Liberals Want Voting Age Lowered to 16

[1feral1]

...rubicon.......
..... emancipated minors......

Crikey, at the ripe ole age of 49, I have never heard of the word rubicon before, and as for emancipated minors, shyte bloody gawd almighty, what dictionaries and/or text books do you spend your entire hours awake reading? 

Now back on topic. On the more sane side of reality, at 16 to vote in a government, yet not old enough to have a beer, or deploy into harms way, or be an adult at that, well giving someone the keys to a car at 16 is bad enough, but keys to elect a government is even more insane.

Stay with 18. A 16 yr old is a child (even though at 16 I thought I knew it all - boy was I wrong).

As much as those ghey Libs want this, it aint going to happen.

EDITed to remove 'insult'

 

[Steel Badger]

Rubicon?  16 year olds from Nova Scotia can now cross a small stream on the border of Transalpine Gaul and contest Pompey for the control of Rome? 

 

[TheHead]

Overwatch Downunder that's un-called for, as much as I disagree with cog-dis's opinions at time just because he has a better vocabulary than you doesn't mean you are free to insult him. Also I don't understand why you have to insult the Liberals by calling them "Ghey/Gay", sexual orientation should never be used as an insult.


Now, back on topic. 

  I disagree with this proposal also.  I find people at the age of 16 don't do enough critical thinking of their own and are swayed more by media than independent research.

 

[slowmode]

Liberals...thats all i have to say

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Crikey, at the ripe ole age of 49, I have never heard of the word rubicon before, and as for emancipated minors, shyte bloody gawd almighty, what dictionaries and/or text books do you spend your entire hours awake reading? Between being an obvious student and fighting on the anti-war front, methinks you have little or no time for you so called Reserve duty.

In short, get a life.

Overwatch Downunder...........stick to the topic.
You are over the line.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

To clear up any misunderstandings. As Steel Badger pointed out, Rubicon is a historical reference. What I mean by "rubicon" is that, the age of 18 is a perfectly fine line needed to cross in order to be considered an adult. As arbitrary as it may be, its a fair enough one. As well, an emancipated minor are those under 18 who have freed themselves from the control of their parent or guardian. Wikipedia has a relevant article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipated_minor

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

-C/D

 

[1feral1]

Overwatch Downunder that's un-called for, as much as I disagree with cog-dis's opinions at time just because he has a better vocabulary than you doesn't mean you are free to insult him. Also I don't understand why you have to insult the Liberals by calling them "Ghey/Gay", sexual orientation should never be used as an insult.

A little bit direct perhaps, but not an insult. If I was to 'insult' him, I'd go for a PM to him.

Firstly, he is nothing but a troll, and I have had a gutful of him, so Mr Head, stop being so bloody PC. Read his ENTIRE history before you go toe to toe with me. We are on the same side.

This troll insults us serving members everytime he opens his gob.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Firstly, he is nothing but a troll, and I have had a gutful of him, so Mr Head, pull your head in, and stop being so bloody PC. Read his history before you go toe to toe with me lad!

So cut the insult crap out, this troll insults us everytime he opens with gob.

That's it. Open your mouth again, and you're gone. The only one trolling here is YOU!!

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[ARMY_101]

There's already a problem with voting in Canada, but it's not going to be fixed by lowering the voting age.  It's already been pointed out that even some 18-year-olds are not mature nor informed enough to be able to understand how voting for Stephen Harper versus Stephane Dion will impact their lives (some couldn't even name the five major parties).  With barely 59% of eligible people coming out to vote in the most recent election, it needs to be examined why people are not voting before we go to try and expand the age for voters.  Perhaps politicians making more of a connection with young audiences who are looking for information on subsidized education and how they will be looked after could help younger people get to the polls, rather than simply lowering the age requirements.

 

[1feral1]

That's it. Open your mouth again, and you're gone. Milnet.ca Staff

Point taken.

Head, sorry for the outburst. WRT ghey, please take the time to do a search on this site for this word and see how it is used. Go here  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search2, and type in ghey, its got nothing to do with people's sexuality, and the term has even been used by Moderators on this site. See for yourself.

CD, you're on ignore. I won't be baited by you or your posts anymore. Your posts often flash me back to some rather unpleasant times, and things I've endured, so people with your way of thought still get to do this freely. Time will tell for you on this site.

Mods, I appologise for my two posts in this thread. My emotions/frustrations just got the best of me. I admit that.

I've come too far on this site to be punted for remarks I perhaps should have thought over about first, or better yet not posted at all. As a senior member of this site, I would like to warn other senior members that no one is immune to 'Modulator discretion', so please keep your emotions in check, as we've all come too far to be removed from here.

Sorry to all if any feather rustled.

At 49, and a Veteran at that, its another lesson learned.

Emotions and frustrations now in check.

OWDU

 

[TheHead]

Thanks for clearing that term up with me Down Under. 

Cheers.

 

[1feral1]

Like I said mate, we're on the same side.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[vonGarvin]

Rubicon?   16 year olds from Nova Scotia can now cross a small stream on the border of Transalpine Gaul and contest Pompey for the control of Rome? 

:rofl:
YES!


I think that a sixteen year old is (a) too much emotion and (b) not legally responsible.  What do I mean by this?  Let me explain
16 year olds are just coming out of the "fun" part of puberty.  We all know that emotions cloud judgement, and at 16, a person doesn't have the experience to realise that judgement is impaired.
A 16 year old who is convicted of comitting murder will be treated as a "young offender".  A 16 year old cannot display nude pictures of himself/herself.  A 16 year old cannot deploy as a member of the CF beyond Canada's borders.  Yet some wish to take such a person and give them the privilege, perhaps THE GREATEST privilege we have, and that is the power to vote?  As the horse used to say: "No sir, I don't like it"

 

[a_majoor]

While 16 year olds don't (for the most part) have the maturity and judgement of their older peers, older voters often don't take the time to study or know the issues either (see here).

Maybe we need to ensure voters know and understand what is going on: Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" offered volunteering for some sort of national service, or you could administer a quiz at the polling station ("Which party proposed "X"?), or even just sell votes (Really. If you had to purchase a ballot from the State, you probably would be more inclined to know what you are buying). I'm sure the really smart people on this forum can come up with more reasonable proposals.

 

[Old Sweat]

And their Liberal cousins in Upper Canada don't want their prospective voters to be able to give two friends a ride to Timmy's for a coffee.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

Maybe we need to ensure voters know and understand what is going on: Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" offered volunteering for some sort of national service, or you could administer a quiz at the polling station ("Which party proposed "X"?), or even just sell votes (Really. If you had to purchase a ballot from the State, you probably would be more inclined to know what you are buying). I'm sure the really smart people on this forum can come up with more reasonable proposals.

I must vehemently disagree with this idea on so many levels. The first, administering quizzes would not only be a huge bureaucratic burden (not to mention who would decide the questions? How can we make sure the questions are not biased?), but also it would disenfranchise many groups and peoples. Remember, "voting tests" were exactly what was used in the southern United States to disenfranchise black voters. Furthermore, selling votes is a horrible idea as well. The right to vote is inalienable, and to have it become a commodity would be the worst thing possible. I cannot even begin to list the flaws with that as it should be inherently obvious, but I think the most obvious is that money is not, and should not be, a measure of ones franchise whatsoever. People in poverty have the right to vote because they are affected by the choices of their government, by making it into a commodity you are literally disenfranchising them. People in poverty are already the most affected by national policy, and to even limit their abilities even more is abhorrent.

As for Heinlein's political ideology, I, as many others find it to be untenable as far as national policy goes. Despite being proud of what I have done and continue to do (that is, serving my country) it shouldn't be a measure of ones franchise either. Yes I understand that civic non-military service would be offered as well, but it really flies in the face of equality that we strive for in our society. For a great rip on Heinlein just watch the movie Starship Troopers, it was directed and shot as a satire of the book. One can especially see this at the start with its blatant jingoism and militarism (e.g. the kids squishing bugs on planet earth in "doing their part", and "who wants bullets?" and kids rushing over to grab them). The military has a very set and special way of doing things, but they are designed for that purpose only. Militarism outside of the military as an institution leads to very bad situations.

-C/D

 

[Michael OLeary]

The military has a very set and special way of doing things, but they are designed for that purpose only.  Militarism outside of the military as an institution leads to very bad situations.

And in democratic states I think the most common example is called UNIONISM.

 

[a_majoor]

Then how do you propose to have voters know and understand what they are voting for. Do you want elections decided by people who vote for a candidate without knowing what he stands for?

Here are some highlights of Zogby's poll of Obama voters:

* 57 percent thought the Republicans still control Congress. Note that this is worse than a random result, since there are only two possible answers.

* Only 12 percent could identify Obama as the candidate who said that his energy policies would cause the cost of electricity to skyrocket.

People pay more attention when they go out and buy bread and milk, so we should expect at least that level of attentiveness when selecting our legislators.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

And in democratic states I think the most common example is called UNIONISM.

Disagree. Unions have by far and large been a great overseer of worker's rights. There is very little militarism in the way I am speaking of in terms of politics, and Unions still serve a great purpose overall.

-C/D

 

[Michael OLeary]

Disagree. Unions have by far and large been a great overseer of worker's rights. There is very little militarism in the way I am speaking of in terms of politics, and Unions still serve a great purpose overall.

-C/D

You can't have the job if you don't belong to the union.
You have to belong to the union and you have to pay the union dues.
The union will decide when you go on strike, even if you can't afford it.
The union will decide what's good for you.

Nope, no militarism there.