# Should 16 year olds vote???



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Should 16-year-olds get the vote?*
> Young not developing sense of civics
> High schools can play an essential role
> Dec. 6, 2005. 11:39 AM
> ...


complete article
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...524&call_pageid=968350130169&col=969483202845


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Sure, but how many would?? 10?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Geez guy can't even get a poll out the door 

I wonder what the voter increase would be in absolute numbers. My daughter would certainly vote.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

No, that's unrealistic and stupid.

16 year olds are still in school and immature. Most of them do not have a job nor even have a taste of the real world yet. They're suppose to be in school learning. They shouldn't be distracted with the trouble of who to vote for. As I mentioned, they don't have a taste of the real world, and they'll only be voting for whomever their parents want them to.


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

My daughter, who is now 9, cried for almost an hour when she found out she couldn't vote during the last election. She was even more informed than her parents on the issues!!


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

LOL, that's so cute.

But honestly, how many 16 year olds know politics, know how each parties will benefit/harm them, and have their own opinion about it?


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Here, they're old enough to have a probationary driver's license. I suppose we could let them vote in the Probationary Parliament. But, as soon as the guys they vote for make a mistake, they gotta wait two more years.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

> No, that's unrealistic and stupid.
> 16 year olds are still in school and immature.


I disagree with you 100%.
Yes, 16 year olds are usually still in school and some are immature, but I think they are as capable and knowledgable to vote as many adults I know. 
The adults go to the polls and have no clue what the issues are or sometimes even who is on the ballot. Young people probably take more of an interest in that.
What should happen is a lowering of the voting age to 16 and a raising of the driving age to 18 like it is in most of Europe.
I think a 16-year old on average is too immature to accept the responsibility of driving a car.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Well now......

Should 16 year olds drive a car? Drink beer? Smoke cigarettes? Do drugs? Work? Use the education system? Use health care? Pay taxes? Use public transportation? Be part of the economy? Be part of important decisions? 

The answer is yes to all of the above, you know why? They all do the above as we speak today at the age of 16 or older or younger. 

I don't buy into that they are too young and have no idea what's going on. They have to live by the same rules and decisions made by the politicians as we all do. When a politician screws with the education system, do you think that a 16 year old has no clue as to what is going on? Please....

Many adults today don't even bother voting, so why stop a 16 year old if they want to vote? As long as 16 year olds use the same public services, pay taxes when working and dealing with the crap from Ottawa, man they have every right to vote along with everyone else.


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> LOL, that's so cute.
> 
> But honestly, how many 16 year olds know politics, know how each parties will benefit/harm them, and have their own opinion about it?


When I was 16 I knew all the issues. I knew which parties supported which issues. In fact all of my friends were very well educated as to what each party stood for. 

How many adults do you know that aren't informed? I know quite a few.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

krs said:


> I disagree with you 100%.
> Yes, 16 year olds are usually still in school and some are immature, but I think they are as capable and knowledgable to vote as many adults I know.
> The adults go to the polls and have no clue what the issues are or sometimes even who is on the ballot. .


Agree 100%.
Some people should never be allowed to vote!



or maybe not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmph MacG forget "have sex".....interesting oversight. 

But yes for all the reasons he listed 16 year olds should have the right to particpate. They can live where and with who they choose, travel where they want surely they can make a decision about a candidate.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

I'd consider lowering it to 15. 16 is a given in my opinion. If the right is to be restricted because they may or may not be knowledgable about politics, or may be imature, then we ought to restrict it to anyone 18+ with an IQ below 125 because we can all be pretty dumb and imature. 

I don't know of any 16 year olds who would have voted the same way their parents do. They'd probably vote just the opposite in fact. Now, if we lowered franchise to 5 year olds, then outside influence of parents might be a problem. Not that all the rest of us see the real issues and aren't just influenced by outside forces i.e. media campaigns and buzz words....

'Imature' criminals can vote while in jail. 'Imature' murderers can vote. People with mental disabilities/severly low IQs can vote, and may be easily influenced by a care taker as to who to vote for. So how much does maturity and factual knowledge really have to do with the issue here... or is it just bias?


----------



## pimephalis (Nov 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Hmmmph MacG forget "have sex".....interesting oversight.
> 
> But yes for all the reasons he listed 16 year olds should have the right to particpate. They can live where and with who they choose, travel where they want surely they can make a decision about a candidate.


Voting is a right of citizens, but a right that is only conferred once a citizen has taken on all the responsbilities of citizenship. I understand the frustration with being allowed to drive and pay tax, but not vote, at the age of 16. However, a 16 year old is also afforded protections under the law that an adult is not. In particular, any 'misadventure' with the law is looked upon rather more lightly at the age of 16 than 18.

I say, if they want to vote at 16, then they are declared full adults and thus can suffer the same consequences as I if they get in to trouble with the law.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

moonsocket said:


> When I was 16 I knew all the issues. ...


When _I_ was 16, I knew _everything!_ 

Now that I'm 60, I'm not so sure that I know much of anything any more.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

I agree. The young offenders act is ludacrise. I think people much younger than 16 know what murder does to someone, and should be tried as conscious human beings, not just adults. A malicous act is a malicous act. I knew what was wrong and right before I was 5 and was conscious enough not to do 'bad' things. I think the line should only be drawn for certain petty crimes, so that formative years aren't lost in jail surrounded by criminals... but I don't think a line should be drawn for very serious crimes.

Either way, it wasn't 16 year olds who were demanding the young offenders act. Us wise '18+' citizens made it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Gerbill said:


> When _I_ was 16, I knew _everything!_
> 
> Now that I'm 60, I'm not so sure that I know much of anything any more.


And I'm 61 working on 62 and know nothing.

See where this is going, Bill?


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

When I was 16 all that mattered was:
Sex, Drugs, and ....... yeah! 

Waisted youth!

In most cased with age comes wisdom. I didn't say what age, but with age comes wisdom.


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

Gerbill said:


> When _I_ was 16, I knew _everything!_
> 
> Now that I'm 60, I'm not so sure that I know much of anything any more.



LOL!

I hear ya sister!!(I know you're not a woman but that's what I say when agree with something. It makes some guys angry. Pretty funny.)


----------



## apple=god (May 21, 2005)

Ok well they way i see it is, as a 15 year old, i know a lot about whats going on in the world and i think that sometimes when it's rediculously black and white in my mind, i can make a decision. right now it's not all black and white but i still know i would vote conservative. As well as all my friends are very knowlegable, infact just yesterday morning in the car i showed my mom up, she thought that the conservatives were evil becuase they were upping the gst by 3%, but obviously shes incorrect. ANYWAY. yes i think that 16 or even 15 year olds should be able to vote, hell, i play BATTLESHIP lottery all the time, and i cash it in and stuff and no convenience store seems to care.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

This is funny.

All of those who disagree with me... How old are you?

I'm 18, I just got out of high school and I _think_ I know the maturity level of kids at that age today is like better than you guys.

Moonsocket, I believe you were mature and knowledgible when you were 16, but times have changed. From personal experience, less than 5% of the kids that I know, in high school, acts like a mature adult.

I now volunteer in high school, help teach grade 12 kids in POLITICS class in my former high school. I THINK I would know the situation better than most of you. Remind you that my high school is in Markham, which belongs to the York region and is one of the better parts of the city...

I commute an hour and a half to get to my university in Toronto. With my own eyes I witness high school kids littering, bullying, spitting, swearing, judging people, insulting people everyday on the bus/RT/subway. It gets worse as I go further from where I live.

Good thing we don't have the Marijuana party here in Ontario... or else if the kids get to vote...


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

I'm 17, and I've always held the following as the greatest farce in our country. As of 1 year ago I became eligible for conscription, or in other words, eligible to give my life for my country. Lets just say that they make the call to fight and I answer. Lets say I get my left leg blown off by a shell and am forced to return home early. I go through surgery, everything is fine, and I decide to head to a bar with my friends. I limp into the bar with my full uniform and nub of a leg and ask for a nice pint of Canadian. Well guess what, apparently I'm old/mature enough to die for Canada, but not old/mature enough to drink. So I say screw it and leave. Turns out there is an election going on on this very same night. I figure hey, I've served my duty on the battlefield so I should serve my duty at home and vote. There it is again - not old enough. I honestly think this country needs to get a few things sorted out in regards to this.

Now with DoNotPokeTheScreen...I happen to go to Stouffville District, which as you probably know is very close to Markham and equally affluent. I know what people in grades 11/12 can be like in a social setting, but don't forget about what we do in an academic setting. The papers, presentations, and debates we do have given us, in my opinion, a greater view of the world than many adults. Additionally, we wouldn't be stupid enough to throw our votes away for the Marijuana Party...since we are fully aware that the NDP and Liberals support either decriminalization or legalization


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Its funny really.
At 14 years old when your body has just arrived, or is still in on the road to sexual maturity, the governments says your of legal age to have sex. The consequences of it could be an unwanted pregnancy with a resulting abortion, adoption, or teen mom scenario and a childhood lost. Not to mention sexually transmitted diseases, some that can take your life.
Yet at the same time, we seem to think you can't handle voting until your 18? I don't see the consequences of an ill informed vote being nearly as dangerous as having sex at 14 years old. Heck probably half the adults that vote are ill informed anyhow. Voting the traditional family party.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

DNP - my daughter is 16, going to university THIS year, is knowledgeable about the issues, drives her own car. She's responsible.

ALL you've describe is misbehaviour and acting out and that can apply to any age - just visit a pub just at closing.

To a great degree only those really taking interest will bother to vote - that's about all that happens now.

At 16 there is a real "discovery" of wider responsibilities going on and a beneficial "innocence" that I think can allow an inculcation of the importance of voting.
At 18 without the "habit of voting" developed earlier it's possible it will never develop.
At 16 there is still enough family influence that the "habit" can be developed.

I dare say parents have a bit more influence at 16 in at least bringing to attention and consideration.

Many kids are flown at 18.

Many political and social values and approaches - both good and bad ( racism is learned ) develop from exposure and family outlook.
Voting and participating is one of those.

I think those interested should have the vote.

pimephalis has a good point about "under law" treatment but we have different ages for drinking, sex, military service and one "adult passage" with little real danger to the newcomer or society is voting.

It's also an expression of independence as behind that screen whether 16 or 116 it's YOUR vote and no one will know your choice.
There are few things a 16 year old can really call their own choice and that sense of independence I think is critical to maturity.

For most 16 year olds I think it will matter little, for some tho I think it's an important milestone.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

If every 16 year old were as intelligent as trump or Moonsocket was when he was 16, I'd have no problem with that. Now prove to me that all... no... more than 5% of those kids are as mature or knowledgible as you are. For example, ask them what the Liberals believe in, and give you 3 correct beliefs. How many could pass that test?



trump said:


> Additionally, we wouldn't be stupid enough to throw our votes away for the Marijuana Party...


Are you sure they're not that stupid?

Truly, Macguiver has his point as well. Why are they given so many other rights while not given this one? Now are all of those rights given to them all for the better? Letting kids have sex at the age of 14 is a good idea? Try and convince me that it is, if you truly believe that it is a good idea.

Letting them abandon school and join the work/military force can be due to financial/political situation, so I'm not getting into that...

There is NO harm to let 16 year olds to vote, as long as they know what the consequences of voting for that party are... but the reality is that most kids can't even tell the difference between Liberals and conservatives or democracy and authoritarian. Educate them and let them vote when they know their stuff. Is it that inhumane to hold off their voting right for 2 years?


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Fair enough.

Only those who care would bother to vote.

Indeed.

I guess I'm just terrified by those irresponsible/ego-driven kids that I've encountered.

Honestly, the transition from grade 12 to University is insane. People seem to settle down a lot once they get out of high school.... Lol... and i'm the one to talk when I planning a party this winter...

Anyway... if by taking this philosophy, "only those who care would bother voting", then I guess the age restriction is meaningless?

p.s - Moonsocket and MacDoc, you guys are very lucky to have such amazing children.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Don't pluralize - my son is not likely to get driving privileges until he's middle age .......at least not on MY insurance. 

he breaks mountain bikes.


----------



## SMG (May 28, 2005)

16-year-olds aren't legally adults.

I think the adult / child separation age of 18 is a good one to use for minimum voting age.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

I could've been a proud owner of a Quad if I didn't pay for my insurance for the past two years... tptptptp and I hardly ever drive! 

I'm looking at getting a Vespa or a moped. Anyone know the insurance rate on those?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Answer to the thread question: nope. Make it 18.

And judging by all the l'il darlin's in their heavily modded, noisy Honda Civics and whatnot around here, driving _way_ over the town speed limit most of the time, I'd prefer they weren't allowed to drive either. My 75-year-old mother gets a speeding ticket for inadvertently doing 37 in a 30km/h zone, while I've never seen our own police pull any of these kids over. One of them burned through a stoplight the other morning (doing at least 60) while I was waiting for the bus to the train station, and nearly hit a pedestrian -- who luckily was quick on his feet and got out of the way in the nick of time.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, I always resented when I was in the US that I could go to war at the age of 18, but not vote or have a drink legally in the State of New York. I am not sure how astute a person who is 16 might be, but it would be an interesting concept to try for one election.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

One of the challenges is that at 16 they are certainly exposed to the results of elections, but for the most part are not yet taking a fullt adult role in the country. Most do not pay taxes etc.

It would be good to get more youngsters involved though. What about voting at 16 in local elections, perhaps even Provincial (where education decisions are taken) and then 18 for Federal?


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Absolutely. I think we have to see lower voter turnout as the result of political neglect. I coincidentally just wrote about this

http://www.ravijo.net/?p=3

This notion that young people don't know how to vote is ridiculous, older people are in my opinion way more likely to waste their vote, because if we are going to go with stereotypes, older people are more jaded and have far more self interest in anything they do. If you ask me, young people are more likely to take on issues that actually need resolving (poverty, race, gender, education, etc.). Furthermore, when attempting to marginalize the youth vote, consider what men often said in the early 20th century about the female vote... it's shockingly similar to what I'm seeing here and elsewhere.

For 18-25 year olds, where that regretful low statistic comes from, people are not often exposed, or the beneficiary of much government spending. This is oddly when people are expected to accumulate the greatest amount of debt, AND when the foundations of our families (ok maybe a BIT older, but close enough) is developed. Get politics to stop catering to older rich business owners, and start working for people in rough conditions, oppression and poverty, and you will see voter turn out perk up.

We must understand that getting people while they're young will change the demographics of politics for the better. I support it. Even if not many choose to use this voting right at first, it is no reason to stop them from doing it.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Also, I wanted to mention that older people are not doing to well as far as running the world. I think its a bit cocky to suggest that the youth are immature, when I see older people killing (Liberals: Haiti; Conservatives: would-have-been Iraq; both: free trade), stealing (Liberals and Conservatives; free trade), fighting (Liberals: Afghanistan; Conservatives: Iraq, name-calling (Liberals: NDP "say anything Jack"; Conservatives:... anything"; both: aboriginal focused systemic racism).

... The moral authority for older people to call others immature is somewhat lacking. Pack up your nukes and let the young people vote!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Interesting - the majority of the comments seem to indicate that 16-year olds should have the right to vote, but the poll results are against that with almost a 2:1 ratio.

Next question of course is how old do you have to be to be a Member of Parliament and actually make the decisions that affect us all.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Should 16yo be allowed to vote? No.

16 - G1 License. Must be accompanied by an adult.
17 - G2 License. Fewer restrictions.
18 - Can smoke. Can vote. Full G license. Now legally considered an adult.
19 - Can drink.

It's called Graduated Life. Dumping all of life's responsibilities on a 16yo all at once can be overwhelming.

As for the argument "Some 16yo's are more aware of the issues than some adults", unfortunately, we don't based decisions on "some" of the population.

Most 16yo kids can't make that decision. That's why we don't let them buy cigarettes. Because they think it's cool! Yes...that's smart.

We don't let them drink, because getting drunk is cool! Yes...that's smart.

We don't let them drive alone, because racing in the streets is cool! Yes...that's smart.

We don't let them vote, because they don't make decisions based on facts. They make decisions based on...really, not really sure...that part of my life is kinda blurry.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sorry your numbers are wrong my daughter has her G2 licence and drives alone and she is 16.
She can live where and with whom she pleases, has her own passport and health card and can and does travel without suprevision or restriction.
She can work, has a social insurance number.
Can get married without consent.

Drinking age statutes bear little comparison to voting.

In my mind voting should be mandatory for ALL citizens as it is in Australia.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

TheDoug: Woah! We all know that people in the province of Quebec drive fast and Montreal has a lot of bad drivers, I've been there done that many times, so don't just blame young kids driving as each province has them right across Canada. I've driven enough times in Montreal and Quebec city to know that adults like to drive like idiots as well. How about those neighbourhood streets where nobody stops at STOP signs eh? Yeah you know the ones I'm talking about... Could you imagine if they allowed people to make right hand turns on a red? Yeah.... 

As to DoNotPokeTheScreen:

Teenagers in highschool at the age of 16 are more a prime candidate to vote then probably the majority of the adults you pass by on your commute to work or school. Reason? They actually discuss politics at the time of elections in their classes, heck even you're teaching about it. How many adults here have gone to a class in the last few weeks to learn about who is running, why they're running and actually discussed the events, subjects etc.... What's that nobody? Hmmm who in this case is more prepared? 

Yes 16 yr olds may act crazy etc.... but sit them in a group and discuss politics or teach them about it, they will pick it up a lot quicker then your adult next door neighbour who is still trying to figure out why they have a SIGN on their yard and what it means to them.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

I dare anyone here to actually get up, go to a local highschool and find out how many 16 yr olds or ages between 16-18 actually know about the up coming election. I can tell you right now, you will be blown away. You have no idea. You think 16 yr olds have busy lives and don't pay attention? What about people who are working 40-80 hour work weeks? Get home late, don't cook, the kids had to microwave their dinner etc.... you're telling me they have time to grasp all the election campaigning information better then a 16-18 year old who actually discuss the issues at school during the day? Hmmm..... 

Considering the last time we ADULTS went to the voting polls, the percentage had dropped once again for turn out across the country, we adults must really be a lot smarter then the younger kids to not care to vote eh?


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

I'm a high school teacher, and I stress with my 18-year-old students the importance of voting at every opportunity: federally, provincially, and municipally. The problem is that very few of my students are 18 years old. For instance, because this election is in January, only half a dozen of my 50 Grade 12 students will be 18 in time for the election (I asked).

I think there are compelling reasons for leaving the voting age at 18. However, one clear advantage of lowering the voting age is that it would increase the opportunity for teachers to encourage their students to participate in the democratic process. If I could work on them for a year or a year-and-a-half, I bet I could put up some impressive participation numbers.

By the way, I hope all you ehMac teachers are diligent voters. We are role models for our students in every public aspect of our lives, and there is no excuse for not modeling appropriate citizenship behaviours for them. We must encourage our (18-year-old) students to vote, vote ourselves, and tell them we have voted.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

I agree with you, Kazak, but people here apparently don't really believe that 16 year olds can be THAT easily swayed with teachers/parents words. Apparently, someone posted that kids would often vote AGAINST their parents? Lets find some surveys/statistics on that.

As a former student and current "T.A" of politics class, it's really easy to brainwash those kids. LOL. That's why when I was a student, my whole class were lefties, because my teacher was one and no one is EVER completely unbiased. Very few kids can actually form their own personal opinion instead of being fed with their parents/teachers beliefs.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

16 year olds face real issues that they really do think about. For example every 16 year old knew back in 2001 that if the BC Liberals got in they would most certainly raise tuition fees, but because they had no right to vote they pretty much got a tuition fee increase shoved down their throats when they finally were old enough to vote and go to college/university. They also got a new $6 starter wage and almost faced higher auto insurance premiums before the Liberals finally backed out of auto insurance privatization under immense public pressure. They may also care about health care, transportation issue, and certainly the national debt which we know will be around for a very long time. There's also things like pollution and global warming that affects these 16 year olds because they will be living with the disastrous effects for much longer than the older generation will. And believe it or not teens do really care about these issues. In grade 7 our whole class was very much into the provincial elections that were going on, and our class vote of 55% NDP vs. 40% Liberal was very close to the 51% NDP vs. 45% Liberal results that happened in real life. Give them the opportunity to care, advise them that they should care, and they will. I mean even with adults don't we have to tend to force them to care and vote? My boss thinks politics are silly and openly admits he chooses not to vote. And no teens do not become easily brainwashed, teens are natural born rebels, they will fight for what they think is right, perhaps sometimes express it in a not so civil way but sixteen year olds are people too. Anyway I'll leave it at 16, darn 15 year olds.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

In the current "Online Political Tests Revisited" thread, people have been discussing the Political Compass site. I used this with my students last year as a way of helping them assess their own leanings without giving them a hopelessly biased perspective. It's impossible, of course, for a teacher to keep his/her own bias completely hidden, of course, and, frankly, I don't think there's much point in trying. Instead, I try to present the other side fairly. My message is always that the most important consideration is to vote. I know other ehMacers have strong opinions about whether an uninformed vote is better than no vote at all, but I think the first step is to get young people voting, and then with maturity and education, help them to make more informed decisions as they get older.

Voting is like brushing and flossing: you always want to do a good job, but, if you're tired or there isn't time for a good job, it's better to brush quickly than not to brush at all. And, like brushing and flossing, you're most likely to do it if it's a habit. (And, from my own political stance, when the dentist comes at me with the drill--hello, Gordon Campbell--at least I can say I did my best to thwart him.)

Boy, I'm glad I didn't choose proctology for my metaphor.


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

No.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

With the majority of people here saying NO to 16 year olds voting this is actually quite disturbing on many other factors such as:

1. 16 year olds are not trusted by anyone to make any decisions that affects them by living in Canada

2. 16 year olds are not capable of making decisions on their own, even though most of them never see or hang out with their parents, because of their busy work schedule these days. They are more around their friends these days then family

3. Somehow we trust 16 year olds to drive, pay car insurance and yet not to vote

4. People don't want 16 year olds voting on their future education system, well then you adults better RAISE those VOTING NUMBERS this year and actually care to vote if you love your children enough.

I strongly believe by allowing the younger generation to vote for their future, is something that Canada needs to look at. Other countries who allow it are doing fine, they have not fallen to a crumble. 

Do 16 year olds not care about education? environment? work? Sure they do, why should they not get a chance to voice their concerns by voting? I mean if adults are going to continue to NOT VOTE each year, as the numbers keep decreasing, then is it fair for the younger generation to deal with the lack of votes from their parents? I would love to see the explanation this year when and if the voting numbers once again decrease from all those who say NO to 16 year olds voting.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Let 'em vote. Matter of fact, they should be encouraged to. Otherwise the voter numbers will keep plummeting. And accordingly, we'll be getting the kind of government we deserve.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Let 'em vote. Matter of fact, they should be encouraged to. Otherwise the voter numbers will keep plummeting. And accordingly, we'll be getting the kind of government we deserve.


Exactly. :clap:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Sorry your numbers are wrong my daughter has her G2 licence and drives alone and she is 16.


Yes, if a 16yo completes a ministry approved drivers course, then the G1 license can be upgraded to G2 in 8 months instead of one year. So now we know your daughter is 16y,8m old or greater. Without a drivers course, you can't get a G2 license before the age of 17.



> Drinking age statutes bear little comparison to voting.


It deals with the ability to make rational decisions.



> In my mind voting should be mandatory for ALL citizens as it is in Australia.


That's just what we need. Forcing people who either don't know or don't care to cast a ballot for whoever's name looks prettiest on the ballot.

Mandatory voting is just a plain old bad idea. No good comes of it. Forcing someone to vote does not force them to become more aware of the political issues. It just forces them to step into a voting booth, put a checkmark beside a name, and be done with it. Either that or just spoil the ballot.

I would rather support licensed voting. Force people to obtain a license before being allowed to vote (oh, goodness this is going to open up a can of worms). That way, if you want to vote, you actually have to educate yourself about some of the key issues.

If you can't name the three leaders of the major political parties (Liberal, Conservative, NDP), then can you really make an informed decision about the direction of this country?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Licensed voting? Just what this country needs. More red tape and bureaucratic hoops to jump through.

_Bleh._


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> Do 16 year olds not care about education? environment? work? Sure they do, why should they not get a chance to voice their concerns by voting? I mean if adults are going to continue to NOT VOTE each year, as the numbers keep decreasing, then is it fair for the younger generation to deal with the lack of votes from their parents? I would love to see the explanation this year when and if the voting numbers once again decrease from all those who say NO to 16 year olds voting.


How about 14yo kids then?

Seriously, why is everybody so concerned about voter turnout? Who cares if only 1/3 of the eligible population votes? Does it make a difference?

In case you've missed it, here is how voting works.

Liberals get elected. Liberals do something to piss off Canada. Liberals voted out. Conservatives in.
Conservatives get elected. Do something to piss off Canada. Conservatives out. Liberals in.
Rinse & Repeat.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And I thought I was cynical. I take my hat off to you.

If this were the prevailing attitude, the nation would be witnessing a mass suicides wave.

(;->))


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... As of 1 year ago I became eligible for conscription, or in other words, eligible to give my life for my country. ..."

As far as I know, you have to be 17 to enter the regular army (with consent of a parent or guardian only), normal eligibility is 18. There are a number of entry points to a military career at various ages below 18, but under no circumstances will enemy soldiers be shooting at you at that age (you could be in Military College at 16, for example). Without a High School diploma, you will probably be rejected.

The chances of a 16 year old, or a 17 year old for that matter, being eligible for conscription are pretty slim. No 17 year old has ever been conscripted in Canada. Ever.

No Canadian conscript has even seen combat. More than 99% of all Canadian soldiers were not conscripted, and those that were, were done so over a political issue; people felt that Quebeckers were not volunteering as much as they should, so late in WWII a small number were conscripted from Quebec after a rather nasty debate complete with an election over the issue. The debate was, of course, because we had never conscripted anyone before.

Those that were conscripted after the election never saw combat (the war was over by the time they were trained and deployed), and that was the only time we have ever conscripted anyone in Canada. There is no authorization to conscript anyone in Canada now, and you can be sure it would be difficult to pass such a law today.

Some young people have volunteered for military service in the past, but today it would be pretty difficult to lie about your age. We know too much about you, we only accept High School graduates, etc. During WWII if we asked you how old you were when you were volunteering, we accepted the answer you gave. Today we're not so trusting, we want to see some documentation and we check it.

Mandatory Voting:
Democracies should not compel people to vote when they have no interest or no preference. It does not encourage democracy or public participation. Mandatory voting is the standard method to legitimacize a repressive regieme. I'm suprised to learn Australia has adopted a law more commonly found on the books of Stalinist, Maoist, One-Party and TinPot Dictatorships, perhaps best exemplified by that shining beacon of democracy, North Korea.

What, do you propose, should be the penalty for failing to vote? A fine? A little jail time? How about the torture and execution favored by those who pioneered these laws; after all, we should take lessons from those with more experience with these types of "elections" than ourselves.

Even if we never enforce these laws, never make the violator pay any civil penalty whatsoever, the tendency of those with no preference is to vote for the incumbent (just as immigrants tend to adopt a habit of lifelong voting for whomever was in power when they first arrived in the country). In today's election, that means a Liberal landslide (non-voters outnumber the numbers of votes cast for any individual party in the last election, so the incumbent should get twice as many votes).

If you argue for change, your best bet is to get those who would not normally vote to voluntarily attend the polls of their own volition. When non-voters get angry enough to go voting, they usually turf the incumbents out of office.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Okay, I haven't read most of this thread so this may already have come up, but I don't think age should be the criterion for voting.

I think you should have to pass a test, where the questions are set by a non-partisan committee (i.e. consisting of one representative from each registered party) that simply require the citizen to demonstrate basic knowledge of objective material relating to the current election, such as some stated platform issues, who the candidates for the parties in the citizen's riding are, etc.

A five minute test would weed-out about 90% of the uninformed voters who are simply participating in a popularity contest, and have no knowledge of the issues.

We are constantly bemoaning the fact that so few people vote, but I think the problem is almost the opposite: it's that so few _informed_ people vote compared to the number of people who are just voting because they know they 'should' but haven't given the issues any thought. We'd be better off as a country if only 15% of the people voted, as long as those who voted were well-informed and had given the issues careful consideration.

Now, before you jump all over me for being elitist or anti-democratic, I do think that all citizens (including 16 year olds, if they can demonstrate some knowledge of the issues) should have the _right_ to take this test, so I'm not proposing that anyone be excluded from voting. I'm just saying that voting is an important responsibility, and that we should treat it as such. Your vote should represent your carefully considered opinion, not a whim base on the number of yard-signs you saw on the way to the polls.

Cheers


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

If we lower the voting age to 16, then what is the point of having the age of majority at 18? What's the point of having the age of majority at 18 now?

Personally I would have thought 16 year olds shouldn't vote, but on second thought I think they should. They would be among some of the most informed voters due to the requirement of taking a History class during high school. That is, focusing on the portion that would actually vote. I'm pretty sure a large contingent won't because they don't care or don't know that they really should care.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Unfortunately, tests (used by most US states until they were ruled illegal) are too easily used to prevent, rather than encourage, voting. Even if you could create a standard test that varied enough so the answers could not be scripted, yet was consistently difficult, there exists potential fraud in the reporting of test scores.

Blacks in Alabama would be asked to list the signatories of the Declaration of Indepenence or the exact date of the Boston Tea Party; Whites would be asked "what's the capital of the United States?". You can imagine how that altered the demographics of the vote. Where voting rights activists created classes in civics designed to teach disenfranchised voters how to pass the voter's tests, examiners simply entered incorrect scores anyway, or officials altered the scores later. Ironically, the ineligible voters knew more of civics than the eligible ones. And so on.

Voter tests are discredited to the point where any use of them would be considered suspect, in any democracy.

The same thing goes on even today; since felons are ineligible to vote in most US states, a common name on the felon list is used to disenfranchise hundreds of individual voters with a similar name, based on prejudicial motives at polls.

All voters should be eligible without any test whatsoever. Citizenship and a minimum age requirement are reasonable limits. Any eligibility that has to be interpreted (eg a test of some kind) or involves multiple steps (eg voter registration versus enumeration/declaration) is subject to abuse and should be avoided.

Which brings us to the topic; why not 16 year olds. All I can say is, why 16? Why not 12? You have to make a decision as to what age people should be allowed to participate as a full citizen. If you can't sign a contract at 16, I don't see why you should enter into a contract with your fellow citizens to form a government. But, you may disagree.

When I grew up, you were an adult at 16. If you went to jail, you went to an adult prison. If you got caught shoplifting, you had a criminal record for all your adult life. If you hurt someone seriously at age 14, you found yourself moved up to adult court and in adult jail at that age. Yet, we didn't allow you to join the army before you were 18.

Today, juveniles have a graduated set of responsibilities precisely because they are not yet adults but are soon to become one. 16 year olds can drive cars but cannot sign contracts. They can have a job but don't have to have CPP deducted from their paychecks. In Saskatchewan, if your employee is under 18 and you require them to work past 11:00 pm, you must provide and pay for transportation to their home either with a company vehicle driven by an on-duty employee or via taxicab. These and many other things are designed to ease a transition to an adult world that is not, always, a friendly one. We might argue over which age, exactly, is appropriate for the right to vote, but I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that because young adults have one right at age x that they should be subject to all the rights and responsibilities of an adult.

If you do feel that way, then I suggest you stop for a moment and think to yourself:
What was it like to be a 16-year old David Milgaard in a Federal Maximum Security prison?
" ... Nice ass kid. Who'd you vote for? ..."


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Very nice finish to this debate, Gordguide.


----------



## enaj (Aug 26, 2004)

Maybe everyone OVER 16 shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Look at the mess they have us in now!!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

gordguide said:


> ...
> Voter tests are discredited to the point where any use of them would be considered suspect, in any democracy....


Okay, you clearly have some very good points, and I am forced to concede that, under current (and historic) circumstances, testing for voter eligibility isn't a viable option.

However, I would still argue that it's a good idea _in principle_ and that the problems you've articulated so well are purely issues with the implementation.

Perhaps, as our information technologies continue to improve, some of these practical impediments to testing for basic voter competence may become less relevant. Obviously any such system would have to be carefully scrutinized, and remain scrupulously transparent to be trustworthy. But I still believe that one of the fundamental problems with democracy is that it makes no distinction between a carefully-considered vote by a well-informed citizen, and the vote of someone who selects the 'guy with the nicest smile'.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

moonsocket said:


> My daughter, who is now 9, cried for almost an hour when she found out she couldn't vote during the last election. She was even more informed than her parents on the issues!!



more sad than cute for the parents


----------



## appleturnovercanada (Nov 2, 2005)

Note: Most 16 Year do not actually "pay" taxes. 

If they do not sign an exemption form that exempts them from paying federal income taxes at source below the Basic Exemption level then they may pay income taxes to the federal government. This overpayment is then refunded at tax time as they do not exceed Revenue Canada's Minimum Basic Exemption. Other deductions from your paycheque are indeed forms of direct taxation shared by the entire Canadian workforce. Depending on your perspective, pension, employment and employee insurance are considered workers rights in Canada.

This has lead to the fallacies amongst teens that "You don't have to pay taxes if your are a teen" and "Don't worry you get it all back later" Both of which are untrue. In fact beleiving this can get teens in to tax trouble!

Are they taxpayers? Sort of.

The funny thing is that I agree that SOME teens, should be able to vote. 

But here is why it will not happen.

If you create a "Political Awareness" type test that a teen could voluntarily take to demonstrate that they understood the underlying politcal and social concepts. That they were familiar with the parties, their platforms, the current political leaders and candidates, the democratic policies and principles of the electoral process.

Any age really right? Would it really matter?

And then they pass. 

Then as a citzen with a "Full Political Voice" should they not be able to request that the so called "Adults" be able to pass the same "Political Awareness" type test before THEY are allowed to vote .

And so teens are not allowed to vote. No matter how smart they are.

appleturnovercanada


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I really do think it's "self assigning". Those interested will or those with motivated families will make it a family effort.

I think both are important and I do think that it's a critical age to "get it started".
IF we think it's important and we have a "graduated" system for other "important" milestones why is it okay to simply leave it entirely alone until 18 - out of high school even then dump them into the system and say "okay you can vote now" and walk away.

At 16 there is home and school influence that can act as the "introduction" for those interested.

It's a habit to form that I think is important and I don't think we are doing much to encourage it the way it sits now.

The lowest vote turn out... ??



> The study by Jon H. Pammett and Lawrence LeDuc commissioned by Elections Canada reveals just how large the gap between the youngest and oldest voters has become. Using a much larger sample of non-voters than most election-related surveys, they found that turnout in the 2000 general election was *only 22.4% among 18–20-year-olds,* while among the oldest generations (those over 58), it exceeded 80%.3


http://www.elections.ca/content.asp...survey&dir=eveyou/forum&lang=e&textonly=false

So clearly the system now ain't workin' to get the youth engaged surely a change might be in order.
If voting becomes a "rite of passage" to adulthood then perhaps those numbers might alter a bit and the youth become engaged.

As it is for all the interest as revealed here in anecdotes that young people do have.....they are barred from expressing their approval or disapproval. By 18 they've lost interest. 

The last two years of high school really open up the world and tieing in actual voting while the school has some influence.....a good thing I think.


----------



## district (Sep 14, 2003)

I'm surprised that no one sees this issue for what it really is... a distraction from discussing _meaningful_ electoral reform as well as declining voter turnout.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not sure one is a product of the other. 
No question electoral reform is overdue but I doubt that would have much effect on a 22% turnout. Perhaps a lowered voting age can be part of a changed structure.


----------



## appleturnovercanada (Nov 2, 2005)

HOw fortunate for you.

I recently watched an episode of "Trauma Room" and the doctor gave a piece of advice.

If you don't want to be here seening me I would advise you to do four things :

1. Be at home by midnight
2. Sell your ATV or 4 Wheeler 3. Wear a seatbelt and don't ride or be a passenger on motorcycles (or has he refered to them "donorcyles") seemed to be tied for third.
4. Don't ride with a drinking driver."

Pretty simple.

You seem to have gotten lucky now if you could just be home by midnight!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

A Question for ehMac'ers, especially those in Ontario but anywhere besides SK:

Do you have the Youth Parliaments (aka Mock Legislature) in your province? Do students in every High School attend a party convention, form resolutions, form policy, nominate a representative, stand in elections in their riding, and then in June the elected representatives go to the Legislature, sit in the house, debate issues, and vote on them?

In SK it begins in September and ends in June, when the elected students go to the capital city, sit in the house, and spend I believe 3 days there.

How popular is it? Is it ignored by half the students, is it mildly interesting to another third, and actively participated in by about a fifth? Do those same people end up not voting/voting/becoming actively engaged in political parties after graduation at roughly the same rates as their participation in the mock political process?

I can assure you any student who participates in that program will become a voter, and anyone who can't be bothered (more than half, from all reports) simply won't.

I would like to ask all of you who think 16 year olds should vote in this coming election to honestly ask yourselves this question:

If I decided that I wanted to attract the 16 and 17 year vote, what should I do:
Offer more funding for education, the equivalent of $ 1200 for every person aged 16 and 17,
Promise to give every 16 and 17 year old a $ 1200 cheque "for education".

How much support do you think I would get from the youth vote?

I would think that, if they could resist being bribed with their own money and look to the <i>issues facing the nation, not themselves</i> (even though in this case, it's actually everyone else's money, probably) they are ready to vote. But, I honestly don't know any that would not take the money and run, and I know some very mature, responsible youth who will make good citizens when they are ready.

I know a 22 year old mother who can't wait for the election. She want's her cheque that Steve promised her, and as far as she's concerned, to hell with the issues. Do you think the 16 and 17 year old mothers would be more, or less, responsible than this girl? To her, a hundred bucks a month is the issue, and I can't blame her. She has a supportive family, she lives with her mom (who makes $ 50K a year), gets a welfare check, has the use of a car anytime she wants, and has 3 sisters to babysit whenever she needs it. What other issue could there be?

Or, perhaps, we should all vote like her. After all, they are "responsible young adults". Let's all vote like 16 year olds; they're obviously mature enough to assess the issues, make decisions, control their own destiny, and mine with it. 

How big of a cheque do you promise me, Mr Harper? Mr Martin, Mr Layton, don't shy away. Promise me cash, I'm listening. Mr Doucette: Hey, I'll <i>move</i> to Quebec. How much 'ya payin' ?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Gord, the fake gift bribes that are a part of every election continue because they work. It makes no difference whether you are 16, or 22, or 62. So long as some people do their thinking with their wallet, those bribes will work. But 16 year olds are no more inherently shallow than any other age group. Arguably more self absorbed, but I personally think the baby boomer generation has that one tied up.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I know many mothers who support Mr Martin and his plan for comprehensive daycare over Mr Harper's cheque; most of those with daughters of child-bearing age, for example. I just don't know any young mothers who are voting for the first time who do, but that wasn't my point; I used it as an illustration, since it is an actual election promise this time.

You are of course right, there are many who are willing to be bribed with their own money. It happened in SK, when Grant Devine promised to pay down everyone's mortgage to 12% at a time when interest rates were at 22%. However, he won by a very slim margin (he actually lost the popular vote), and there were other issues. By the time the first term was up, not only had the electorate learned their mistake, it hasn't worked since (people are still smarting 20 years later).

What I really wanted was for parents or teachers of kids in the age group we're talking about, who might be following this discussion, to honestly look at those youth they know, and ask themselves, in the quiet confines of the secret ballot, what would those kids do? What would their friends do?

What do they do now, when tempted by sex? Do they follow their minds, or their hearts? What rational girl, or boy for that matter, would have unprotected sex?

And just because some selfish adults can and do adopt a "bribe me or else" mentality, is it a good thing to teach our youth that that is what an election is about? What happened to "If Johnny jumped off the bridge would you jump too?"

Lessons learned young are lessons for life, and as the Catholic Church has famously remarked, the younger the habit is learned, the harder it is to break ("Give them to us by five, and we will have them for life"). Parents today have so much of their dominion taken over by others; the TV, the internet, the peer groups, the advertisers. What do you say to "I'm old enough to vote, I don't have to listen to you?"


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Do they learn what an election is about by being excluded from it? Or from taking part? In my experience, all by themselves in a voting booth might well be one of the few places that people from that peer-pressure heavy demographic might best be able to think and make a good choice. In all honestly, I am uncertain about the answer to this question, but I can see many good reasons to extend the vote. Not the least of which is that a predominantly older electorate has consistently proven unable to think ahead in their voting. Will a younger audience help that imbalance? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure. But they can't make it much worse.

Besides, if voting happened in school, it would be way to ensure that everyone goes to the poll. They can learn about refusing their ballot as a way of optiong out, but at least they learn to actual do something voting wise.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gordguide said:


> If I decided that I wanted to attract the 16 and 17 year vote, what should I do:
> Offer more funding for education, the equivalent of $ 1200 for every person aged 16 and 17,
> Promise to give every 16 and 17 year old a $ 1200 cheque "for education".
> 
> ...


They are ready to vote if they support being bribed with other people's money instead of their own, were they to be in a position of earnings. That's getting pretty close to saying that they're ready to vote when they'll vote NDP or maybe Liberal. 

And, of course, because only the Liberal party represents Canada, they're only really ready to vote when they'll vote Liberal. This should work out well. 

That testing idea is sounding better and better...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Why do we have to engage young voters?

Why do we have to be concerned with poor voter turnout?


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... They are ready to vote if they support being bribed with other people's money instead of their own, were they to be in a position of earnings. That's getting pretty close to saying that they're ready to vote when they'll vote NDP or maybe Liberal. ..."

Not sure what you mean here. I was proposing they're ready to vote when they can see beyond their own self-interest to the country as a whole, rather than allowing themselves to be taken in with a short-term winfall.

A few others mentioned that adults can hardly tear themselves away from "free" money, so why blame the kids for doing the same. And the answer, of course, is there's still hope for youth.

As far as any particular party goes, I know of no monopoly on sleigh-of-hand. Had the Tories not proposed giving cash to mothers we could have used another example from another election. But they did, they were the first in this election to promise a cheque, and they did it on the very morning I posted.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Why do we have to engage young voters?
> 
> Why do we have to be concerned with poor voter turnout?


1. They have a voice and have to deal with the consequences by the adult votes, good or bad.

2. It is truly sad when each election time, the voting numbers keep decreasing and decreasing amongst those ADULTS who are eligible to vote. Imagine less then 40% actually get up off their ass and vote. That's truly pathetic in my opinion. We as a country should be ashamed or embarrassed for that kind of turn out. I was absolutely shocked to see how many actually voted in the last election, that number was horrid and pathetic. 

So in the end, since adults don't care to vote, what does it really matter if we allow 16 year olds to vote? I mean, we adults don't even vote to get the turn out voting to more then 50% across Canada, so what are you worried about if we let 16 year olds vote? I would be more worried if this time around the total turn out for adults voting was less then 25% across Canada.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Macgyver, keep in mind that in Canada we enumerate our electors and the voter turnout represents the number of voters versus nearly every adult in the country (100% of adult citizens).

I am not suggesting 40-some percent is anything to brag about, but it's way, way higher than in the USA (about 45% of registered voters, but expressed the way Canada does, it would be around 20%).

There are a number of nations that brag of high turnouts, but you have to look at how they determine who is an eligible voter. Surprisingly few "democracies" would consider more than 97% of the adults in the nation eligible to vote as we do, and in many "democracies" the majority of adults are ineligible.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The U.S. had about 120 million votes in 2004 (presidential race) of about 220 million adults, leaving a turnout of over 50%.


----------



## JPL (Jan 21, 2005)

Tough call I think. There are compelling arguments on both sides. My son is 20 and we had to drag him to vote the first time he was eligible. His position was what possible difference can it make? They (politicians) are all self interested and liars. He and his friends had talked about voting and this was the general consensus among them. Not sure I disagree with them. I do vote however.

I think 16 years olds should be allowed to vote, provided we drop the young offenders act altogether and make children, young adults as well as adults responsible for their actions. We grew up in a society with no young offenders act and I think that society was more law abiding than our present one. That's another thread.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> _Why do we have to engage young voters?_
> 1. They have a voice and have to deal with the consequences by the adult votes, good or bad.


So do 14yo kids, and 12yo kids, etc. But my question wasn't about them having a voice. My question is about the apathetic 18yo kids that can vote. They have free will. Quite a few people have stated in this thread "We have to engage the young voters". Nobody has given me a good reason why.



MacGYVER said:


> _Why do we have to be concerned with poor voter turnout?_
> 2. It is truly sad when each election time, the voting numbers keep decreasing and decreasing amongst those ADULTS who are eligible to vote. Imagine less then 40% actually get up off their ass and vote. That's truly pathetic in my opinion. We as a country should be ashamed or embarrassed for that kind of turn out. I was absolutely shocked to see how many actually voted in the last election, that number was horrid and pathetic.


Ok. Voter turnout was pathetic. Again. Why do we have to be concerned about this? Obviously the ones who are voting know they can make a change, and are probably a little educated on the platforms fo each party. Why should we care about the votes of the apathetic losers who can't be bothered?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JPL said:


> My son is 20 and we had to drag him to vote the first time he was eligible. His position was what possible difference can it make? They (politicians) are all self interested and liars. He and his friends had talked about voting and this was the general consensus among them. Not sure I disagree with them. I do vote however.


The attitude is one that I encountered with young voters.
Some parents will take their kids to meet politicians and talk to them. Kids are often surprised to see that politicians are often "people" also and that some are honest. 
Sure politicians have "interests" but kids maybe surprised that their interest are similar to theirs when it comes to the environment and quality of living. 
Politics are a game and the best person does not always win but getting kids involved is important.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Quite a few people have stated in this thread "We have to engage the young voters". Nobody has given me a good reason why.


Often young voters are more idealistic. They do feel like they cannot make a change and traditionally candidates to not go after them. Getting elected is a numbers game and the effort put into young voters does not pay off. So, they get ignored for the most part. Vicious circle? Certainly.

I think that young people should be engaged so that they feel part of the community and by proxy may care about it. On the Federal level they may not make much of a difference (like most of us) but at the municipal level, they will have a voice and make a difference.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

If the government in Ontario seekd to have 'children' choose what they plan to do for the rest by grade 10 then they have the right to vote. Maturity level is pretty higher than it was when I was 16, and that was 23 years ago.

I have met 14 single mothers who have a better grasp on life then some 30-somes; 'maturity level' is never going to be a constant.

I think we should examine why the age for obtaining a licence to drive is 16, but to drink or smoke is higher. Your right, alcohol and cigarettes, etc., are detrimental to growth of the body and nothing to do with maturity. If the law says you are old and mature enough to operate a possible deadly weapon then you should be alowed to use the same judgement to select a new leader.


----------



## AlephNull (Jan 28, 2005)

Should 16 year olds vote? Yes, by all means.

Being a 16 year old myself, I struggle to really see any fundamental differences that would make me not eligible to vote in the coming election. I work two jobs, I pay my taxes, I drive my own car, pay my own insurance... And in the fall I will be going off to University. Other than the fact that I cant legally drink, smoke cigarettes, etc.. (which imho do not have much baring in this debate), there isnt much of a difference between a 16 year old living away from home, working, paying taxes, etc and any 18 year old in a similar situation. 

Sure, both ages will include a majority that really couldnt care less, doesnt really know the issues, and therefore, wont vote (Explains the 22.4% turnout for 18-20 year olds). Same with 16 year olds. The turnout might be just as low (or lower), but I still believe that the opportunity, the right to vote, should still exist.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

Answer this: _why wouldn't you allow 16 year olds to vote?_

In my opinion, if a 16 year old (or someone of any age, for that matter) has an opinion of which political party should be running Canada, they should be able to flex their freedom of speech and inform the ballot box who they'd like to be running this government. Obviously, if they have their mind set on a party, they have a reason, whatever the reason might be, and should be able to use that reason to tell this nation [by majority rules] who is the one to run this country.

After reading through this thread, it alarms me that people would think of omitting entire generations because they are, "immature". Are you worried that "immature" voters would give meaningless opinions? Can you see how stupid that sounds?

If it's true that only 50% (or whatever the number of citizens that don't vote is) of citizens vote, the other half likely doesn't vote because they don't know who should be elected, or because of laziness. Now, would a 16 year old go and vote if they didn't know who to vote for? Not likely. Some 16 year olds can't get out of the bed to have dinner.

Notice, I said "some". What about the other 16 year olds? The ones like AlephNull, and the ones that have averages in the 90% range? Oh, in case you are wondering, those teens do exist. Not only do they exist, but they are more than capable of having honest and justified opinions. How do I know this? I'm a fourteen year old and if there is anyone that could tell you how it is, it would probably be me.

Basically, what I'm trying to point out, if someone wants to vote, why not? The whole idea behind "voting" is to voice your opinion. If a 16 year old feels that the Liberals aren't worthy of power, because they think the sponsorship scandal is an unacceptable practise that should strip them of their power (as an example), then they should have the ability to vote.

One last thing. A 16 year old sees the world very different than a 46 year old. The 46 year old is concerned about different things than a 16 year old. What about the ideas that a 16 year old would be looking at? Obviously, these things include the likes of education, which fuels the population that will eventually replace those 46 year olds. Does education cross the mind of a 46 year old voter as often as, say, GST? Does a 16 year old care as much about GST? Probably not. But are both ages capable of voting based on their opinions, and therefore attempt to help their cause (GST or education, in this case)?

Think twice when you judge a 16 year old as immature. You'd be surprised. While it's true that some students could care less that there is an election coming, other's can tell you that we will end up in another Liberal minority. Actually, looking from a different angle, putting younger voters in the pool will spice things up a bit, and maybe the younger (and stronger, as most younger people decide strongly) voters will actually cause a different outcome. Most of you probably have no idea who to vote for, considering how there is a catch in every platform in this election. Younger voters won't have that problem.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: :clap:!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm curious - after reading through some of the posts and in particular the last two by young would-be-voters........would anyone change how they voted??

Has anyone rethought their position pro or con??


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Has anyone rethought their position pro or con??


For some reason, I still think 16 is too young. Most 16 year olds are not mature enough IMO. Yes they have ideas but only few can really inform. I'm not saying that 16 year olds are not mature (some are) but many still don't fully comprehend. I think that when someone is ready to sacrifice his life for his country then they are old enough to vote - in this country it's 18...

AppleAuthority inferring that a 90% average makes you mature just reinforces that maybe 16 years olds are not mature enough. It reminds me of some very immature behaviours by "intelligent" people. Your average should has no bearing on your "maturity" level. 

The reality is that there has to be a cutoff age - and 18 is the one.


----------



## andrewenterprise (May 22, 2005)

As a 16 year old myself, I'm with AA on this one. Why shouldn't we be able to vote? We are given the privilage to start driving, but not the democratic right to voice our opinion in who should lead our country, the country that our generation will be running sometime down the road. If you ask me, the idealogy behind it is certainly outdated, as voter turn out is extremely low, and teens are among the most informed group when it comes to political issues. If I were given the oppurtunity, I would most definately be out to voice my opinion as to who should run this country.


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

Three things. First, I agree that a 90% average doesn't mean you are more "mature" necessarily, but in today's subjects that involve politics, it can definitely make you more informed about the political issues surrounding us. In almost every subject, politics can be added.

Second, AE makes an excellent statement saying we are given the privilege to drive, but not vote? If anything, it should be the other way around. Driving is much more of a maturity test than voting. You need to be someone who constantly need to drive defensively, and avoid being ignorant to other's safety. While some younger drivers are not as good a driver as others (giving all young drivers a bad rap, again discriminating), every driver has their faults. Also, you will find some pretty crappy drivers in any age group.

Third, AE is correct when he says "teens are among the most informed group". In the information age of television and Internet, most teens know exactly what is the latest news within Parliament. Most are therefore quite capable of making an honest vote.


----------



## andrewenterprise (May 22, 2005)

Not to mention parliamentry involvement in school... 

And when you really think about it, how many people 18+ are "mature enough" to vote. Some people don't "grow up" until theyre 25, thus meaning that the any elections they voted in, was an uninformed vote...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Personally I think the main reason is to try and embed the enthusiasm and relevance of voting at an age when parents and high school still have some influence.
And I do think it would be highly self selecting and would do no harm whatsoever.

I also think that kids have a much wider sense of the world and the forces and issues involved due to the internet.

I notice the yes no gap is closing - perhaps there is some resonance in the thread. :clap:


----------



## Vishalca (Aug 5, 2004)

I am 16, and have been reading this thread with a lot of interest. I recently debated this topic in a tournament, and although our personal opinions are not to conflict with these tournaments, many students brought out their personal ideas in the tournament. I agree with AppleAuthority. As a student in full AP, there are a significant number of students who possess greater political knowledge than their parents! Like AppleAuthority mentioned, our perspective is different than adults, and in the current system, the issues we are concerned about would not be represented at all. Averages may not be a method of measuring maturity, but it shows we have the intellectual capability to make informed decisions. Having 16 year-olds vote also increases voter turnout, something that has been plummetting over these last few years. To add to the argument, in Grade 10 Social Studies(most kids are 15 at this point), the Alberta School Curriculum teaches kids about the governmental system, how we operate our country, and the policies of political parties, including the Bloc! 16 year olds not only have the education to make informed decisions, they have the potential to change the views of an election to make them pertinent to the future generation.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

AppleAuthority said:


> Three things. First, I agree that a 90% average doesn't mean you are more "mature" necessarily, but in today's subjects that involve politics, it can definitely make you more informed about the political issues surrounding us. In almost every subject, politics can be added.


Experience may tell you otherwise. Some of the stupidest people I have encountered were at the university level. Very smart in their field of endeavour but totally ignorant in life and other subjects. 





AppleAuthority said:


> Second, AE makes an excellent statement saying we are given the privilege to drive, but not vote?


If I remember correctly, it's a "learner's" permit that you get first. The full driver's license is at 18 no? 
And you would be ready to join the army at die for your country at 16? 


AppleAuthority said:


> Third, AE is correct when he says "teens are among the most informed group". In the information age of television and Internet, most teens know exactly what is the latest news within Parliament. Most are therefore quite capable of making an honest vote.


Ah yes, the arrogance of youth.... Teenagers are targeted like any other marketing group. In some aspects more gullible to influence and peer pressure. 
I have done a few documentaries with Teenagers. Although some have been a pleasure to work with, I really did not see any shinning beacon that showed me they are "more informed".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> If I remember correctly, it's a "learner's" permit that you get first. The full driver's license is at 18 no?


No



> And you would be ready to join the army at die for your country at 16?


Horsepucky we don't have the draft here  1am3r.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vishalca said:


> ...there are a significant number of students who possess greater political knowledge than their parents!


That maybe true - 



Vishalca said:


> Like AppleAuthority mentioned, our perspective is different than adults, and in the current system, the issues we are concerned about would not be represented at all.


Already you are seeing a divide. And a misunderstanding of politics. It's not "us against them", but you should try to work within a party to change it's policies. If not, found your own. 
Your concerns are often the same as "politicians" - they are human beings after all. 




Vishalca said:


> Having 16 year-olds vote also increases voter turnout, something that has been plummetting over these last few years.


Reality is that "your age group" does not vote. It's hard to engage youth to go vote. It's easier to scare older people into voting. Who do you think a savvy politician will target?



Vishalca said:


> To add to the argument, in Grade 10 Social Studies(most kids are 15 at this point), the Alberta School Curriculum teaches kids about the governmental system, how we operate our country, and the policies of political parties, including the Bloc! 16 year olds not only have the education to make informed decisions, they have the potential to change the views of an election to make them pertinent to the future generation.


This is nothing new. 40 years ago the older generation were taught the same things - and in Quebec we even had political bias against the English... What is to say that's it's not neutral?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Driver's license requirements change from Province to Province:
http://www.yd.com/YoungDrivers/default.asp?page_id=10&pg=2


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Horsepucky we don't have the draft here  1am3r.


No we don't but an age has to be draw up somewhere. 18 is the age that is "adult" - maybe one can tell us why it is that way?


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Experience may tell you otherwise. Some of the stupidest people I have encountered were at the university level. Very smart in their field of endeavour but totally ignorant in life and other subjects.


I was referring to the amount of political views in every subject, not so much a students' "level" of intelligence. And remember, for every pool of people, there are a few morons here and there, regardless of age.




> If I remember correctly, it's a "learner's" permit that you get first. The full driver's license is at 18 no?
> And you would be ready to join the army at die for your country at 16?


Regardless of what kind of permit it is, you are still getting behind the wheel of a vehicle (at some point). If you are steering a car into the wrong direction, there is little a passenger can do in the amount of time it takes before a possible collision. Also, as MacDoc explained earlier, you can get a G-level license before 18 years of age. Worth mentioning, as far as I remember, some US states do not have a graduated licensing system, meaning you can get full driver's privileges at or before 16 (I'm not sure however if a federal law has changed that).

Re your question about joining the army: In the past 16 year olds have gone to war (maybe not in this age, but I believe it was the case during WWI and WWII). Also, if a 16 year old is capable of bringing guns to school, and committing suicide (not saying every 16 year old does so, but it certainly has happened), then they certainly can support their nation by their beliefs in war.



> Ah yes, the arrogance of youth.... Teenagers are targeted like any other marketing group. In some aspects more gullible to influence and peer pressure.
> I have done a few documentaries with Teenagers. Although some have been a pleasure to work with, I really did not see any shinning beacon that showed me they are "more informed".


Not necessarily "more informed", but more like "informed enough" to make a justified vote. When saying _"teens are among the most informed group"_, it should be read as whole of all subjects, including politics. Whether teens really care about what they know is a different story, but at least these people _"know"_. I'm sure on average, a teenager spends a lot more time learning new information, whether it be via the Internet, or CNN, etc., than the person 10+ years older.


----------



## Vishalca (Aug 5, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Already you are seeing a divide. And a misunderstanding of politics. It's not "us against them", but you should try to work within a party to change it's policies. If not, found your own.
> Your concerns are often the same as "politicians" - they are human beings after all.
> This is nothing new. 40 years ago the older generation were taught the same things - and in Quebec we even had political bias against the English... What is to say that's it's not neutral?


Check this link out: http://www.elections.ca/eca/eim/art...?issueid=8&lang=e&frmPageSize=&textonly=false


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Ok,

Let me put a question out to everyone who is frightened by the very idea of allowing 16 year olds to vote:

Why are you scared of the possibility of allowing 16 year olds to vote? It sounds like a lot of older aged people here are right out frightened by the concept of allowing 16 year olds to vote.

I am getting the impression that most people against 16 year olds voting are within the age group of 35-99 in this thread? Or maybe 40-99? I think the root problem is, that you don't like change, you won't accept the idea of 16 year olds voting, don't like change, scared of change, sound familiar? Welcome to the current Canadian government. Or is that welcome to the last 50 years of Canadian government 

Why are Canadians so scared of change? Imagine if they allowed a 30-40 year old as a Prime Minister in Canada? You baby boomers had your chance, now its the younger generation that needs to voice their opinions on how this country should be run. So far, in the last 5 years, not too many adults have cared enough to vote. But, in this thread that seems to be ok, because it is more important to be frightened of 16 year olds voting instead of no votes. 

Are you people scared that the 16 year olds vote might deliver the right party in the end? Could it be possible that people of the ages 16-30 want change in a way that differs from your views? If so, then get all your baby boomers buddies together and actually vote this time around. Your arguments don't stand water as long as your age group doesn't turn out to vote.

ArtistSeries:

The number 18 is irrelevant these days when you talk in terms of adult. The kids of today are growing up faster, some are maturing a lot quicker then when I was a kid. Canada can't even make up its mind as to what an adult should be. We have 16 to drive, 19 to drink alcohol, is it 16 to be responsible for most law abiding things or you are sent to court? Or is it 18? 16 to drive a car but 21 to rent a car? 16 to work, but 18 or 19 to see a "R" rated movie? 

As you can see Canada deals with "adults" in ages starting from 16 right up to 21 for many different things. So where exactly does the number 18 fit in? Oh and isn't the age limit of having sex with a minor below the age of 18 as well in Canada? 18 is just a magical number, but for the majority of Canadians it all starts at 16 not 18 when they have to take on "adult" responsibilities while living in Canada.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> Why are you scared of the possibility of allowing 16 year olds to vote?


Because teenagers are dumb. Yes, they are dumb! As in, all their neurons are not firing correctly.

Most smokers start when they are teens.
Teenage pregnancy is a serious issue.
We have graduated licensing in Ontario because teens where wrapping themselves around telephone poles.

Teens do stupid things. The succumb to peer pressure WAY easier than adults.

This why we don't let kids smoke, drink, do porn, or vote!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Having 16 year-olds vote also increases voter turnout, something that has been plummetting over these last few years. ..."

Voter turnout depends on what percentage of eligible voters show up, not how many voters there are.

If 16 and 17 year olds turn out to be more like their slightly older siblings than their 30-and-up parents, making them eligible to vote will automatically cause turnout to fall further.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Voter Turnout:

Canada, 2000 61.2% of people on the list of electors (initial)
Canada, 2000 64.1% of people on the list of electors (after adjusting for people on the list of electors who were dead on the day of the election)

Source: Elections Canada: Electoral Law and Policy; Andre Blais, Agnieszka Dobrzynska, Louis Massicotte, Universite de Montreal, March 2003.

1) USA, 2000
Votes cast for president: 105,405,100
Voting Age Population: 205,815,000
Voter turnout vs VAP: 51.2%
These figures are official results of the November 7 2000 Election.
Source: Federal Election Commission, June 2001 (US Government)

2) USA, 2000
Votes cast for president: 110,826,000
Voting Age Population: 202,609,000
Voter turnout vs VAP: 59.5%
Voter turnout statistics:
Male 58.1% Female 60.7%
18 to 24 36.1%
25 to 34 50.5%
35 to 44 60.5%
45 to 54 66.3%
55 to 64 70.1%
65 to 74 72.2%
75 and+ 66.5%
Notes:
Only half of all US elections have presidential ballots, but the Census Bureau reports turnout is historically highest in those years.
The figures are a result of a Census Bureau Survey which required voters to self-report whether they voted in the November 7 2000 Election.
Source: United States Census Bureau, Voting and Registration in the Election of 2000, February 2000

The Census Bureau survey indicates about 5% of respondents claimed they voted when the official results indicate they did not.


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Because teenagers are dumb. Yes, they are dumb! As in, all their neurons are not firing correctly.
> 
> Most smokers start when they are teens.
> Teenage pregnancy is a serious issue.
> ...


Ouch.  

Can you explain the neurons firing off in President Bush's brain?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

AppleAuthority said:


> Ouch.
> 
> Can you explain the neurons firing off in President Bush's brain?


Unfortunately, a great number of adults have problems as well.

We don't have a perfect system. We don't let underage people vote, but we let mentally retarded adults with the IQ and maturity of 10yo's vote. How is that fair? It isn't, which is why I stand by the concept of licensed voting.

In a licensed voting system, if a 16yo kid can pass, than he or she can vote. If a 45yo can't pass, than no vote. Seems fair all around. That way, the kids who are smarter than there parents can take their place at the polls.


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

I like that idea. Now if only they could apply it to almost every other federal system...


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

I don't like that idea. It will only be abused.... either right away, or 100 years after it is implemented. Human nature will corrupt it. What issues will people need to know about to vote... or better yet, who's issues?

I am for lowering the voting age. Yet, I just feel the need to point out that most of the 18-21 year olds I know sucumb to peer pressure readily as well. I don't see what that has to do with a wholey private democratic vote though. It's just image, for the most part.

I can't see the mere 2 year difference from 16-18 changing the outcomes of the vote (for better or worse). I just think they are capable of voting and that it is fair to allow it.

I doubt if 16 year olds could vote we'd see an increase in educational funding, over the wishes of everyone else. They are not a large enough voting block, and I question how many would even push that issue.

What is the worst that could happen? I am curious... what are the hypothetical imature/poor decisions that would be made by these voters? What would the affects be that outweigh the positives of letting them vote?

When you speak of having licensed voting, what is it that we are voting for now that would change if only people with IQs of 125 could vote?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> What issues will people need to know about to vote... or better yet, who's issues?


10 simple questions. If a person can't get 60% of these, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

(These would all be multiple choice)
Who are the leaders of the three major political parties in Canada?
Which party is in favour of the death penalty?
The Conservatives want to change the GST by how much?
The NDP's budget allocates how much to national housing?
Why is the Green Party being excluded from the National Leaders debate?
What is the Bloc Party?
When is Election day?
True or False. When you vote, you select one person who will represent you locally, and select a second person who would make the best Prime Minister.
True or False. If you do not register prior to voting day, it is impossible for you to vote.
Who is Canada's Head Of State?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> (These would all be multiple choice)
> Who are the leaders of the three major political parties in Canada?


Depends if you either consider the NDP or the Bloc to be a majour party...


----------

