kidmoon Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Should there be a 'cut-off' age for voters? We all know that one has to be a certain age to vote (18 in the U.S.). There are reasons for this: mental development, economic/social stake in the country, etc. Should these same reasons apply to those citizens over a certain age? It's a fact that mental faculties begin to deteriorate around the age of 65 (give or take); also, I would be so bold as to say a 70+ year old does not have the same stake (for lack of a better word) in society as a twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty-something. Should someone so near the end of life's natural course be allowed a vote that could affect the younger generations' lives? Am I just being age-discriminatory? The moral is this: The rich life experiences garnered with age far outweigh any slight reduction in cognitive function. And if an elder was in the unfortunate position of being too mentally incompetent to make a rational vote, then that elder would probably not be interested in voting anyway. Thank you all for your responses. This was a provocative issue, and although I think I was misunderstood in some instances (whether by my doing or not), I enjoyed the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Should there be a 'cut-off' age for voters? We all know that one has to be a certain age to vote (18 in the U.S.). There are reasons for this: mental development, economic/social stake in the country, etc. Should these same reasons apply to those citizens over a certain age? It's a fact that mental faculties begin to deteriorate around the age of 65 (give or take); also, I would be so bold as to say a 70+ year old does not have the same stake (for lack of a better word) in society as a twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty-something. Should someone so near the end of life's natural course be allowed a vote that could affect the younger generations' lives? Am I just being age-discriminatory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Should there be a 'cut-off' age for voters? We all know that one has to be a certain age to vote (18 in the U.S.). There are reasons for this: mental development, economic/social stake in the country, etc. Should these same reasons apply to those citizens over a certain age? It's a fact that mental faculties begin to deteriorate around the age of 65 (give or take); also, I would be so bold as to say a 70+ year old does not have the same stake (for lack of a better word) in society as a twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty-something. Should someone so near the end of life's natural course be allowed a vote that could affect the younger generations' lives? Am I just being age-discriminatory? ummmm, yes. Yes, you are. I'll take the vote of the average senior (65+) because first, they're "stake" is already paid for; second, most have children/grandchildren of their own, and the aforementioned "stake" is just as important to them as any 18 year old; third, they've actually experienced life as an adult, actually remember what politicians have or have not done, and aren't as easily influenced by the "sound-bite" media. You'll change your mind as you get nearer to that age, quite possibly even be offended that some 18 year old would even suggest something so preposterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 ummmm, yes. Yes, you are. I'll take the vote of the average senior (65+) because first, they're "stake" is already paid for; second, most have children/grandchildren of their own, and the aforementioned "stake" is just as important to them as any 18 year old; third, they've actually experienced life as an adult, actually remember what politicians have or have not done, and aren't as easily influenced by the "sound-bite" media. You'll change your mind as you get nearer to that age, quite possibly even be offended that some 18 year old would even suggest something so preposterous. I think you may have missed my point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but persons in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s are also adults... In addition to being (for the most part) working adults, those in the 20-60 age range also raise families. Hence, they have twice as much to lose as those 70+ citizens. Why do states rescind drivers licenses of some seniors? Certainly they have all those valuable years of driving experience, right? Voting is a privilege, not an earned right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I think you may have missed my point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but persons in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s are also adults... In addition to being (for the most part) working adults, those in the 20-60 age range also raise families. Hence, they have twice as much to lose as those 70+ citizens. I don't think I've missed your point so much as your point has no substance. They have already "paid" for their right - literally and figuratively. You are making very narrow-minded generalizations here - "once people reach 65 they lose their mental faculties" "they have no concern for society since they won't be around much longer anyway" wow. hate to be your grandparents. Why do states rescind drivers licenses of some seniors? Certainly they have all those valuable years of driving experience, right? Unless you have specific examples otherwise, I know of no states that rescind driver's licenses based on age. Eyesight, maybe, but not age. Besides, driving is a physical activity requiring specific physical skills/abilities, sight being primary. Voting, if anything, should have an IQ requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Voting is a privilege, not an earned right. uh, nice sound bite, but voting actually IS a right. As long as you're 18 and have no criminal record, you have the right to vote. IQ tests for voting sound more and more reasonable, huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 I don't think I've missed your point so much as your point has no substance. They have already "paid" for their right - literally and figuratively. You are making very narrow-minded generalizations here - "once people reach 65 they lose their mental faculties" "they have no concern for society since they won't be around much longer anyway" wow. hate to be your grandparents. Unless you have specific examples otherwise, I know of no states that rescind driver's licenses based on age. Eyesight, maybe, but not age. Besides, driving is a physical activity requiring specific physical skills/abilities, sight being primary. Voting, if anything, should have an IQ requirement. Why is "once people reach 65 they lose their mental faculties" in quotations? I never said that, nor did I say the other quoted comment. The implication made with my remark on driver's licenses and seniors is about deteriorating physical skills/mental awareness -- this I did say in relation to aging voters. Both driving and voting require mental acuteness; so here we would agree that maybe voting should have an IQ requirement. And if you want to get into a discussion of who has "paid for" or earned the "right" to vote, then as far as I'm concerned the only people who should really be voting are military veterans... I reiterate: voting is a privilege and not a right. Finally, your responses to me have a hint of venom in them. Why? I'm not attacking you. I merely started a new thread on an internet forum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 uh, nice sound bite, but voting actually IS a right. As long as you're 18 and have no criminal record, you have the right to vote. IQ tests for voting sound more and more reasonable, huh. Legal rights are as good as privileges. Voting is a benefit of being an 18+ year old citizen. Legal rights, like privileges, are earned in a sense (a limited sense--not in the sense I think you mean). One isn't born with the right to vote. And one doesn't keep the legal right to vote indefinitely after turning 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planted In My Mind Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Should there be a 'cut-off' age for voters? We all know that one has to be a certain age to vote (18 in the U.S.). There are reasons for this: mental development, economic/social stake in the country, etc. Should these same reasons apply to those citizens over a certain age? It's a fact that mental faculties begin to deteriorate around the age of 65 (give or take); also, I would be so bold as to say a 70+ year old does not have the same stake (for lack of a better word) in society as a twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty-something. Should someone so near the end of life's natural course be allowed a vote that could affect the younger generations' lives? Am I just being age-discriminatory? Stating that mental faculties begin to deteriorate around the age of 65 is a GROSS generalization and patently untrue. Given that life expectancy is getting longer and longer, the average senior has a HUGE stake in the governmental process. Your statement brings to mind and old saying "Youth is wasted on the young." In answer to your final question, YES you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59LesPaul Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Legal rights are as good as privileges. Voting is a benefit of being an 18+ year old citizen. Legal rights, like privileges, are earned in a sense (a limited sense--not in the sense I think you mean). One isn't born with the right to vote. And one doesn't keep the legal right to vote indefinitely after turning 18. Um;yes they are.If they make it to 18 without commiting a felony,they keep the right to vote.If they commit a felony,they lose it.Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 Stating that mental faculties begin to deteriorate around the age of 65 is a GROSS generalization and patently untrue. Given that life expectancy is getting longer and longer, the average senior has a HUGE stake in the governmental process. Your statement brings to mind and old saying "Youth is wasted on the young." In answer to your final question, YES you are. Thank you for attacking me. These might be of interest: http://www.geriatricsyllabus.com/syllabus/...p?cid=SGS-DEM-1 http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/54/641/384 http://www.nutrasanus.com/age-related-cognitive-decline.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 Um;yes they are.If they make it to 18 without commiting a felony,they keep the right to vote.If they commit a felony,they lose it.Simple. You said it yourself... Last I checked, I wasn't born aged 18 years with a clean record. Legal rights are not the same as Moral rights. One is born with a Moral right. One earns (to some degree) a Legal right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Seriously....As long as State political parties continue to use either dead voters or non-existant ones to pad the count, why worry about old people ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 Seriously....As long as State political parties continue to use either dead voters or non-existant ones to pad the count, why worry about old people ? Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59LesPaul Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 You said it yourself... Last I checked, I wasn't born aged 18 years with a clean record. Legal rights are not the same as Moral rights. One is born with a Moral right. One earns (to some degree) a Legal right. No;you weren't. What exactly does earning a legal right entail? Also;I also said more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 What exactly does earning a legal right entail? In the case of voting, earning a legal right entails being an 18 year old citizen with a clean record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59LesPaul Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 In the case of voting, earning a legal right entails being an 18 year old citizen with a clean record. That implies that it takes work/effort to keep a clean record.I managed to do so;but only because I never got caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelmon Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Um;yes they are.If they make it to 18 without commiting a felony,they keep the right to vote.If they commit a felony,they lose it.Simple. Correction.... If they're CONVICTED of committing a felony. Voting is given such a sacred right. Then how come when a States' population votes overwhelmingly for something as say...Medical Marijuana....the FEDS (of which our current President touts State's rights)...come in and say sorry ! Your votes DO NOT count. You can only vote for what we agree with on a National level. State's rights, yeah right ! Only when they're in tune with the FEDS... I actually think the right to vote should be lowered to an earlier age than 18...and that seniors can vote till they die....which they already have that right. * I believe this States rights...and voting, is relevant to this thread...albeit a slight twist... Bush tells governors that states' rights, education will be priorities 'The vast potential of this country' Along similar lines, Bush called for the federal government to grant more power to the states. "While I believe there's a role for the federal government, it's not to impose its will on states and local communities," Bush said. "It's to empower states and people and local communities to be able to realize the vast potential of this country." http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLI...nors/index.html Yeah right...till the states vote on something he doesn't agree with.... another hypocrital move on Bush's part... Bush EPA Denies States Rights to Rein in Auto Pollution The Bush administration served up a holiday helping of coal and switches on December 19 when the Environmental Protection Agency denied California and 16 other states the right to adopt stricter automobile emissions standards than federal rules require. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said the California rules were preempted by federal authority.....President Bush, a longtime and vocal proponent of states rights, praised Johnson's decision. http://sierraclub.typepad.com/scrapbook/20...epa-denies.html Yeah right...again ! And this is cynical ? NOT !!! I AM though...cynical of voting...it'll only count if it's in tune with what the FEDS dictate.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyMerkin Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Should there be a 'cut-off' age for voters? We all know that one has to be a certain age to vote (18 in the U.S.). There are reasons for this: mental development, economic/social stake in the country, etc. Should these same reasons apply to those citizens over a certain age? It's a fact that mental faculties begin to deteriorate around the age of 65 (give or take); also, I would be so bold as to say a 70+ year old does not have the same stake (for lack of a better word) in society as a twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty-something. Should someone so near the end of life's natural course be allowed a vote that could affect the younger generations' lives? Am I just being age-discriminatory? Younger = better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KashmirDevi Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Should there be a 'cut-off' age for voters? Voting, NO. Driving, YES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59LesPaul Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Correction.... If they're CONVICTED of committing a felony. That's what I meant...... Hence my comment about not being caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelmon Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 That's what I meant...... Hence my comment about not being caught. And to that....even getting caught...they may decide not to prosecute. That's really what you meant, right ? Case dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Are senior citizens or those of advanced age less of a citizen, that they should not be afforded the same rights as someone my age (25)? What crap. I voted on Tuesday, and I saw people of all ages in line. BTW, doesn't the 26th Amendment to the Constitution state the following: "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." I'm no Constitutional scholar, but that seems pretty clear-cut to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Hi all, Yes that was ameded on 7/1/71,before that it was 21 and the argument at the time was if someone could be drafted then why could they not vote? Sort of reverse of the drinking age,it use to be 18,but when the Feds threatened to withhold $$$ for highways,etc the states caved in,but we still can smoke and go into the service at 18(WTF?) Now your 18,a citizen(you can debate that one!) and NOT a felony,you have the right to vote. Age limit the other way?It never will happen. KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Hi all, Yes that was ameded on 7/1/71,before that it was 21 and the argument at the time was if someone could be drafted then why could they not vote? Sort of reverse of the drinking age,it use to be 18,but when the Feds threatened to withhold $$ for highways,etc the states caved in,but we still can smoke and go into the service at 18(WTF?) Now your 18,a citizen(you can debate that one!) and NOT a felony,you have the right to vote. Age limit the other way?It never will happen. KB I'm aware when that amendment was drafted and ratified and I'm also aware of what precipitated its origins. And the argument was not just that if you can be drafted you should be able to vote, it was that people who were of draft-age should be able to vote for the civilian government that determines when and how military force is used. So that extends into peacetime circumstances, not just when the country is at war. Also, the idea of lowering the voting age to 18 had been proposed by both Dwight Eisenhower and LBJ, and some states did in fact lower their minimum voting age, however there was no across-the-board federal law doing so yet. But that final statement in the amendment is the kicker here; you can't deny someone the right to vote based on age, and it goes either way. You can't tell a 19 year old they're too young, and you can't tell a 60 year old they're too old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.