Earning the Vote

[FrustratedFool]

Why don't you think there's a fair correlation between IQ and GI?

Agreed.  But I think both intelligence and education are required to make reaonably considered choices.  Hence why I included a criteria for both.  Do you not think education is a requirement for sensible voting?

OK.  But with conscription I allowed for objectors.  It is not uncommon for a state to require conscription under extreme circumstances.

So, in the UK that would be 18.  I agree there should be consistency, but I'd raise the driving and marrying age not lower the voting age.  18 is still very young to understand politics, let alone 16.  I'd consider raising it all to 21.

-Several reasons, including (but not limited to) the inherent cultural bias of IQ tests.

-No, I don’t think that. Many people leave school just as ignorant as they entered it. Suppose Joe, with little or no formal education, follows several news sources, makes it his business to learn as much as possible about the candidates and issues on the ballot, and weighs the pros and cons of his vote for each. Jim, on the other hand, graduated high school at the top of his class and holds two university degrees, but votes the straight Tory ticket because that’s what his father did. Who’s the better voter?

-Simply because conscription is common does mean it isn’t slavery (or at least indentured servitude). And there’s no evidence whatsoever that either military service or civilian volunteerism makes people more responsible voters.

-That’s only the case in half the UK - in Scotland and NI you can still get married at 16. And the voting age in Scotland is 16.

Boru

1) I'm not sure modern IQ tests have that flaw.  I think, though I may be wrong, they are the best measures we have of GI for any culture.  Is there a better one?

2) That seems to be a problem with the nature of the education, not the concept of education itself.  IT also seems you are comparing a more educated person with a less educated one.  The answer isn't to throw education in the bin as a relevant metric, it's to make the education in question better.

3) If you have the option to opt out as an objector it isn't slavery.  As for evidence, I wouldn't even know where to begin to measure a 'good voter'. 

4) The issue is to be consistent and to have a suitable age.  Why do we limit some things by age?  Because we recognise that development takes time.  Marriage and voting at 16, but not alcohol, porn, driving, horror films, opting out of maths education, a credit card, or tattoos.  Doesn't seem very consistent.  And just because I can do X doesn't mean I can do Y.  Voting seems, to me, to require a degree of maturity that isn't likely to be found in most 16 year olds.