This is just foolish.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/9647629/Argentina-lowers-voting-age-to-16.html
QuoteArgentina lowers voting age to 16
Argentina has lowered its voting age to 16 from 18, a change that could help politically ailing President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner court the youth vote ahead of 2013 midterm elections.
6:50AM GMT 01 Nov 2012
Dozens of opposition members of the lower house of Congress walked out of the rancorous late-night session just before the measure won final approval by a vote of 131 to 2.
Kirchner, who polls well among younger voters, has not ruled out a bid by her supporters to change the constitution to allow her to run for a third term in 2015. Legions of youthful activists have joined the "Campora" movement, known for its rowdy demonstrations in favour of Kirchner's heterodox policies.
Sceptics say the new law is aimed at drumming up support for the president before legislative elections scheduled a year from now. Supporters say the measure aims to bring Argentina in line with progressive countries such as Ecuador and Brazil that have already extended voting right to people as young as 16.
Kirchner-allied lower house member Diana Conti said the bill "is neither opportunistic nor demagogic," but rather seeks "to widen the electoral base of our democracy."
The make-up of Congress after the midterms will be key to any effort by her allies to open the door to another candidacy. The 59-year-old Peronist leader won a blowout re-election last year and no strong opposition figure has emerged since.
But her popularity has fallen to below 25 per cent as the economy gets hit by sluggish world growth, slowing demand from top trade partner Brazil, high inflation at home and government-imposed currency and trade controls that hurt confidence.
More than a million new voters are estimated to be eligible to cast ballots now that the bill has passed both houses. The Senate approved the measure earlier this month.
You still have to be 18 in Argentina to get married or buy alcohol or cigarettes.
Voting is compulsory for Argentines between the ages of 18 and 70 but it will be discretionary for 16- and 17-year olds under the new law.
Local Peronist party bosses may push to ensure high turnout from the new pool of teenage voters. But the benefits of the new law from Fernandez's point of view remain to be seen, said Ignacio Labaqui, who analyses Argentina for emerging markets consultancy Medley Global Advisors.
"It is evident that an electoral strategy lies behind the promotion of the youth vote," he said.
"But despite being teenagers, young people live in the same country as other voters. So if the climate towards the government continues to deteriorate, the government's approval rating among younger people should also decline," Labaqui added.
Tens of thousands of demonstrators rallied in major cities last month to protest policies such as a de facto ban on buying U.S. dollars and a possible bid for a third term.
Kirchner has a working majority in both houses of Congress, but would need two-thirds' congressional support to convoke an elected constitutional assembly. The president has been coy about the prospect of changing the law to run again. Any such plan would hinge on the outcome of the midterm vote.
Because she has not anointed a political heir, analysts say Kirchner may want to keep speculation alive about a potential re-election bid in 2015 to maintain her grip on the notoriously fractious Peronist party and ward off "lame duck" syndrome.
Stupid bitch.
They still call one of their parties "Peronist"? :hmm:
I have a friend who's really into education policy and is absolutely convinced we oppress children and we should abolish the voting age. Psuedo commies. :mad: Makes for interesting discussions though
Argentina is a clown country.
Why is 16 worse than say 18 or 21? In the end, it's arbitrary and as we allow some other "adult" things at age 16 too (alcohol, driver's license, sexual consent, marriage, joining military etc. depending on jurisdiction), I don't really see an objective argument why voting age can't be set at 16.
Because childhood is lasting longer not getting shorter so this seems like a counter-intuitive move.
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 09:17:00 AM
Why is 16 worse than say 18 or 21? In the end, it's arbitrary and as we allow some other "adult" things at age 16 too (alcohol, driver's license, sexual consent, marriage, joining military etc. depending on jurisdiction), I don't really see an objective argument why voting age can't be set at 16.
Well I can't cure the blind.
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 09:22:04 AM
Because childhood is lasting longer not getting shorter so this seems like a counter-intuitive move.
That seems right to me but on the other hand the federal voting age was 21 before the 1970s.
With all our increased knowledge and riches, children should be made to grow up earlier, not later. They have so many more opportunities and tools in a safer environment than 100 years ago. Continuing to defer adulthood is stupid.
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 09:17:00 AM
Why is 16 worse than say 18 or 21? In the end, it's arbitrary and as we allow some other "adult" things at age 16 too (alcohol, driver's license, sexual consent, marriage, joining military etc. depending on jurisdiction), I don't really see an objective argument why voting age can't be set at 16.
It seems foolish to give young people a say in matters that don't affect them. The essence of government is money, and 16-year olds don't have any. As a matter of policy, they're supposed to be in school.
Also, everyone under the age of 25 is stupid.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 02, 2012, 09:35:42 AM
With all our increased knowledge and riches, children should be made to grow up earlier, not later. They have so many more opportunities and tools in a safer environment than 100 years ago. Continuing to defer adulthood is stupid.
Except that we also know that many (most?) children don't have fully developed brains until they are in their 20s. Why would we want to force them faster into life-altering decisions if we don't have to?
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 09:59:43 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 02, 2012, 09:35:42 AM
With all our increased knowledge and riches, children should be made to grow up earlier, not later. They have so many more opportunities and tools in a safer environment than 100 years ago. Continuing to defer adulthood is stupid.
Except that we also know that many (most?) children don't have fully developed brains until they are in their 20s. Why would we want to force them faster into life-altering decisions if we don't have to?
Yes, and their leg muscles are not fully developed at age 10, so they should not run?
The point is to challenge/educate the brain in real life matters
while it's developing rather than waiting until bad habits and thought patterns have
crystallized in their mid-to-late twenties, which is the current problem.
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 09:59:43 AM
Except that we also know that many (most?) children don't have fully developed brains until they are in their 20s. Why would we want to force them faster into life-altering decisions if we don't have to?
So that their brains can develop properly, perhaps? There are limits to this of course, but the unrestrained "let them be kids" BS just makes sure that they are never anything but kids.
Quote from: Maximus on November 02, 2012, 10:07:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 09:59:43 AM
Except that we also know that many (most?) children don't have fully developed brains until they are in their 20s. Why would we want to force them faster into life-altering decisions if we don't have to?
So that their brains can develop properly, perhaps? There are limits to this of course, but the unrestrained "let them be kids" BS just makes sure that they are never anything but kids.
But that's just saying they should get increase responsibilities not that we should force them into workforce or have them start voting.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 02, 2012, 10:07:24 AM
The point is to challenge/educate the brain in real life matters while it's developing rather than waiting until bad habits and thought patterns have crystallized in their mid-to-late twenties, which is the current problem.
I'm not sure that I agree that such is a current problem.
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 10:12:15 AM
But that's just saying they should get increase responsibilities not that we should force them into workforce or have them start voting.
Sure, I agree with that. FWIW I'm not enamoured of the idea of lowering the voting age. What I'm objecting to is the idea (not necessarily expressed here) that the increasing length of childhood is just fine.
Who cares about the kids? It's not about the kid voters, it's about the people they will rule. Is it good for people to have kids making decisions about important stuff? No, kids are stupid.
It's not the making decisions part, it's the making decisions about other people part.
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 09:22:04 AM
Because childhood is lasting longer not getting shorter so this seems like a counter-intuitive move.
I wasn't aware that childhood is lasting longer. As there are several others concurring with that statement in the thread I wonder if that's a specific North American phenomenon or if I just don't associate the same with it that you do.
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2012, 09:57:54 AMIt seems foolish to give young people a say in matters that don't affect them. The essence of government is money, and 16-year olds don't have any. As a matter of policy, they're supposed to be in school.
Voting right is neither tied to school attendance nor to taxation, but to age, so your criteria are not relevant. The age criterion seems fairly arbitrary though. I think with the same arguments brought forth here to support 18, you could also support a voting age of 20 or whatever.
QuoteAlso, everyone under the age of 25 is stupid.
A lot of people above 25 are stupid too, but that's not the criterion for their voting rights.
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 09:59:43 AM
Except that we also know that many (most?) children don't have fully developed brains until they are in their 20s. Why would we want to force them faster into life-altering decisions if we don't have to?
A lot of other things that people below 20 can decide upon are actually life altering, unlike voting. They can marry, have children, pick a job, buy a house or car, commit a crime etc.
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 10:37:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 09:59:43 AM
Except that we also know that many (most?) children don't have fully developed brains until they are in their 20s. Why would we want to force them faster into life-altering decisions if we don't have to?
A lot of other things that people below 20 can decide upon are actually life altering, unlike voting. They can marry, have children, pick a job, buy a house or car, commit a crime etc.
But most of those aren't happening till later these days.
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 10:28:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 09:22:04 AM
Because childhood is lasting longer not getting shorter so this seems like a counter-intuitive move.
I wasn't aware that childhood is lasting longer. As there are several others concurring with that statement in the thread I wonder if that's a specific North American phenomenon or if I just don't associate the same with it that you do.
I think you need to re-read their posts. All of them seem to suggest that such is problematic not that it isn't happening.
Discussing lowering the age of majority is reasonable (the idea is stupid but not unreasonable). Discussing lowering the voting age to below the age of majority however is completely retarded, since the idea is just full of total fail.
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 10:55:50 AM
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 10:28:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 09:22:04 AM
Because childhood is lasting longer not getting shorter so this seems like a counter-intuitive move.
I wasn't aware that childhood is lasting longer. As there are several others concurring with that statement in the thread I wonder if that's a specific North American phenomenon or if I just don't associate the same with it that you do.
I think you need to re-read their posts. All of them seem to suggest that such is problematic not that it isn't happening.
That's what I meant. They concur with your statement, not with mine. I see how my sentence can be misunderstood though.
Quote from: Count on November 02, 2012, 09:11:09 AM
I have a friend who's really into education policy and is absolutely convinced we oppress children and we should abolish the voting age. Psuedo commies. :mad: Makes for interesting discussions though
Yes, I attended one many moons ago, but couldn't think through Bill Ayers' body odor. I think he was wearing the same jacket from 1976.
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 10:34:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2012, 09:57:54 AMIt seems foolish to give young people a say in matters that don't affect them. The essence of government is money, and 16-year olds don't have any. As a matter of policy, they're supposed to be in school.
Voting right is neither tied to school attendance nor to taxation, but to age, so your criteria are not relevant. The age criterion seems fairly arbitrary though. I think with the same arguments brought forth here to support 18, you could also support a voting age of 20 or whatever.
Of course it's relevant. Just saying that something isn't relevant isn't enough to make it so. The whole point of suffrage was to allow a significant group of people with an important stake in society to buy into the system. Teenagers fit none of those criteria; They're not significant, they're not people and they have no stake in the system. I know a lot of people who are frustrated by the damaging effect that old people have on national politics, but is the answer to create an even stupider voting bloc to counteract them?
QuoteQuoteAlso, everyone under the age of 25 is stupid.
A lot of people above 25 are stupid too, but that's not the criterion for their voting rights.
Maybe it should be. Only people with an IQ of 150 or better should be able to vote. How's that sound?
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 11:25:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 10:55:50 AM
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 10:28:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2012, 09:22:04 AM
Because childhood is lasting longer not getting shorter so this seems like a counter-intuitive move.
I wasn't aware that childhood is lasting longer. As there are several others concurring with that statement in the thread I wonder if that's a specific North American phenomenon or if I just don't associate the same with it that you do.
I think you need to re-read their posts. All of them seem to suggest that such is problematic not that it isn't happening.
That's what I meant. They concur with your statement, not with mine. I see how my sentence can be misunderstood though.
Oh gotcha. :D
Quote from: Count on November 02, 2012, 09:11:09 AM
I have a friend who's really into education policy and is absolutely convinced we oppress children and we should abolish the voting age. Psuedo commies. :mad: Makes for interesting discussions though
Of course we oppress children. Letting my toddler run around doing whatever he wants would result in his early death.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 02, 2012, 10:07:24 AM
Yes, and their leg muscles are not fully developed at age 10, so they should not run?
The point is to challenge/educate the brain in real life matters while it's developing rather than waiting until bad habits and thought patterns have crystallized in their mid-to-late twenties, which is the current problem.
It's a good thought, but voters' choices affect the rest of us. You might get Senator Justin Bieber on a write-in campaign. If we're cool with that, then ok.
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2012, 11:41:47 AM
Teenagers fit none of those criteria; They're not significant, they're not people and they have no stake in the system.
I concur! :mad:
Yeah, because hormonal teenagers will make much more mature sensible decisions than the present argentine electorate. I'm serious, just look at the record of the presidents the adults pick!
*reads OP*
What the French Toast....!?
I think we need to colonize Argentina. WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2012, 03:56:54 PM
I think we need to colonize Argentina. WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
Argentinians are white people man.
I don't think we need that shit.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2012, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2012, 03:56:54 PM
I think we need to colonize Argentina. WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
Argentinians are white people man.
There's at least 3 things wrong with this sentence.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2012, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2012, 03:56:54 PM
I think we need to colonize Argentina. WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
Argentinians are white people man.
They speak Spanish. That's not what white people do.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2012, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2012, 03:56:54 PM
I think we need to colonize Argentina. WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
Argentinians are white people man.
I guess that just goes to show that white people are not necessarily as good as they are cracked out to be :hmm:
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2012, 04:14:08 PM
They speak Spanish. That's not what white people do.
Yep, that automatically makes them Mexican (mixed Celtiberian/Moor/Aztec), even if their ancestors were from Germany. :P
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 09:17:00 AM
Why is 16 worse than say 18 or 21? In the end, it's arbitrary and as we allow some other "adult" things at age 16 too (alcohol, driver's license, sexual consent, marriage, joining military etc. depending on jurisdiction), I don't really see an objective argument why voting age can't be set at 16.
Part of the rationale (at least in the US) is that you don't want high school students voting in elections for the local school board.
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2012, 03:56:54 PM
*reads OP*
What the French Toast....!?
I think we need to colonize Argentina. WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
On it.
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2012, 08:46:24 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2012, 03:56:54 PM
*reads OP*
What the French Toast....!?
I think we need to colonize Argentina. WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
On it.
Well, you colonized *one* Argentinian. It's a start. ;)
Quote from: dps on November 04, 2012, 07:38:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2012, 09:17:00 AM
Why is 16 worse than say 18 or 21? In the end, it's arbitrary and as we allow some other "adult" things at age 16 too (alcohol, driver's license, sexual consent, marriage, joining military etc. depending on jurisdiction), I don't really see an objective argument why voting age can't be set at 16.
Part of the rationale (at least in the US) is that you don't want high school students voting in elections for the local school board.
Why not? That's the one institution they know and care about. I would expect that a majority of 16 year old high school students is rational and moderate. Some kind of participation in what school is about seems to be reasonable, after all they are major stakeholders and are directly affected.
I don't think they would be rational about decisions for their school. Do you remember being 16?
Quote from: Zanza on November 05, 2012, 03:23:30 PM
Why not? That's the one institution they know and care about. I would expect that a majority of 16 year old high school students is rational and moderate. Some kind of participation in what school is about seems to be reasonable, after all they are major stakeholders and are directly affected.
You think way more highly of the average teenager than most people do. In general, I agree with you. However, I wouldn't expect many 16 - 17 year olds would bother to vote. If they did, I could see them not bothering to read up on it to do so. Unless it became part of the curriculum and a class field trip, I just don't see it happening.
What issues would the candidates focus on if teenagers under 18 could vote? 7 teenagers weigh in:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/11/04/if-young-people-could-vote-what-would-change
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 03:30:11 PM
I don't think they would be rational about decisions for their school. Do you remember being 16?
Yes.
We have limited representation of students in the decision bodies in our schools. They can always be outvoted by the teachers and parents, but at least they can participate in the discussions and their opinions are heard. As far as I can tell, only the rational and interested students bothered to get elected for this anyway, so there is a natural selection. If there is one clown elected, that does not matter. However, as far as I am aware, we don't have any policy-setting level for schools between the individual school and the ministry of education on state level, so we don't have something similar to your school boards (as I understand them).
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 03:30:11 PM
I don't think they would be rational about decisions for their school. Do you remember being 16?
When I was in school, I think most of us would have voted for a candidate who supported burning down the schools and shooting the teachers.
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2012, 07:02:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 03:30:11 PM
I don't think they would be rational about decisions for their school. Do you remember being 16?
When I was in school, I think most of us would have voted for a candidate who supported burning down the schools and shooting the teachers.
I still am tempted to vote anarchist.
I briefly took part in a demonstration by the middle class at the Obelisk in downtown Buenos Aires this evening to protest horrible populist policies of the current president. It felt: good.
8N