Video evidence why teenagers should not vote.

[butcher99]

If you cannot process the world around you rationally, you should not have the right to vote.

https://mobile.twitter.com/YellowCube7/ ... to-back%2F

If you did not read far enough to get to the part where they point out that was fake maybe you are the one who should not vote. Read the third message I believe it was.

[bigtimeoperations]

Absolutely they should be allowed to vote! However, I don't agree with this "You must vote, its your democratic right, blah blah" nonsense. If you don't know what you're doing....don't vote! You cant just go in blindly and vote for whoever has the funniest name. This applies most to young people, who are pushed with ads encouraging them to vote "voting is totally cool" type thing, and they might not have done much research beforehand.

[cyruslosco66]

Absolutely they should be allowed to vote! However, I don't agree with this "You must vote, its your democratic right, blah blah" nonsense. If you don't know what you're doing....don't vote! You cant just go in blindly and vote for whoever has the funniest name. This applies most to young people, who are pushed with ads encouraging them to vote "voting is totally cool" type thing, and they might not have done much research beforehand.

Theres no proof of that .

[butcher99]

Absolutely they should be allowed to vote! However, I don't agree with this "You must vote, its your democratic right, blah blah" nonsense. If you don't know what you're doing....don't vote! You cant just go in blindly and vote for whoever has the funniest name. This applies most to young people, who are pushed with ads encouraging them to vote "voting is totally cool" type thing, and they might not have done much research beforehand.

look at all the people who go in blindly and vote Liberal or NDP or Trump time after time after trump. Most of whom have done no research beforehand either. just they have always voted Liberal and always will

[Ka-El]

This applies most to young people, who are pushed with ads encouraging them to vote "voting is totally cool" type thing, and they might not have done much research beforehand.

This applies equally to a lot of older people as well - particularly those who have always voted for the same party no matter the leader or platform and continue to do so.

[bob vernon]

Voting age should be 16 and it should be standard that there be a poll in each high school. The public and the kids at the school should vote at the same site. Those 16 and older should be given instruction on behaviour at a voting place and allowed to vote in class groups through the day. It would start them on the way to developing the habit of voting. Sure, teens tend to idealistic leftists, NPDers and Greens, but I'd rather have that than apathetic abstainers who let adults decide the future.

[butcher99]

Voting age should be 16 and it should be standard that there be a poll in each high school. The public and the kids at the school should vote at the same site. Those 16 and older should be given instruction on behaviour at a voting place and allowed to vote in class groups through the day. It would start them on the way to developing the habit of voting. Sure, teens tend to idealistic leftists, NPDers and Greens, but I'd rather have that than apathetic abstainers who let adults decide the future.

kids in schools actually take courses in voting and political parties and probably know as much or more than a lot of adults. Especially those who have voted for one party their entire life.
Take Kelowna as an example. The liberal party in BC are a solid lock in Kelowna and area. Other parties have a problem even getting someone to run. Do you think those people who voted for the Liberal Party (no affiliation with real liberals) studied the platforms?
That applies to the NDP and Green platforms as well. Locked in in some areas. Although I think that people think hard about NDP or Green on which to vote for.

[rustled]

On the other hand, people with an honest agenda should be able to convince mature adults with plenty of life experience that their platform is worth voting for, rather than relying on teenagers who have less experience and tend to be more gullible and more easily led. There are solid reasons we treat minors differently and have other expectations and standards for adults.

[butcher99]

On the other hand, people with an honest agenda should be able to convince mature adults with plenty of life experience that their platform is worth voting for, rather than relying on teenagers who have less experience and tend to be more gullible and more easily led. There are solid reasons we treat minors differently and have other expectations and standards for adults.

you under estimate the intelligence of the average adolescent and you over estimate the ability of the older generation to change.
You have heard all sorts of discussion here on many many topics. On which ones did reasoned discussion change your opinion. Did you vote for a different party? Did anything said come close to changing your mind? removed

[rustled]

On the other hand, people with an honest agenda should be able to convince mature adults with plenty of life experience that their platform is worth voting for, rather than relying on teenagers who have less experience and tend to be more gullible and more easily led. There are solid reasons we treat minors differently and have other expectations and standards for adults.

you under estimate the intelligence of the average adolescent and you over estimate the ability of the older generation to change.

Our society does not use an estimation of "the intelligence of the average adolescent" to treat adolescents the same way we treat adults, though - to give them the same autonomy and responsibilities. Nor does our society use an estimation of "the intelligence of the average adolescent" as a reason to hold adolescents to the same legal expectations and standards to which we hold adults. Instead, we sensibly allow for the lack of experience and maturity of even the most intelligent adolescent.

In my experience, the older one gets the more one changes away from idealism and toward pragmatism. It seems to me that's a significant impediment to any party with too little pragmatism - it's difficult to convince more mature people with more experience to overlook the lack of pragmatism. This is often because those of us who have been burnt by supporting idealistic solutions to complex problems understand how overly idealistic policies untempered by pragmatism can produce negative outcomes - unintended consequences that hurt people and damage our ability to provide for those most in need.

IMO, "lower the voting age" is an idealistic solution for parties that are unable to convince mature people with experience their platform is worth voting for.

[seewood]

IMO, "lower the voting age" is an idealistic solution for parties that are unable to convince mature people with experience their platform is worth voting for.

Exactly, well said.

[Ka-El]

IMO, "lower the voting age" is an idealistic solution for parties that are unable to convince mature people with experience their platform is worth voting for.

This assumption mistakenly assumes everyone of voting age right now is more intelligent and mature than your average teenager, and as often evidenced here on these threads that is simply not true. Younger people have a vested interest in politics as it is their future that is at stake. Those who are motivated to participate in the political process should be allowed.

[rustled]

IMO, "lower the voting age" is an idealistic solution for parties that are unable to convince mature people with experience their platform is worth voting for.

This assumption mistakenly assumes everyone of voting age right now is more intelligent and mature than your average teenager, and as often evidenced here on these threads that is simply not true.

Our society does not take the intelligence of the average teenager into account when making allowances for them under the law, and I doubt anyone would truly find it sensible to use what's posted in these threads as a means of determining the intelligence or the maturity of the general population.

Younger people have a vested interest in politics as it is their future that is at stake.

Our society does not expect younger people to be the arbiters of what's in their best interest - for good reason.

Those who are motivated to participate in the political process should be allowed.

The suggestion to set up polling stations in our schools has very little to do with whether or not students are "motivated" to participate in the political process, just as the suggestion that students should be allowed to vote in general elections has very little to do with whether or not students have enough maturity and experience to understand the consequences of their votes. It has far more to do with parties unable to convince adults to vote for them seeking a simplistic solution rather than doing the much harder work of convincing more mature, experienced voters they have a platform worth voting for.

[The Green Barbarian]

and as often evidenced here on these threads that is simply not true.

on this we can definitely agree!

[Rejigger]

In my experience with online discussion boards, people from countries where voting is compulsory, are well-versed in politics and global events (Australia, for eg.). It stands to reason that when parents are engaged in the voting process, the kids will become more engaged in it. Sure, there will always be those who won’t make an effort to educate themselves but if it’s in the very fabric of the culture, the chances of information sharing are greater. I expect this would also quell the spread of misinformation.