Should We Let 16 Year Olds Vote?
Rev_Blair @ Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:59 pm
$1:
Would 16- and 17-year-olds vote if they were given the chance? If a new private members bill — expected to be voted on by MPs in February — passes, they could have the chance to do so in the next federal election. I think it's a great idea.
The bill is co-sponsored by MPs from all parties — Liberal Mark Holland (Ajax-Pickering), New Democrat Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley), Conservative Belinda Stronach (Newmarket-Aurora), and the Bloc's Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères-Les Patriotes) — and promoted by Vote16.ca.
The bill is co-sponsored by MPs from all parties — Liberal Mark Holland (Ajax-Pickering), New Democrat Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley), Conservative Belinda Stronach (Newmarket-Aurora), and the Bloc's Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères-Les Patriotes) — and promoted by Vote16.ca.
Link
Personally I think this is an excellent idea. A lot of kids are pretty politically aware and those that aren't are really no worse than their adult counterparts. Let 'em vote, they can't make it any worse.
Streaker @ Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:38 am
Sounds good to me! I'm impressed that there was a member from every major party supporting this, especially the Conservatives.
Way to go, Belinda!
Rev_Blair @ Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:28 am
That's not really surprising...the youth wing of every party generally shows a lot of vitality and enthusiasm. A lot of politicians look at that and think, "If only we could get them to the polls..." They all seem to forget that every party has a youth wing though. 
figfarmer @ Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:23 pm
it doesn't mean they should vote any more than being sexually aware means they should be encouraged to copulate unchecked. Voting is a process left to wise and experienced minds. I think voting should be restricted to those between twenty-five and sixty five who haven't collected any public money(UI, welfare, workers' comp. etc.) for at least three years.
sk1d @ Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:38 pm
you really think that most people who vote are completely informed and are voting based on rational ideas? how do you think aronld became governor? his ideas are totally inline witht he people of california? yeah right, they voted him because he was famous, is that a rational and logical basis to make your vote on?
if 16 year olds are allowed to vote, more will vote, but i'm sure 90% of those votse will go to the marijuana party
blubs @ Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:06 pm
I agree with what Figfarmer said . Except the bit about 65 yr olds there are a lot of seniors still with minds like a steel trap . Being 16 is way too young to vote.
My personal belief is the voting age should be 21 and up .
Stellar @ Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:02 pm
FigFarmer,
You have a good idea, but sk1d has a good point.
The adults that voted for George W. Bush in the first election made a mistake. The people who voted for them in the second election still made a mistake (In my opinion). Now, I am not saying that iff people who were 16 or under could vote then that would change the whole election in a big landslide, I am just saying that iff people with the knowledge to vote for George W. Bush twice then what’s the harm in allowing people under 16 to vote! Another reason was something I picked up from Revs link:
$1:
Bergeron adds that, “In our society, a 16-year-old can hold a driver's license, he can work and thus must pay taxes. Under the principle of no taxation without representation, we should give 16- and 17-year-olds a say in how their tax dollars are spent. A youth of 17 could be called to serve under the flag, even to fight to defend Canada, putting his life on the line. Why should we refuse this 17-year-old the right to choose those who will be called upon to direct the destiny of the country for which he is prepared to risk his life?”
In my opinion I don’t believe that one should sit back and alow older people to vote for their leader when actually they have the same knowledge of the world as younger people do. When the older people vote and make a not so intelligent person leader then they put the young people of the country have troubles with financial problems and lives at risk. You would might actually be surprised on how the election votes turn out when the younger people get the chance to vote.
That’s only my opinion however and some people may think that George Bush is a great man and glad he was re-elected.
But I will respect that.
Rev_Blair @ Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:22 pm
$1:
it doesn't mean they should vote any more than being sexually aware means they should be encouraged to copulate unchecked.
I can't speak for anybody else, but by those standards I could have voted long before I was sixteen.
$1:
Voting is a process left to wise and experienced minds.
No voting is meant for average people to pick their leaders. If we restrict it to wise and experienced minds the polls will be empty.
$1:
I think voting should be restricted to those between twenty-five and sixty five who haven't collected any public money(UI, welfare, workers' comp. etc.) for at least three years.
Does that mean that business leaders don't get a vote either...a lot of them get some government money somewhere along the way. What about the employees of businesses that have taken grants and loans. What about students/former students who have unpaid student loans? What about teachers and profs? What about government employees? What about the families of all these people? Where do you draw the line?
$1:
if 16 year olds are allowed to vote, more will vote, but i'm sure 90% of those votse will go to the marijuana party
The Marijuana has a pretty full platform, check it out. They are not just a one-issue party. I doubt they'd gain more than any other party though...like I said, all parties have youth wings.
DMP08 @ Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:41 pm
I think great idea. I am 18 on January 13th. The people that Figfarmer lables as too 'unintelligent' most likely wouldn't vote anyways. Stellar, GREAT point. No taxation without representation. I shouldn't have to pay taxes if I don't get to choose who I those taxes to. Oh, and I believe you can only be drafted into the army at 17 if the country is fighting a battle on the homefront. Overseas wars I believe you still have to be 18. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what I'd heard.
figfarmer @ Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:58 pm
DMP. If you can't understand the difference between uninformed and 'unintelligent'(Is that really a word?) then that proves that you aren't well enough informed to vote.
Stellar, no Canadian, even if he were uninformed and unintelligent as most of the US is would vote for a Bible thumping fool like Bush or a moronic actor like Ahnee.
Stellar @ Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:29 pm
$1:
Stellar, no Canadian, even if he were uninformed and unintelligent as most of the US is would vote for a Bible thumping fool like Bush or a moronic actor like Ahnee.
Figfarmer, I was speaking more along the lines of American people.
As for the Canadian people, then yes I would have to say that they wouldn't vote for someone like Bush.
$1:
DMP. If you can't understand the difference between uninformed and 'unintelligent'(Is that really a word?) then that proves that you aren't well enough informed to vote.
I don't believe it does, Figfarmer.
Tman1 @ Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:56 am
Ya know all it comes down to is choice. Now will you vote for a forieiner who isnt even from Canada, a Women, if your the Masculine type, or some fruite you dont even know???? I personnaly dont think age has anything to do with it.
Tman1 @ Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:56 am
pardon the spelling
DMP08 @ Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:24 am
figfarmer figfarmer:
DMP. If you can't understand the difference between uninformed and 'unintelligent'(Is that really a word?) then that proves that you aren't well enough informed to vote.
Firstly Figfarmer, check this out. So are you saying that no people at the age of 16 watch the news and make themselves informed of current events? I feel I could vote for the party I feel would have my best interests (or the best interests of others) in mind. I woould know well enough to not vote for the "Enslave Canadians" party even if they promise no taxes and a thousand dollars if you vote for them.
figfarmer @ Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:34 am
"So are you saying that no people at the age of 16 watch the news and make themselves informed of current events?"
No. And I'm not saying that there aren't some dogs or chickens out there that could learn to mark a ballot either. I am saying that people who are in a catagory, most of which is qualified to make such decisions are those who should be allowed to help decide the future of my country. I don't think people under 21 are mostly in that catagory. I don't think those who live off the public teat are in that catagory. I don't think people in prisons are, or those who are in mental institutions. I really don't think anyone with an I.Q. of less than 130 should be allowed to vote. Likewise, those with less than a grade 12 education shouldn't be permitted.
Voting is being given a hand in the running of the country. Think about who you want to decide your fate.