*nods* I realise that, but my point was more that he probably simply didn't think of taking a birth certificate, or getting a parent to get it for him (and if they won't, then he shouldn't have it).
I thought you meant they shouldn't be able to use the petitions site if they can't vote, guess I just read it differently to how you meant it. :) You are quite right that the government doesn't need to take so much notice of them, but then I could see that as a strength of the petitions system rather than a weakness. It gives younger people a chance to have their voice heard with equal weight to an older person (unless they state that they're below voting age of course..>). I don't think a person's opinion should be ignored just because they can't take a vote away, a good argument is a good argument, whoever it is from, and however old they are. :)
I disagree: If the petition site can't show that the majority of signatories are voters, this could undermine the potency of the petition site and it's effectiveness as a force for change.
This is not really a reason to disallow minors from engaging, but: An argument made by a 14 year old may be a good argument, but it is much less likely to be a considered argument. I wonder how many people have signed both because they agree with both arguments, rather than signing up for the petition whose principles they agree with and feel it is for the greater good?
What does it matter if the person making the argument carefully considered the opinion or not? If not, then it won't be a good argument anyway and will get ignored (just as it would from an adult). If they did, then it will put across another point of view to be considered.
I like the anonimity, it allows a less biased consideration of more points of view and information than it would if you could pick and choose which things to read/listen to or decide how valid it is likely to be before even seeing/hearing the content, (which is precisely what you are saying by the way).
True.. but I still think that allowing non-voters to influence the petition site undermines it to some extent.
My point was not so much about prejudging people's arguments based on arbitrary criteria (such as age), but from the point of view that the petition site's very validity depends on its overall reputation, much like any other system of communication. When this is allowed to be diluted people pay less attention to it.
An analogy is advertising - we all know about email spam, website spam (sites set up just to advertise crap), etc, but word of mouth has been pretty sacred.. until now - I was horrified to find out it may be gaining acceptance in our culture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6478889.stm).
My point was not so much about prejudging people's arguments based on arbitrary criteria (such as age), but from the point of view that the petition site's very validity depends on its overall reputation, much like any other system of communication. When this is allowed to be diluted people pay less attention to it.
I get what your saying, but that is precisely my point. That shouldn't be happening and if we can open things up to everyone, it won't be able to happen. Things should only be judged on the quality of the content, this is why many authors occasionally write something under a completely unknown sudonym from time to time, so that it will be judged based on what's in it rather than who they are. I know plenty of youngsters who have opinions and thoughts on things I'd take more weight from than a lot adults on the same subjects. Likewise I know many adults whose arguments and opinions I'd never listen to. But also, I don't need to know who it comes from to be able to judge this, I only need to see/hear it to know if it is worth considering. I personally welcome all opinions and viewpoints, I also reserve the right to ignore them or consider them as I see fit. ;)
Okay, I see where you're coming from now. The trouble is, you're not the intended recipient of the petition - the government is. The only reason democracy works is because the voters have the power to change the government if they don't like it.
Non-voters don't have the power to change the government, hence they don't need to take such an active interest in them. Governments say they do, for a couple of reasons:
They don't want to piss off regular voters
Young people will eventually become voters anyway.
Forgive me for being cynical. If we weren't cynical, we wouldn't have a democracy at all, we'd have some other system of government where we trusted them to do the right thing for us. Communism? Socialism? *shrug*.
"Non-voters don't have the power to change the government, hence they don't need to take such an active interest in them."
This statement confuses me. My opinion is well known, if you don't vote - don't mither about the results. I'm not sure this equates to "If you can't vote, you have no right to take an active interest", though.
I guess I'm just not convinced that inability to participate in an election means you should not question the government, after all - that government's legislation affects the future of the ineligible, such as children and undischarged bankrupts.
Besides, an interest in politics in children is something that should be positively encouraged, and members of the Lords are both ineligble and expected to challenge the government!
Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. The 'they' refers to the government, not the non-voters. Non-voters is also non-specific - I predominantly meant people not allowed to vote; i.e. not of voting age.
Minors and non-voters can still influence voters to get their voice heard, if they so desire.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:19 pm (UTC)I realise that, but my point was more that he probably simply didn't think of taking a birth certificate, or getting a parent to get it for him (and if they won't, then he shouldn't have it).
I thought you meant they shouldn't be able to use the petitions site if they can't vote, guess I just read it differently to how you meant it. :) You are quite right that the government doesn't need to take so much notice of them, but then I could see that as a strength of the petitions system rather than a weakness. It gives younger people a chance to have their voice heard with equal weight to an older person (unless they state that they're below voting age of course..>). I don't think a person's opinion should be ignored just because they can't take a vote away, a good argument is a good argument, whoever it is from, and however old they are. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:27 pm (UTC)This is not really a reason to disallow minors from engaging, but: An argument made by a 14 year old may be a good argument, but it is much less likely to be a considered argument. I wonder how many people have signed both because they agree with both arguments, rather than signing up for the petition whose principles they agree with and feel it is for the greater good?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:34 pm (UTC)I like the anonimity, it allows a less biased consideration of more points of view and information than it would if you could pick and choose which things to read/listen to or decide how valid it is likely to be before even seeing/hearing the content, (which is precisely what you are saying by the way).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:41 pm (UTC)My point was not so much about prejudging people's arguments based on arbitrary criteria (such as age), but from the point of view that the petition site's very validity depends on its overall reputation, much like any other system of communication. When this is allowed to be diluted people pay less attention to it.
An analogy is advertising - we all know about email spam, website spam (sites set up just to advertise crap), etc, but word of mouth has been pretty sacred.. until now - I was horrified to find out it may be gaining acceptance in our culture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6478889.stm).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:50 pm (UTC)I get what your saying, but that is precisely my point. That shouldn't be happening and if we can open things up to everyone, it won't be able to happen. Things should only be judged on the quality of the content, this is why many authors occasionally write something under a completely unknown sudonym from time to time, so that it will be judged based on what's in it rather than who they are. I know plenty of youngsters who have opinions and thoughts on things I'd take more weight from than a lot adults on the same subjects. Likewise I know many adults whose arguments and opinions I'd never listen to. But also, I don't need to know who it comes from to be able to judge this, I only need to see/hear it to know if it is worth considering. I personally welcome all opinions and viewpoints, I also reserve the right to ignore them or consider them as I see fit. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:59 pm (UTC)Non-voters don't have the power to change the government, hence they don't need to take such an active interest in them. Governments say they do, for a couple of reasons:
- They don't want to piss off regular voters
- Young people will eventually become voters anyway.
Forgive me for being cynical. If we weren't cynical, we wouldn't have a democracy at all, we'd have some other system of government where we trusted them to do the right thing for us. Communism? Socialism? *shrug*.(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 08:06 pm (UTC)This statement confuses me. My opinion is well known, if you don't vote - don't mither about the results. I'm not sure this equates to "If you can't vote, you have no right to take an active interest", though.
I guess I'm just not convinced that inability to participate in an election means you should not question the government, after all - that government's legislation affects the future of the ineligible, such as children and undischarged bankrupts.
Besides, an interest in politics in children is something that should be positively encouraged, and members of the Lords are both ineligble and expected to challenge the government!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-28 08:19 am (UTC)Minors and non-voters can still influence voters to get their voice heard, if they so desire.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-28 10:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-28 10:45 am (UTC)