PDA

View Full Version : Too young to vote?



mashman
10th February 2012, 20:32
Alright, so maybe 14 seems too young to vote, but I think there are some distinct upsides that having "kids" vote. For starters it would force the educational establishment to introduce our prides and joys to those who lead us as well as allowing them to discuss policy before they're corrupted by the adult point of view. At that age there is still an innocence in regards to world outlook, yes I know that's not true in all cases, but still they want to be Dr's, Nurses, Cops etc... and it's not about the $$$ of the power etc...

Where adults vote for tax breaks and whatever incentive they feel benefits them directly, "kids" probably won't. They'll probably want to know about the important things in life like poverty etc... I saw a news clip a year or two ago where they canvassed kids of about that age and top of the list was poverty, the environment was in there too, it was all sans business which I think speaks volumes as to how they'll look at what matters, you know, the things that adults really don't give a shit about and we may well find that it'll open the eyes of some of the adults as to what is actually important. Who knows, it may bring on a completely new breed of politician, young, committed to the people etc...0

So I'm gonna stick with 14 :bleh:

What is it they say, get them whilst they're young.

TrentNz
10th February 2012, 20:34
16 minimum i reckon.
14 year olds dont have a fucking clue about anything lol

mossy1200
10th February 2012, 20:36
They prob do have a less self serving point of view but wouldnt that just be a extra vote for parents as most will be directed towards the family point of view.

voting at 8 would be good then we would have Big Bird as PM.

mashman
10th February 2012, 20:41
16 minimum i reckon.
14 year olds dont have a fucking clue about anything lol

That's the whole point. They're supposed to think for themselves. Full cup n all that


They prob do have a less self serving point of view but wouldnt that just be a extra vote for parents as most will be directed towards the family point of view.

voting at 8 would be good then we would have Big Bird as PM.

That happens anyway. Whereas if the kids are armed with their own points of view and the parents can't wriggle out of it, it may have the opposite affect?

My daughter is 8 and did a World Vision study at school. She realises that money is the problem and without any input from me (they will make their own minds up)... talk about a moment of pride :yes:

Scuba_Steve
10th February 2012, 20:42
Knowing where this comes from, I would be interested enough actually to setup a "mock vote" (same issues, same system, no power) to see what they did do & from that I think it would be worth reconsidering the voting age as you could well be right & maybee even younger is suitable? or maybee slightly older? but I would like to know the trend before going with a solid decision. We don't need people voting justin beiber the face of the 20$ note or nothing :no:

mashman
10th February 2012, 20:46
Knowing where this comes from, I would be interested enough actually to setup a "mock vote" (same issues, same system, no power) to see what they did do & from that I think it would be worth reconsidering the voting age as you could well be right & maybee even younger is suitable? or maybee slightly older? but I would like to know the trend before going with a solid decision. We don't need people voting justin beiber the face of the 20$ note or nothing :no:

:killingme@that girly singer ... I thought I'd get it out of your thread :) but I reckon the demographic would be more prone to voting for social/sensible policy, no not Labour FFS, than for a couple of extras $$$ in mums back pocket for her wine and fags. Could instil a social responsibility ethic?

Scuba_Steve
10th February 2012, 20:50
:killingme@that girly singer ... I thought I'd get it out of your thread :) but I reckon the demographic would be more prone to voting for social/sensible policy, no not Labour FFS, than for a couple of extras $$$ in mums back pocket for her wine and fags. Could instil a social responsibility ethic?

yea well I definitely think they could add balance as I remember back then money was never an issue so any "worries" were towards real world issues not financial ones so it could be as the adults worry about monetary issues the "kids" balance it out with "real" issues & we might meet a good middle?

mashman
10th February 2012, 20:57
yea well I definitely think they could add balance as I remember back then money was never an issue so any "worries" were towards real world issues not financial ones so it could be as the adults worry about monetary issues the "kids" balance it out with "real" issues & we might meet a good middle?

heh, I can hear it now, you're only 14 WTF would you know about anything... but yeah a good middle ground would be the "perfect" outcome.

mossy1200
10th February 2012, 21:09
unrelated but i couldnt help myself.I got sidetracked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eN9KP6lOZs&feature=player_detailpage

At least Party Vote adverts would be more fun

mashman
10th February 2012, 21:25
unrelated but i couldnt help myself.I got sidetracked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eN9KP6lOZs&feature=player_detailpage

At least Party Vote adverts would be more fun

Vote Hip Hop and get yer daddy dancing again

Big Dave
10th February 2012, 21:56
I think you are absolutely correct.

You are mad.

onearmedbandit
10th February 2012, 22:08
<img src="http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2011-03-14/1300078685471.png"/>

FJRider
10th February 2012, 22:16
Think of the bonuses ...

Minimum pay levels go up (Maccers staff are their friends)
Texting will be free
The drinking age will come down
The age of consent will come down
No pension ... over 50's culled ... OH WAIT ... :shit::eek::shit::eek:

SMOKEU
10th February 2012, 22:26
For starters it would force the educational establishment to introduce our prides and joys to those who lead us as well as allowing them to discuss policy before they're corrupted by the adult point of view.

So we should start corrupting kids from a young age even more with anti white, pro jewish propaganda?

mashman
10th February 2012, 22:29
So we should start corrupting kids from a young age even more with anti white, pro jewish propaganda?

Why not? They're gonna go that way anyway, may as well try to weed out the fee thinkers early that way we can have a society of SMOKEU's

Berries
10th February 2012, 22:33
voting at 8 would be good then we would have Big Bird as PM.
Leave Jenny Shipley out of it.

Indiana_Jones
10th February 2012, 22:58
Kids will vote for the cunt who will give them the most free shit....

-Indy

SMOKEU
10th February 2012, 23:03
Why not? They're gonna go that way anyway, may as well try to weed out the fee thinkers early that way we can have a society of SMOKEU's

That's bad to have a nation of youth brought up to lack the ability to think for themselves. People these days want the government to do all the thinking for them, and this is what leads to corruption because people put too much faith in the government, who we all know are a bunch of incompetent fools who are paid far too much money when all they do is make poor decisions and plan their next holiday off taxpayer funds.

People need to be taught to make their own smart decisions from a young age and not be brainwashed by some muppet wearing a suit. This is why the same idiots vote for the same political parties every election time, and they believe all the false promises the various politicians make.

mashman
10th February 2012, 23:20
So let them know what they're going to be dealing with... I would imagine a few teachers would have a few words to impart on their charges... hell I'll go in to a school, pick 5 stories from the week before and spend an hour or so going through why things are the way they are, answering questions and watching the discussion unfold... am pretty sure they'd think their way around it and we may end up with a generation of smart bastards :)

MisterD
11th February 2012, 08:49
Yeah lower the age and bring in a voting licence, that you have to pass a test to obtain.

Pussy
11th February 2012, 09:14
That's bad to have a nation of youth brought up to lack the ability to think for themselves. People these days want the government to do all the thinking for them, and this is what leads to corruption because people put too much faith in the government, who we all know are a bunch of incompetent fools who are paid far too much money when all they do is make poor decisions and plan their next holiday off taxpayer funds.

People need to be taught to make their own smart decisions from a young age and not be brainwashed by some muppet wearing a suit. This is why the same idiots vote for the same political parties every election time, and they believe all the false promises the various politicians make.

You've just described the last labour government.

FJRider
11th February 2012, 09:36
Kids will vote for the cunt who will give them the most free shit....

-Indy

Status Quo ... NOW ...

Headbanger
11th February 2012, 09:42
Raise the voting age to thirty, and remove voting rights from benies and crims.

FJRider
11th February 2012, 09:44
... and remove voting rights from benies and crims.

And anybody else that doesn't ride a motorcycle ...

mashman
11th February 2012, 09:44
Yeah lower the age and bring in a voting licence, that you have to pass a test to obtain.

On the face of it that's not a bad idea for pre-age voters... other than extra admin costs I can't see it making a blind bit of difference. At the end of the day people will vote or they won't, a voting card won't change that and you're talking about an exam on a subject matter that has no "real" answer which could exclude those who don't see things in a prescribed way... so I wouldn't endorse such an idea. A licence doesn't stop bad drivers.

mashman
11th February 2012, 09:45
Raise the voting age to thirty, and remove voting rights from benies and crims.

and pay us all $50 a week and just tell us to get on with it. Heil Headbanger.

SMOKEU
11th February 2012, 09:48
You've just described the last labour government.

I agree. But what has National done to change that? National are even worse than Labour because JK stands there wanking on about how Labour suck balls, yet JK doesn't do fuck all about making this country a better place.

Can you really trust a jew to tell you the truth?

Indiana_Jones
11th February 2012, 10:04
Status Quo ... NOW ...

Pretty much lol.......interest free loans anyone?

-Indy

mossy1200
11th February 2012, 18:54
Yeah lower the age and bring in a voting licence, that you have to pass a test to obtain.

That would be the end of the Greens party.

SMOKEU
11th February 2012, 19:05
That would be the end of the Greens party.

And pretty much every other party as well. We're basing this test on intelligence, not stupidity, right?

MisterD
13th February 2012, 08:01
On the face of it that's not a bad idea for pre-age voters... other than extra admin costs I can't see it making a blind bit of difference. At the end of the day people will vote or they won't, a voting card won't change that and you're talking about an exam on a subject matter that has no "real" answer which could exclude those who don't see things in a prescribed way... so I wouldn't endorse such an idea. A licence doesn't stop bad drivers.

Of course there are real answers - if you're going to vote you should be able to demonstrate a knowledge of how the voting system works and how parliament operates - stages for bill, committees, role of the speaker etc.

I have a personal theory that if there were a greater cost to be allowed to vote, then the perceived value of the vote will increase and the participation rate with it. Currently a vote is free, it doesn't appear to do much, hence the perceived value of it is close to zero...in places where the potential cost of voting is being killed, they queue round the block to do it!

Headbanger
13th February 2012, 08:06
..in places where the potential cost of voting is being killed, they queue round the block to do it!

Perhaps they have an urgent motivation for change.

I'd imagine that voter turn out increases with this perception within society regardless of the possibility of death, hence when the crowd turns we have a larger turn out, but when its all much the same then who cares.

mashman
13th February 2012, 16:59
Of course there are real answers - if you're going to vote you should be able to demonstrate a knowledge of how the voting system works and how parliament operates - stages for bill, committees, role of the speaker etc.

I have a personal theory that if there were a greater cost to be allowed to vote, then the perceived value of the vote will increase and the participation rate with it. Currently a vote is free, it doesn't appear to do much, hence the perceived value of it is close to zero...in places where the potential cost of voting is being killed, they queue round the block to do it!

Why does anyone need to know how the system works? All you need to do is see what the policy is and click yay or ney, pretty similar to that which happens at the moment.

You could say the same thing about brushing ones teeth. Brush your teeth or your guardian has the opportunity to beat you to death. The vote will still be worth nothing because you have been coerced into doing something that you didn't want to do, it's just that you'd end up being allowed to stay alive. I'm supposedly a growd up and I've never voted and as far as I'm concerned I have very valid reasons for not voting and see no reason why my life should be forfeit because I chose not to. I take your point, but even with consequences the value of the vote will not change in the voters eyes.