Voting age

[bezdomni]

Since I'm only seventeen, I'm not allowed to vote in the United States or most other countries. I feel like that's pretty lame, since I work and my labor is taxed by the government, I should at least be offered some (theoretical) representation in the government.

However, this raises an interesting question. The government thinks I'm too young to know what's good for me. I obviously beg to differ, as would most members of this site.

Now, in communist society, what would be the "restriction" for voting age? The same age as being able to work? Until most people in your age group are aware enough to make their own decisions?

What do you think?

[pcb]

I believe it should be when comrades have left education and have become politically aware. This is a difficult question because at present the system is producing drones for expliotation. If we lived in utopia then there would be no need for voting but since we are not, I believe after full time education and they have become politically aware.

[MurderInc]

All age laws are generally objective because they have to be. The notion, as written in another comment here, that one should vote when they are "politically aware", in disfunctional at the establishment level. Imagine a society where you could consent to sex not at 18, or 16, but when you were "sexually aware". The factual argument and litigation for EACH individual proving they were sexually aware would try the time and abilities of any community.

So it would be of "politically aware". Worse still, unlike sex, young people would be denied by the panel making this decision based on arbitrary and viewpoint rationale.

Personally, I believe sexual consent, political voting and adulthood should be confirmed at 16. BUT THAT WOULD BE FOR EVERYONE.

But a 12 year old showing she was politically aware and voting, merely becaused the panel agreed with her, versus a 40 year old unaware because she was disliked by the panel is too scary.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think it'd be 16 because that's about the time where you can start worker in this country for money.

[bezdomni]

I think if you are currently working, if you have worked and are between jobs, or if you used to work but are retired or injured you should be able to vote.

University students should also be allowed to vote.

I don't like the whole age discrimination aspect of voting. I think it would make much more sense to equate production with participatory democracy than equating age with democracy. As if being older somehow makes your thought inherently more valid.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:23 PM
I think if you are currently working, if you have worked and are between jobs, or if you used to work but are retired or injured you should be able to vote.

University students should also be allowed to vote.

I don't like the whole age discrimination aspect of voting. I think it would make much more sense to equate production with participatory democracy than equating age with democracy. As if being older somehow makes your thought inherently more valid.
Now now, don't make it so that to vote you must have held a job.

But any age you are saying....what is so special about turning THAT age? Doesn something in your body just snap when you are 16? Same goes from driving, I mean what was wrong one day before I turned 16 that made me not able to drive? People mature at different levels, why not issue a test to vote, something like a basic civics test. Of course civics would and should be administered in schools.

Anyone like that idea? I don't mean it to be a poll tax or literacy test. :( don't take it as that.

[Comrade-Z]

I think that, whatever objective benchmark society uses, this benchmark will be continually pushed down in terms of age.

Considering that today's newspapers are written at a 4th-grade reading level and considering that most 4th graders should be able to read the newspapers and/or the internet and (theoretically) become informed, I think a reasonable voting age for our current era would be 10 years old (which is roughly the age by which most students will have completed 4th grade). 10 years of age is also a point at which kids start to be reasonably capable of doing minimal, non-physically demanding work (such as some minimal housework, yardwork, etc.)

And maybe in 30 years we will have to lower the voting age to 9 or 8 because kids keep on getting smarter, more physically capable, and more literate. Who knows?

[bezdomni]

What's wrong with working being a pre-requisite for voting?

Worker's democracy is the (immediate) goal, no?

[OkaCrisis]

I want to know who we are voting to elect in this hypothetical "communist" society...?!

If you're talking about 'electing' representatives to form worker's councils, then anyone who has a stake in the institution, or is directly affected by it should be able to vote, regardless of their age. Since, if you're old enough to meet or recognize either of those requisites, then you're old enough to have a say in the outcome of the 'election'.

clownpenisanarchy:

What's wrong with working being a pre-requisite for voting?
Because then those who are unable to work due to physical or mental disabilities will recieve no representation, even though the people elected can still have huge impacts on their lives.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:37 PM
clownpenisanarchy:

What's wrong with working being a pre-requisite for voting?
Because then those who are unable to work due to physical or mental disabilities will recieve no representation, even though the people elected can still have huge impacts on their lives.
Yes, exactly, and where do you plan to draw this line in the sand of who is a 'worker' and who isn't?

[bezdomni]

Because then those who are unable to work due to physical or mental disabilities will recieve no representation, even though the people elected can still have huge impacts on their lives.

I said those who have worked but are no longer able to due to an injury...which would also include a physical disability.

People with mental disabilities are largely able to work and therefore should be able to vote. If one is so mentally disabled that they are incapable of working, then why should they vote? They wouldn't even want to because they probably wouldn't understand the concept.

Anyway, this would create a slippery slope. If we let those who are too mentally disabled to work vote, then why not let people in comas vote? Why not let dead people vote?

It's far more probably that a person who is mentally disabled would be used by somebody who isn't as far as voting is concerned. That's a large reason why those under 18 aren't allowed to vote, because the theory is they'd probably just vote the same way their parents did.

Any, people with physical disabilities can still contribute to society in some manner. One can sell their intellectual labor too, you know.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Jun 8 2006, 01:39 PM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Jun 8 2006, 01:39 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 06:37 PM
clownpenisanarchy:

What's wrong with working being a pre-requisite for voting?
Because then those who are unable to work due to physical or mental disabilities will recieve no representation, even though the people elected can still have huge impacts on their lives.
Yes, exactly, and where do you plan to draw this line in the sand of who is a 'worker' and who isn't?[/b]
Those who are able to work, will.

Why do we need to draw a line at all? Everyone who is able to will work. Others will be taken care of by the surplus that the society will create. Does not working make them less worthy of consuming? Or inherently incapable to make rational decisions about who to elect to represent their interests?

We shouldn't classify people according to who is able to work and who is not. Doing so will only create a class of people who can not work, and thus recieve no representation. I thought the point was to eliminate class distinctions all together.

Like I said, anyone with an 'economic' stake (that is, they work toward, and thus recieve thier livelihoods from) a particular institution (say, a farm or factory) will have the ability to vote for representatives. But, not only them, also the whole community who are directly affected by the produce of that institution (via consumption) should also be able to vote for an outcome of an election, since they too are affected by any potential outcome of a vote.

And this is on the premise that, I imagine, in a 'communist' society, production would be more localized and on a smaller scale, so that would make it possible to enlist the votes of all of the people affected by the production of the good in question, not solely those producing it.

[piet11111]

to me it seems nonsensical to restrict someone from voting.
if they want to vote on something they are "aware" of the issue that is being voted upon and as such they would pass my only restriction of knowing what the voting is about.

anyone who it affects has to be able to vote on it period.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:48 PM


Because then those who are unable to work due to physical or mental disabilities will recieve no representation, even though the people elected can still have huge impacts on their lives.

I said those who have worked but are no longer able to due to an injury...which would also include a physical disability.
What about people who are born disabled, and so are never able work? Yes, I agree that they can 'sell' their intellectual labour (or, anyway, produce intellectual goods) for society, and that makes them as much a 'worker' as anyone else. People will do what they can to contribute. All I'm saying is that their representation should not be limited simply because their ability to produce is.


People with mental disabilities are largely able to work and therefore should be able to vote. If one is so mentally disabled that they are incapable of working, then why should they vote? They wouldn't even want to because they probably wouldn't understand the concept.
I agree. Anyone who wants to vote should be able to. If one is so mentally disabled that they can not understand the concept, then nobody should force them to vote (although, every opportunity should be taken to explain and teach them about the issue, in order to illicit a preference (if possible)).


Anyway, this would create a slippery slope. If we let those who are too mentally disabled to work vote, then why not let people in comas vote? Why not let dead people vote?
Because they are unable, by their own free will to express a 'political' preference. Like I said, nobody should be forced to vote. People who feel they have an interest in the outcome should. If you don't, then no big deal.


It's far more probably that a person who is mentally disabled would be used by somebody who isn't as far as voting is concerned. That's a large reason why those under 18 aren't allowed to vote, because the theory is they'd probably just vote the same way their parents did.

Well, again, I don't think that anyone should be forced to vote, but that anyone who wants to should be able to. Also, I think that the potential damage caused by a 'party' or 'representative' going around coercing mentally disabled people to vote for them would be far smaller and less significant than the damage that would be caused by barring people (of any physical or mental level of ability) from being able to vote at all, if they so wanted to.

Plus, it's a little discriminatory to assume that people with mental handicaps are so prone to fall victim to the coercion of someone who was only propagating them to enlist their support for a political campaign, that they should be disenfranchised.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by piet11111
to me it seems nonsensical to restrict someone from voting.
if they want to vote on something they are "aware" of the issue that is being voted upon and as such they would pass my only restriction of knowing what the voting is about.

anyone who it affects has to be able to vote on it period.

Nice one.

In that same sense, I don't think their would be any voting restriction like that, as the way it is structured in comtemporary capitalist society is that someone votes when they are "mature" enough to undrstand the complexity of governance and their responsiibilty in electing suitable representatives - this equates to, since this society is so very inept and unable to create a situation where its constituents are self-responsible - and a lack of being able to "measure" such things, means that an arbitrary age is deemded the logical way inwhich to ajudge someones maturity, however narrowminded such a view is.

In a communist society, if there is voting of any sort at all, since people will be taught and learn in a different and more effective way (at least in theory ;) ), their would be no reason to have the absurd notion of an arbitray age as the indicator of maturity.

[Dyst]

What's wrong with working being a pre-requisite for voting?

Worker's democracy is the (immediate) goal, no?

You have misunderstood. The general idea is the humans emancipation from the exploitive system which includes "work" (as it is in a capitalist system).

We should fight the progressive fight for workers freedom, not for creating some sort of system which encourages capitalism (work).

Are we talking about voting in a pre- or post-revolutionary society?

[bezdomni]

Early post-rev...assuming there would be a state.

Of course the long term goal is all-inclusive participatory democracy, but that is after the fall of the class system.

Anyway, what about then. Will three year olds be able to vote in communist society?

[Palmares]

It's still a transitional society, so it will still have leftovers from capitalism, etc.

So yeah, it will still have a voting age, which would probably be the same as the one(s) in our current societies.

[Janus]

I think that it would depend on the institution. If it were for a high school or something, then it should be as soon as someone reaches it.

If you were voting on decisions in a work place, then obviously, you would want the workers there to vote on it.

So really, it would depend as I doubt there would be national elections or anything like that. As for votes involving an entire community, then those votes should be for adults as in post 14, I would guess. They would need to show themselves to be responsible and actually care.

[rouchambeau]

I don't even think voting should take place. It implies that there is a group making a decision alienated from a group that carries out a decision. Even more it implies that people are being forced to do something or tolerate something that goes against their morals.

Also, what if there is a vote and a poor decision is made that you don't agree with? Do you say "Oh damn. Well, it was put to a vote, so I guess I have to give in to the majority regardless if they are wrong"? Or do you take a stand against the voting majority and do what is right?

[Janus]

I don't even think voting should take place. It implies that there is a group making a decision alienated from a group that carries out a decision.
In a communist society, the group voting would carry it out.

We aren't talking about voting in a capitalist society.


Or do you take a stand against the voting majority and do what is right?
Of course, there will be opposition and if there is major opposition then there should be new talks and a new vote.

[MurderInc]

It is dumb to give the vote to 10 year olds becuase they will be "affected" and because they are aware. They would merely ditto their parents' vote and that would hardly be fair.

Also, since someone thought it was 16, the earliest one can work for money is 14, and you need permssion from your high school (in california, a work permit) and the number of hours is regulated based on course work and age.

Trivia question: Can anyone identify the ONLY job someone can haveby law in California if they are younger than 14?

[OkaCrisis]

First of all, I want to state that I am against any 'transitory state' that anyone might set up to "represent the workers rights", as I see the DoP as simply a new 'tyranny of the majority' (or, rather, it has great potential to be). The first point I stated in this thread was:

I want to know who we are voting to elect in this hypothetical "communist" society...?!
Seriously, I never want to vote on any issue that concerns a leader, a state, an authority, a law, or anything else of that nature. Just because state officials are 'democratically elected' doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, should want them to have power over decisions that affect me, or my life, and the lives of the people around me. I want to have that power, and so should everyone else.



On the topic of voting at all, and the issue of 'tyranny of the majority', do people here think that reaching a consensus is possible? I think it is, when the people have a common goal and 'work' with the explicit motive of the collective interest...

After all, if anyone is to disagree with a 'motion' set forth by their community (thier peers, co-workers, nieghbours), shouldn't their grievances be heard? Accommodated? Or else, can't they be appeased through explanation as to why in fact the decision is actually in their best interests? And after all that, wouldn't the group have reached a consensus on the issue?


Janus:

We aren't talking about voting in a capitalist society
All I'm saying is that we might as well be, as long as we're "electing" bureaucratic Officials to make decisions for us.


clownpenisanarchy:

Early post-rev...assuming there would be a state.
What kind of anarchist assumes that post-revolutionary society will include a state?!

Anyway, what about then. Will three year olds be able to vote in communist society?
If they want to, and are aware of or affected by the issue, then yes. What if someone wanted to build a large dayare for all 3 year olds? Shouldn't they be consulted as to what kinds of ammenities this institution might include? ;)

[Janus]

All I'm saying is that we might as well be, as long as we're "electing" bureaucratic Officials to make decisions for us.
I understand but that will not happen in a communist society. There will be no bureaucracy or leadership as we know it.

[Martin Blank]

Lower the voting age to 14. If you're old enough to work, you're old enough to vote.

Miles

[WorkerBolshevik]

In communist society, the will be voting, but now on any positions. As Engels said, the management of people will be replaced with the management of things. When you work in a factory of wherehaveyou (the location would change very frequently, at your leisure), you would have an equal say in what is done that day and how. Though even in such situations, not much would need to be voted on, it is likely that anyone involved would have a vote, making age irrelevant.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:14 AM
In communist society, the will be voting, but now on any positions. As Engels said, the management of people will be replaced with the management of things. When you work in a factory of wherehaveyou (the location would change very frequently, at your leisure), you would have an equal say in what is done that day and how. Though even in such situations, not much would need to be voted on, it is likely that anyone involved would have a vote, making age irrelevant.
Engels wrote "how do these people propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a single management" when discussing anarchists in the first international, it could probably be as easily applied to communism though. In communism you will still have people voting for people to coordinate work, they simply wont have a superior status and they'll be immediately recallable on popular referendum for whatever group they're coordianting so that their range of action is strictly limited to popular consent (unlike capitalist eletions), as is the case in socialism.


In any case, while a lower voting age is better than a higher voting age, i'd object to the concept of a voting age. Equality under the law and civil rights are things that should be limited only by ones natural capacity to exercise them; for instance a blind person is not without the right to drive, rather they are without the physical capability to exercise that right. Likewise, there shouldn't be any voting age, people should simply have an automatic entitlement to vote which they exercise when, if ever, they choose to register themselves to vote and do it. Obviously its unlikely for five year olds to do that, there are frankly low voting rates for young people who are "old enough" to vote, but thats not the point, the point is that ones rights should not depend on an arbitrary measure like age.

[angus_mor]

I think that there simply shouldn't be a voting age, so that whenever one feels they are ready to vote, or compelled/inspired to vote, they would have the option. You can't tell anyone when it is right for them to vote, it is for oneself and oneself alone to decide, considering the majority of the voting public doesn't vote anyways.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by OkaCrisis
What kind of anarchist assumes that post-revolutionary society will include a state?!

clownpenisanarchy isn't an anarchist - their name is hardly serious.

And though I'm an anarchist, I presumed Leninists (they used the word communism, so its a fair presumption) would be referring to, when mentioning post-revolution, but not yet "communism", would be meaning the transitional state, as I mentioned.

I'm just stated what I believe to be the theoretical facts.

[Comrade-Z]

I think that there simply shouldn't be a voting age, so that whenever one feels they are ready to vote, or compelled/inspired to vote, they would have the option. You can't tell anyone when it is right for them to vote, it is for oneself and oneself alone to decide, considering the majority of the voting public doesn't vote anyways.

That makes sense. Okay, scrap my idea of the voting age being 10 years old. :)

[WorkerBolshevik]

Engels wrote "how do these people propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a single management" when discussing anarchists in the first international, it could probably be as easily applied to communism though. In communism you will still have people voting for people to coordinate work, they simply wont have a superior status and they'll be immediately recallable on popular referendum for whatever group they're coordianting so that their range of action is strictly limited to popular consent (unlike capitalist eletions), as is the case in socialism.
Comrade, you are taking Engels' quote out of context. He is speaking not of communism, not even of socialism, but of the transitionary period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. When socialism arises, when everyone has the skills to be a manager, than it will (according to Marx, Engels, etc) be uneccesary to vote people into positions because people will change at will as they will posses the skills to fill it...all that will matter is that the job gets done.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think business would be run by the workers. They'd elect a leader like they currently elect a union leader and it'd be his job to reach production goals that are calculated in order to satisfy societies need. Also the elections wouldn't be to far a part that way the worker's demands wouldn't be ignored in favor of production.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Cthenthar+Jun 9 2006, 02:05 AM--> (Cthenthar @ Jun 9 2006, 02:05 AM)
OkaCrisis
What kind of anarchist assumes that post-revolutionary society will include a state?!

clownpenisanarchy isn't an anarchist - their name is hardly serious.

And though I'm an anarchist, I presumed Leninists (they used the word communism, so its a fair presumption) would be referring to, when mentioning post-revolution, but not yet "communism", would be meaning the transitional state, as I mentioned.

I'm just stated what I believe to be the theoretical facts. [/b]
Hehe...maybe I should be Clownpenisvanguard? :P

I wanted to keep this thread pretty open to anarchists and leninists to discuss the voting age. However, it has gotten kind of garbled.

So...for those who believe a transitional state is necessary; what should be the requirement for the right to vote? Is the voting age justified?

For stateless and classless society, how will the right to vote work? Voting age?

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+Jun 9 2006, 12:50 AM--> (clownpenisanarchy @ Jun 9 2006, 12:50 AM)
Originally posted by Cthenthar+Jun 9 2006, 02:05 AM--> (Cthenthar @ Jun 9 2006, 02:05 AM)
Originally posted by OkaCrisis
What kind of anarchist assumes that post-revolutionary society will include a state?!

clownpenisanarchy isn't an anarchist - their name is hardly serious.

And though I'm an anarchist, I presumed Leninists (they used the word communism, so its a fair presumption) would be referring to, when mentioning post-revolution, but not yet "communism", would be meaning the transitional state, as I mentioned.

I'm just stated what I believe to be the theoretical facts. [/b]
Hehe...maybe I should be Clownpenisvanguard? :P[/b]
:D
Sorry for the misunderstanding, since I just always assumed from your name (as I bet many do) that you were an anarchist.

[email protected]
For stateless and classless society, how will the right to vote work? Voting age?

piet11111
if they want to vote on something they are "aware" of the issue that is being voted upon and as such they would pass my only restriction of knowing what the voting is about.

anyone who it affects has to be able to vote on it period.
This is basically what I was saying, in less words, which makes it infinitely better ;)

[apathy maybe]

In an anarchist society people who will be affected by a decision will have a say in that decision (generally). This includes children.

If people can't be bothered, then who cares. I do not see too many cases where a vote would be taken (criminals excepted, exile, death, scorn, ?) in most cases I would imagine things would just happen by consensus or would Just Happen TM.

Current voting restrictions are arbitrary, why can an 18 year old vote and a 16 year old not? Especially when the 16 year old is more interested in politics then the 18 year old?


As to work being a criterion for being able to vote: that is just stupid! We want to abolish work don't we? Less work is better isn't it? If machines could do the work wouldn't that be a good thing? What is able? I am "able" to work according to you, but I feel that my depression would not let me.

[anomaly]

In anarchism, no voting age will be needed. When the individual feels they are capable of voting, then, by all means, vote.

What they are voting on seems far more important, in my opinion. Personally, I strongly believe that any voting in anarchism will be of far, far less significance than it is today. Perhaps only on minor 'housekeeping' issues or something.

CPA, feel free to ***** at me for getting off topic. ;)

[bezdomni]

You're on topic. :P


Sorry for the misunderstanding, since I just always assumed from your name (as I bet many do) that you were an anarchist.
No big deal comrade. :P

I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone else. That voting in classless society should be done by those that are effected by the decision.

However, doesn't it seem silly that an infant would then be able to vote? It really just seems like a way for their parents to get an extra vote. Hell, if one wanted to take over society...they'd just have to procreate like crazy! :P

I think voting in a transitional state should be done by those who work, have worked or are physically unable to work.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The only problem I have with no voting age is pressure from parents. How much work do you think it would take to get an 8 year old to vote the way you want? What kind of protection are you going to offer against this?

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 9 2006, 02:29 AM

I think that there simply shouldn't be a voting age, so that whenever one feels they are ready to vote, or compelled/inspired to vote, they would have the option. You can't tell anyone when it is right for them to vote, it is for oneself and oneself alone to decide, considering the majority of the voting public doesn't vote anyways.

That makes sense. Okay, scrap my idea of the voting age being 10 years old. :)
I agreee, good point made.

But to all these "You gotta work to vote" folks, I never saw anyline drawn, I mean is a "writer" or "philosopher" a 'worker'? Some might say so, others wouldn't. IS some one who say, shelves books all day a 'worker'? After all, that could be a non-paying job under capitalism, and some times paying.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:37 PM
The only problem I have with no voting age is pressure from parents. How much work do you think it would take to get an 8 year old to vote the way you want? What kind of protection are you going to offer against this?
I don't know why all 'communists' forget that the most radical suggestion by Marx and Engels (I think this idea was Engels) that under communism there will be no 'family' as that would eliminate a lot of burden on females and males alike. ;)

Rasing a child in a communal setting is a lot better, as it would promote communistic ideals.

[Genesis]

As I see it, the problem isnt as much working without voting, as much as the fact that you can be punished by laws you do not even have a say about.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Jun 9 2006, 12:10 PM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Jun 9 2006, 12:10 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 03:37 PM
The only problem I have with no voting age is pressure from parents. How much work do you think it would take to get an 8 year old to vote the way you want? What kind of protection are you going to offer against this?
I don't know why all 'communists' forget that the most radical suggestion by Marx and Engels (I think this idea was Engels) that under communism there will be no 'family' as that would eliminate a lot of burden on females and males alike. ;)

Rasing a child in a communal setting is a lot better, as it would promote communistic ideals. [/b]
I understand that but that doesn't matter. Kids aren't going to live in a daycare 24-7. Pressuring could still happen.