering it to the age of puberty, as vague as that may sound. In Britain children choose their GCSE subjects at the age of 13 or 14, effectively taking the first steps in their careers (though this is not always the case), if they are forced to make such supposedly important decisions at 13, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? After all, the person they elect will likely still hold office by the time they are out in the real world working real jobs.

[Bilan]

What would be the point of this beyond a merely symbolic gesture?

[Pogue]

You pay tax in VAT and are affected by decisions made from the moment you are born so it should be alot lower.

[Bilan]

You pay tax in VAT and are affected by decisions made from the moment you are born so it should be alot lower.

Voting doesn't change any of this though, irrespective of how large the voting population is. You can put in leaders you like, but that doesn't alter the power structures. Such is bourgeois society.

[NecroCommie]

Yes, if anything I would agree with lowering it to the age of puberty, as vague as that may sound. In Britain children choose their GCSE subjects at the age of 13 or 14, effectively taking the first steps in their careers (though this is not always the case), if they are forced to make such supposedly important decisions at 13, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? After all, the person they elect will likely still hold office by the time they are out in the real world working real jobs.

Now that is more of a valid argument that is likely to convert me.

I agree that if society expects teenagers to participate in society by... say, choosing his/her future role in it and learning its tasks, then it is more than reasonable to make them have a say on things. On this I agree.

I still think that teenagers, let alone children, are too immature to make decisions like foreign policy and economic planning, but I agree that they should have a say on more personally relevant issues like education or municipal policies.

This is actually one of things why I think parliamentary "democracy" is flawed. It fails to take into account all the dimensions of decision making, and tries to culminate it all in a national vote once every four years. It is naive and ignorant to think that everyone is even interested on every level of politics, and I even think that the low voting percent in many western countries is due to lack of municipal politics, or the lack of their impact on things to be precise.

I also happen to agree with Bilan. If voting is the only means of decision making then this all is quite irrelevant. If we dont have direct democracy, then all this voting talk is useless.

[ibn Bruce]

We cannot say that only those who are 'informed' should be able to vote, because then it comes to whom exactly is informed and to what standard? Rather it is important that voting is given to people whom are affected by the outcome of votes. If people are given the vote but take no interest in it, this does not reduce the validity of giving it.

Thus 'children' are effected by the law, children are taxed on their labour, children are part of this system, therefore logically they should be given a say in it. Taxation without representation is what many a war has been fought over.

Again, not to say that votes in this context mean anything, but speaking more broadly in our leftist fantasies I think it is an important issue. In my versions of such fantasies kids sure aren't coddled like they are in the West now! Social babies are happy babies, if anyone wins in a communist system it is the kids!

[NecroCommie]

We cannot say that only those who are 'informed' should be able to vote, because then it comes to whom exactly is informed and to what standard?


True, but that same argument can be used to defy morals. We cant exactly say whats "good" or "evil" yet we dont allow murder or rape. That is because a vague social awareness on morals exists, as does an awareness on the maturity of children. Because what you said is correct there is no way to impose a limit that is just for all, but we must all agree that somewhere in between birth and death most of us reach maturity. A vast majority of people more or less agree that this happens sometime during puberty, and therefore somekind of line can be drawn.

But we both can agree on the fact that it is way more practical to give the ability to vote to those who are most affected by the decisions. And that is why I am against children having to vote, not because of the last paragraph. Children are way waaaay much more affected by their parents than by law. And parents are usually the ones having to take responsibility of the mischief done by their children. So this way: If parents have the responsibility and the most effect on their childrens lives, why should the children decide when their parents take the most of the burden? If the children would take the burden, then perhaps they would be less motivated to make decisions based on what is cool and what toys can the others give. But on the other hand, do we really want our children to be in debt and at trouble with the police at the age of 11. (OK... depends on what kind of trouble with the police ;))

To clear things out: I am constantly speaking about modern day politics, and I believe a lot of things would change with the revolution.



Again, not to say that votes in this context mean anything, but speaking more broadly in our leftist fantasies I think it is an important issue.

agreed :lol:


btw: They tax kids over there somewhere?!?!? What kind of insanity is that?

[DreamWeaver]

When I wasn't old enough to vote I thought that I was capable and mature enough to be able to. Now that I'm older I realize that I wasn't, and that most people under the age of 18 are very easily influenced. I'd raise it up to 20 if I could.

[Killfacer]

may aswell leave it, i was a bit of a prick at 16.

[Vincent P.]

We cannot say that only those who are 'informed' should be able to vote, because then it comes to whom exactly is informed and to what standard?

Here:


Why, instead of relying on age, we couldn't have a kind of exam about the major political trends of history, the position of political parties and such, after giving them some neutral and critical documentation to study. The worst it could do is giving people some more practical knowledge... and avoid that they waste their vote for "that guy with da mustache who looks honest".

[NecroCommie]

Well that would be better than nothing, and certainly a step forwards, but I doubt anything will ever eliminate the problems mentioned in this thread.

[ibn Bruce]

I used to think that only the educated should be able to vote.... then I realised that that was because I was educated. The situation you describe, where tests are given to all people in order to be valid to vote, is stunningly open to exploitation.

Additionally it could create a situation where community A, with no voting members, has a decision made that ONLY relates to them, entirely made by community B, who are removed from them entirely. To some extend that is a description of Liberal democracy!

What you describe is an aristocracy, a 'rule of the best', with the best being defined by a test defined... by the best. Personally doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

[Vincent P.]

I used to think that only the educated should be able to vote.... then I realised that that was because I was educated. The situation you describe, where tests are given to all people in order to be valid to vote, is stunningly open to exploitation.
There is little to nothing that can't be open to exploitation. But I stick to my idea: I don't mean 10 years of formal education not everybody can afford, I mean mail people 2-3 simple books summarizing the program of each party (or whatever we're voting for).
Very basic stuff, just to make sure the guy is aware of what he is voting for, a 30 min multiple choice test which is more like those "type the word hidden in the picture" thing when you register in forums to ensure you're not a bot than an actual test. What is important, and that's the real issue of this thread, is to know when the guy is politically aware, and I say we should go for this test option open to everybody from age 0 to 100 instead of relying on the pointless "at 18 years old everybody has political conciousness".


Additionally it could create a situation where community A, with no voting members, has a decision made that ONLY relates to them, entirely made by community B, who are removed from them entirely. To some extend that is a description of Liberal democracy!

Hum I don't really make the connexion, my bad. Would you mind to give additional details of how we get from the test I'm talking about to that?

[ibn Bruce]

There is little to nothing that can't be open to exploitation. But I stick to my idea: I don't mean 10 years of formal education not everybody can afford, I mean mail people 2-3 simple books summarizing the program of each party (or whatever we're voting for).
Very basic stuff, just to make sure the guy is aware of what he is voting for, a 30 min multiple choice test which is more like those "type the word hidden in the picture" thing when you register in forums to ensure you're not a bot than an actual test. What is important, and that's the real issue of this thread, is to make sure the guy is politically aware, and I say we should go for this test option open to everybody from age 0 to 100 instead of relying on the pointless "at 18 years old everybody has political conciousness".
Indeed, nothing is not open to exploitation, however some systems are more reinforcing of it. Not everyone has either the literacy or the time to read 2-3 books 'simple books', yet those people could be astoundingly politically aware. Similarly I have known many well read individuals who were, for lack of better words; 'as thick as two planks', they could describe the difference between an anarcho-primitivist and an anarcho-syndicalist... but add critical thinking or appraisal to that and you will get blank stares.

The simple fact is that you will never find an adequate test, either one that is an accurate measure of political awareness, or one that is not blatantly discriminatory.

Because of this, the 'lesser of two evils' is voting for everyone and a movement that attempts to make conditions on a level where politics are no longer even an issue.


Hum I don't really make the connexion, my bad. Would you mind to give additional details of how we get from the test I'm talking about to that?
We live in a society where education levels and economic position are almost inseparable. It does not take many leaps of logic to realise why a voting system based upon levels of education could have problems!

[NecroCommie]

ibn Bruce has many valid points, but I think that the original proposition was more close to compulsory political education. The test would be one that everyone would pass in practice, but its true intention is to make people study politics.

[Patchd]

Politics isn't a subject which everyone is interested in, not even all revolutionary leftists, who may have got into politics through other interests; history, economics, philosophy etc...

Not only that, but if we're talking in terms of post-revolutionary society, I would imagine party politics to be eradicated, instead, people decide what they want to do in their own communities and workplaces, not being told what to do by a central committee, or government, and therefore, when decision making comes to a vote, if you happen to be interested in it, and it affects you, then every member of society should be allowed to vote. Obviously, we won't have 5 year olds voting, that hypothetical is simply ridiculous, any attempt by the parent to force a child to vote a certain way should be considered child abuse in my opinion.

If this is the society we wish to create, then we should not concern ourselves over lowering or raising the voting age within bourgeois society. We're still going to be exploited either way, and raising or lowering the voting age will not change that.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I just thought I would mention a very interesting point somebody made in class today. He was explaining how having a single leader could be more effective than a whole parliamentary body. A single leader could just make the laws and nobody would question it whereas a parliamentary body needs to go through several stages to make even one law. This guy's main point, keeping all this in mind was that as long as this single decision making leader was acting within what society deems acceptable it would be way more efficient although it would technically be a dictatorship.

[Niccolò Rossi]

He was explaining how having a single leader could be more effective than a whole parliamentary body. A single leader could just make the laws and nobody would question it whereas a parliamentary body needs to go through several stages to make even one law. This guy's main point, keeping all this in mind was that as long as this single decision making leader was acting within what society deems acceptable it would be way more efficient although it would technically be a dictatorship.

This is all well and good only if you fetish efficiency and speak purely in the abstract. Why is efficiency good or beneficial? Why is the fact that it is good/beneficial a reason to advocate such a system? More fundamentally, would doing something like this even be possible or is it mere acedemic, utopia making?

[LOLseph Stalin]

This is all well and good only if you fetish efficiency and speak purely in the abstract. Why is efficiency good or beneficial? Why is the fact that it is good/beneficial a reason to advocate such a system? More fundamentally, would doing something like this even be possible or is it mere acedemic, utopia making?

I don't know, but that's why I found it interesting. This guy seemed to have it all worked out in his head. I'm no authoritarian, but what if he was right about one leader being more efficient in today's system? It was kinda disturbing the name he gave it though: Liberal Fascism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

This guy seemed to have it all worked out in his head.

I usually take this as a bad sign.


I'm no authoritarian, but what if he was right about one leader being more efficient in today's system?

I don't give a damn if he's right or wrong. As a socialist I am not interested in or supportive of the greater efficiency of the state in making and enforcing regulations upon the working class. Anyone who puts "social order" and state efficiency above the class struggle is a total and utter reactionary.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I don't give a damn if he's right or wrong. As a socialist I am not interested in or supportive of the greater efficiency of the state in making and enforcing regulations upon the working class. Anyone who puts "social order" and state efficiency above the class struggle is a total and utter reactionary.

Yes definitely. It's the whole idea of having one leader above everybody else that worries me. It's like the situation that existed in places such as the USSR and even North Korea today. The non-governing people are pretty much in a position of equality, but then it's the government that seems to be above everybody else with special privilages that the ordinary citizen wouldn't have access to.

[Orange Juche]

Eliminate it.

So we should let three year olds vote?

[Orange Juche]

People said that when it was suggested that perhaps women be allowed to vote. "They'll just vote however their husbands tell them".

Yes, but this is a perfect example of why I hate analogies. They take two like situations, equate them, and dismiss variables which make the situations different.

Adult women and adult men, biologically speaking, have the same mental capabilities and maturity of mental capacities. Women not voting, therefore, was based on nothing other than un-scientific bigotry and oppression.

Four or three year old children, and other younger children, do not have the mental capacities (being that they are still forming as humans) nor the capability for full functioning of reason that adults have. They are still forming mentally.

I feel 18, or 16, is reasonable... below is somewhat questionable, and pre-pubescent right to vote is simply absurd.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I feel 18, or 16, is reasonable... below is somewhat questionable, and pre-pubescent right to vote is simply absurd.

I would argue for it to be lowered to 16, but not any lower than that. I feel that any lower than that people may not have the mental capacity to make the right decisions while voting. 15-16 is pretty much the age when I first started learning about politics on a large scale. If they're teaching it to us at that age we might as well have a say at that age. I'm sure 16 year olds could handle casting a ballot if they're trusted in the driver's seat of a car.

[Brother No. 1]

I believe it should be lowered. I mean really wait till 18 or 25 years of age to vote. Thats crazy! People should be allowed to vote under 18 for its really unfair for the lower ages like 15,16,14, and 17. Voting is something all should be allowed to do and not when they are the "right age" for then that just seperates the Equality we are striving for. I mean sure sometimes people are taking in by the propaganda that the "Canidates" show but for those who dont and are young dont get to vote for they are "un-edgicable" to vote. the "democracy" ,or aka Capitalist dictatorship, use the voting age for they want compelte un-Equality. Should I not be able to vote for I am young? No i should be able to for its makes the voting system more fair and more equal and I'm not like the other 14 year olds. Voting system now is just are corrupt as the "Presidentvy" and "Election" it selfs.

[LOLseph Stalin]

If people were able to vote at a younger age I think more youth would actually become interested in politics and want to vote. In Canada's last few elections voter turnout has been terrible, especially among the younger population. It would be nice to get more representation besides just what the old people want.

[Brother No. 1]

Yes for i mean we know what the middle aged, and older citizens want but what about us youths? Are we not as important are we just something to be tossed aside? If the youth was allowed to vote then we would get more young ones interesting in politics and how their countries and goverments are run. Maybe even a few more young communists.:D For when they are interested into Politics they want to learn more and want to learn the other types of goverments their goverment never tells about. I think a Reason why they dont allow youth to vote is that they may question their goverment and to make the society more un-Equal.

[Brother No. 1]

for example look at obama's "Election." They thought he would "change" but as we can see his "Change" will not come.

[LOLseph Stalin]

for example look at obama's "Election." They thought he would "change" but as we can see his "Change" will not come.

Of course. Every politician has a platform they run on to get elected. Obama's just happened to be "change". Also, the fact that he would be the first black president helped his campaign alot. I do still have to say that Obama was the better choice than Bush clone McCain.

[Brother No. 1]

True he is better then McCain but still he is not going to change anything and he will be kicked out soon enough. All of the American "elections" have been corrupt so why even bother calling them "elections?" Capitalists always play dirty and always want the upper hand I ask you which is better. Capitalist 1 or Capitalist 2? Answer: they both suck so why even bother "voting" or basicly giving your hopes and dreams to someone who wouldn't give a damn. Elections everywhere are pointless and meaningless,unless we get into Socialist parties or the good Communist parties that changes things, but in govermental "elections" the only one who wins is the Capitalists. not the Mccainist,not the obamaists, not thw poor, not the workers, no one expect the Capitalists and the dictatoral elite.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It's the reality of Bourgeois Democracy. It usually results in whoever has the most money wins. These wealthy candidates work in the interests of their own class, not lowly Proletarians. We really don't mean much to those fatcats except as profit earning machines for their use.

[Brother No. 1]

Yep. These Capitalists are boring anyway always tearing down each other. Its funny at first but it soon gets boring and stupid. But then again Capitalism makes everything go wrong and everyone suffers under the boot of Bourgeois opression. The opression Capitalism gives is always blamed on something else for #1: they dont want to be seen was they really are and #2: theres alot of pointless things to blame for their own carelessness actions.

[Pawn Power]

This question is somewhat fallacious since it assumes that there is some legitimacy of voting in our current system. That is, if no bodies vote really matters since there is only one party to elect (the business party) why would it matter who is able to vote. So it is somewhat misleading to propose an inadequacy in the accessibility in a system which offers no real choice.

[Rjevan]

I would argue for it to be lowered to 16, but not any lower than that. I feel that any lower than that people may not have the mental capacity to make the right decisions while voting. 15-16 is pretty much the age when I first started learning about politics on a large scale. If they're teaching it to us at that age we might as well have a say at that age.
Agreed, 16 is ok, if it was lowered further I would feel uncomfortable because of some pubescent teens, who think it's funny and cool to vote for the NPD without having any clue about them and politics in general.

[Brother No. 1]

Its Sad that 14 year olds cant be like me..but eh what are you going to do.