A New Reason to Raise the Voting Age
When a person with political knowledge debates someone who is bright, but nonetheless, unpolished – shall we say – the politically adept person might lose. Because we will dig a little deeper with pinpointed questions we shouldn’t ask. Because the basics of politics will be lost on them. And because one must be polite and hold back when the answers get strange.
All this is unsettling.
I conversed with a person who started off suggesting that they were unhappy with the “whole elections system,” so of course I dug deeper. It was really the public policies that come out of our elected governments that for this person are the problems. And their solution, I uncovered with more questions, was to raise the voting age considerably.
Raising the age of voting is not something one hears about much!
Expanding voting eligibility is considered a battle won in liberal democracies such as Canada, particularly for women and First Nations. If anything contemporary debate considers lowering the voting age. Do ardent small ‘c’ conservative or elitist-types ever mention property ownership requirement or something for voting anymore? What about the right to vote in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of Canada’s Constitution? Leaders and politicians the world over, probably for all time, have mostly been “older” people, and have they always done a good job?
Yes, but. Here’s where the person with political knowledge then gets tripped up:
The debate topic itself, raising the voting age, can be wrong on so many levels, where does one start? When you are faced with an unusual notion, it’s always surprising. The idea of a qualification test to vote left me speechless. That a marine biologist or “sportsman” is not qualified to vote on public issues such as social programs did the same.- You have to humour the person when you want to ask, “Are you high?” But this politeness backfires. It makes your position look weaker and only encourages them. So you continue asking bland questions instead of going for the jugular. It’s not exactly proper debating rules, but surely sometimes the response to strange ideas should instead be “Are you freaking kidding?”
- The person has no conception of politics, and thus explaining basic concepts like rights, frustratingly, gets you nowhere – at least with these types. For instance, no prime minister would ever come close to even being able to make such a pronouncement, I noted, and explained in more detail. “Yes, but could he do it?” was the response. Well, I guess so, I responded, in the same way that I imagine I could win the lottery three times in a row; it’s conceivable, but not likely. “So, then that’s settled, as prime minister I could raise the voting age.” Okay, then.
So I am tripped up, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Well: This person is in barely in their twenties, so will be taking away their own vote. Maybe raising the voting age doesn’t sound all that bad, after all?
The History of the Vote In Canada
Trackbacks