Compulsory Voting or lowering the voting age?

[Lyrebird]

Okay there are like 12 or around 12 countries that actually have compulsory voting but there are obviously several countries that do not, I don't know why but they might have their reasons.

Some people are against compulsory voting and are for lowering the age for voting. Which one would you prefer out of the two and why?

Remember to respect everyone and their opinions. Don't insult a group of people at all.

Naturally I'm in a country with compulsory voting, so I'm cool wit it. Only takes 10 minutes.

 

[Beth Pavell]

Hmm. My immediate thought is to be against compulsory voting - I generally don't like any situation where political thinkers decide what's best for other people. Having said that, I'd be interested to know how it works in practice. I'm certainly fed up of the way people - I'm thinking especially of the UK here, but it's probably also true elsewhere - complain that the main parties don't represent them and then give them no reason to represent them by never voting.

I would prefer that to lowering the age of voting. It's an unpopular fact (Among teens anyway) that teens in particular tend to latch on to groups and ideologies that are radical simply because they are radical. The cliché of teen rebellion against the Establishment (Whatever that may be) is true. It's just part of growing up, same as all the other dumbass things we do between childhood and adulthood. It's for that reason that I think a voting age of somewhere between eighteen and twenty-one to be entirely reasonable

 

[Osprey]

Compulsory voting would be better. Too many young people are uninformed, don't really care, or follow the leader in radical (often not reasonable) ideologies.

Unfortunately, I don't think required voting will ever be a thing around here. Again, not enough people care, and even if it was required, I doubt the ones who don't give a darn would make very good decisions. (That's a problem already, but it might get worse if it were like that.)

 

[Jolene]

Just make election day a public holiday. That way people don't feel forced to do something they don't want as with compulsory voting, yet at the same time can't use the excuse that they didn't have the time to vote.

We also keep the uninformed, easily impressionable kids out of the voting booth.

 

[Misfit Angel]

I'd go with compulsory voting while also raising the age to 21 here in the United States. I feel as if 18 is too young for most people to have gotten a grasp on a majority of the issues that elected officials base their campaigns on, especially if they've gone through the public education system. After a few years out in the real world and seeing how things really are, I'd feel confident in letting people vote. This is why I'll never be a public leader, I'd come across as too authoritarian and too insensitive, at least on this subject.

can't use the excuse that they didn't have the time to vote.

That excuse doesn't fly anyways. Employers are required by law to give a maximum of one hour of time off on election day to employees if they state they're going out to vote during times when polls are open.

 

[Yoshi1001]

An alternative (albeit considerably more expensive) to compulsory voting is a poll tax credit. Basically, allow people to deduct money from their taxes for voting, maybe $5 per time voting, with a maximum of two times per filing adult on the return (so like $10 for filing singly or $20 filing jointly).

 

[Iteru]

No to compulsory voting, and yes to lowering the age limit.

Force compulsory voting and you get meaningless votes. Lowering the age limit and those with an interest will vote; those without an interest won't. At the end of the day you still have meaningful votes.

In my country, I hear all the time how the younger generation don't care about politics and see their futures as bleak. If you won't give them a vote then why should they be interested?

 

[Soki]

Lowering the age limit and those with an interest will vote; those without an interest won't. At the end of the day you still have meaningful votes.

I doubt it, because:

Too many young people are uninformed, don't really care, or follow the leader in radical (often not reasonable) ideologies.

A while ago youngsters in my country could make a fake vote, to see what they would vote. Guess what? A big majority voted the most radical party, the one that wants all foreigners (mostly muslims) to leave the country. Now this could be because they knew the vote was fake anyway, but when I was that age I knew a frighteningly lot of people of the same age that would definitely make that vote.

Not only that, most people under 18 have only gone to school in their lives. They've never lived by themselves, never dealt with taxes or health care or other 'adult' issues. If a party would propose to close all schools, I know the majority of people I've known when they were under 18 would totally vote for that party, cause 'school sucks' is one of their only issues in life at that point.

In my life I have only met a very few people under 18 that I would think was informed enough to vote while knowing what they're voting for. I even think the voting age should be 21, as most 18 year olds (that I know) are still not wise enough to vote imo.

I'm not sure what I think of compulsory voting. On one hand I think it's a good idea cause a lot of times people don't vote because 'they don't feel like it'. On the other hand, I'm afraid that making people vote against their will, will make them vote on radical parties just out of spite.

 

[Beth Pavell]

The problem is, particularly in the UK, too many people keep the attitude that the political establishment doesn't care about them even when they become old enough to vote. It's a rather circular assumption - there's some truth to it, but largely because everyone knows that young people (Here defined as anything under 24) don't vote.

As to younger people being allowed to vote, well, the purpose of democracy should not be to bias against radical parties. However, that's not why I'm against lowering the voting age. The reason is that teens rebel for the sake of rebellion - and we've all done it, myself included. I was a Communist for a while when I was sixteen, but mostly because superficially it seemed to make sense and no-one else was, and I thought I was clever for it. Of course I wasn't, I was just a twerp who didn't really know what Communism entailed.

The problem with this (Yep, I am going to put a hole in my own argument) is that you could also argue that there are plenty of adults who retain just the same juvenile thought-processes, but we don't ban them from voting.

 

[CrackFox]

I think no to both. There are many people who feel as though no party represents them and would rather have no part in bringing any of them into power. That might seem ignorant but people have the right to feel that way so leave it optional. I don't think younger people can really make an informed decision most of the time. That's not to say there aren't some really clued in youths out there but as others have said, I don't think the average youngster knows much about politics or cares to know. Most government movements impact the older generation with issues like, benefit cuts, taxes and immigration. You have to ask yourself how much the average youth will really think about those things when placing a vote.

 

[DerMißingno]

These solutions are attacking a symptom, not a problem. People not voting is a symptom, the problem is that people don't care enough to vote. Forcing people to vote is not going to make people care.

I could possibly be interested in a tax incentive for voting, like @Yoshi1001; said. I would maybe even take that further by actually adding a voting tax to your income tax, which will then be returned to you if you vote that year, kind of like returning a plastic bottle to claim the deposit. Still, I don't think this would make people care, but maybe the people who kind of care but think their vote didn't matter would actually vote.

I have a comment on @Andrea Prescott; and @Soki; regarding you both wanting to change the legal age to 21. If you do that, then the age that you can join the military or be drafted better increase to 21 as well (assuming we are talking about the USA). Asking people to fight a war without having a say in the government is bad news.

Beyond that, I think you underestimate the ability of younger people to understand what's going on and overestimate the ability of older people. A 16 year old who cares about politics can easily be a more informed voter than a 21 year old who maybe occasionally watches the news. Living on your own is not a requisite for having an informed opinion. Finally, I find the idea that they would vote for someone who would abolish school to be pretty insulting. I'm pretty sure only a fucking idiot would think that all schools should be closed even if they don't enjoy going, and all 16 year olds are not fucking idiots.

 

[Misfit Angel]

I have a comment on @Andrea Prescott; and @Soki; regarding you both wanting to change the legal age to 21. If you do that, then the age that you can join the military or be drafted better increase to 21 as well (assuming we are talking about the USA). Asking people to fight a war without having a say in the government is bad news.

Yes, that would be ideal. The same goes for the drinking age. People often say that if you're old enough to pick up a gun and fight for your country, you're old enough for a beer. This is true. But as someone opposed to lowering the drinking age (I'd actually like to raise it to 25, but that's another discussion), it would only make sense to raise the age for enlisting in the military.

Beyond that, I think you underestimate the ability of younger people to understand what's going on and overestimate the ability of older people. A 16 year old who cares about politics can easily be a more informed voter than a 21 year old who maybe occasionally watches the news. Living on your own is not a requisite for having an informed opinion.

Yeah, living on your own isn't a requirement. I was one of those young people who cared, and I didn't have my own place or my own experience. I was alone in my entire school. I'd ask people, my friends even, what they thought about things like the Iraq war, the economic crisis, Hurricane Katrina, etc and they all just stared at me like a deer in headlights, actively ridiculed me, or spouted some nonsense like "Kill Bush!".

As for overestimating the ability of older people to have informed opinions, what does that even mean? Yes, just like there are young people who care, there are older people who don't, I'm surrounded by them. But at the same time, I'd trust a 27 year old flunky and drunkard with no hope in his/her life to know more than a teenager about politics, even if he/she's never looked at it seriously. They'll have likely paid taxes at least once, seen what their money goes to, heard opinions, learned things the hard way, etc. An 18 year old has only had limited exposure to politics, since most schools don't even offer classes on the subject.

Real world experience matters when you are making choices that affect real world events. An example I see fairly often is people who criticize cops for killing people in shootouts. "Why didn't you just shoot to disarm?" or "Why didn't you let it escalate to that?" They themselves have no idea what goes into a situation like that. It's a split second decision, where you aren't allowed the luxury of thinking or even aiming sometimes. Instead, due to a lack of basic experience with firearms, they're happy to spout off that guns are easy to aim and should never be used to kill. Well no shit, but it doesn't work that way.

The same applies to politics and the decisions behind it, drawing conclusions based on theory, conjecture and what feels correct simply won't do sometimes. Like this national movement to raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour. While it's true that living on minimum wage at its current rate is impossible, kneejerk reacting to it and raising it such large amounts could have disastrous effects on the economy and job market, yet most people lobbying for it seem to ignore that possibility because it would personally benefit them. It would benefit me, too, but at the same time I could possibly lose my job if it became the law of the land if my employer couldn't afford to keep all of their employees anymore.

While it's unlikely to be doom and gloom for the economy like a lot of right wingers like to say, there has to be foresight for the consequences, and that's something you only learn from experience, not from textbook theory. There's too many variables at play for that subject, and for most other subjects, for a textbook answer to apply. A younger me, who was relatively informed about things, would have jumped straight at the opportunity to raise the minimum wage, without looking at what might happen as a consequence. Only with age and after having learned a few harsh lessons did I learn that things have unintended consequences that you just don't see when planning something.

Also, thinking older people are incapable of being informed seems to be divided by party line these days, at least in this country. I've noticed that if someone disagrees on a political issue, they're accused of being 'ignorant of reality' or 'another x-wing drone', and it's problematic when it comes to actual discussion and actual problem solving. In fact, it's not just a problem, it's an epidemic. I don't know when it started, but I don't remember it being a thing until maybe halfway through Bush's presidency. Right around then, I started seeing people turn vicious on each other over different ideologies, rather than just simply disagreeing. Maybe that's when I started paying attention, but I rarely saw people at each other's throats over politics during the Clinton years.

I'm not saying you're personally accusing people you disagree with as out of touch, but it's something I see all too much, so I figured it was worth a mention.

Anyways, there are young people who care out there, yes. But not in numbers to justify lowering the voting age or even keeping it where it is. Experience trumps all.

 

[DerMißingno]

Before reading your dissertation I didn't have any opinion on the matter, but now I think that the voting age should be lowered to 16. I think the younger generation can provide a fresh perspective that people tend to lose touch with when they get older. Going back to the issue of education, I think it would be nice if some people who would actually be effected by decisions made on the education system would be allowed to vote. Maybe older people would rather have lower taxes than pay more to fund their local school since they think it doesn't effect them.

I think a lot of your points were irrelevant to the discussion, but they seem like fun so I will respond to them anyway.

Yes, that would be ideal. The same goes for the drinking age. People often say that if you're old enough to pick up a gun and fight for your country, you're old enough for a beer. This is true. But as someone opposed to lowering the drinking age (I'd actually like to raise it to 25, but that's another discussion), it would only make sense to raise the age for enlisting in the military.

The argument makes much more sense when talking about voting age than drinking age. Being able to drink alcohol has nothing to do with fighting in the military, but fighting in the military is highly political since the people that we vote for will be deciding whether we go to war. I believe that was the main reason the voting age was lowered to 18. I highly doubt that they would raise the age that you are allowed to enlist since losing all 18-21 year old soldiers would seriously damage our military strength.

Beyond that, I think you underestimate the ability of younger people to understand what's going on and overestimate the ability of older people. A 16 year old who cares about politics can easily be a more informed voter than a 21 year old who maybe occasionally watches the news. Living on your own is not a requisite for having an informed opinion.

Yeah, living on your own isn't a requirement. I was one of those young people who cared, and I didn't have my own place or my own experience. I was alone in my entire school. I'd ask people, my friends even, what they thought about things like the Iraq war, the economic crisis, Hurricane Katrina, etc and they all just stared at me like a deer in headlights, actively ridiculed me, or spouted some nonsense like "Kill Bush!".

I'm sorry that you have experienced these anecdotal events.

As for overestimating the ability of older people to have informed opinions, what does that even mean? Yes, just like there are young people who care, there are older people who don't, I'm surrounded by them. But at the same time, I'd trust a 27 year old flunky and drunkard with no hope in his/her life to know more than a teenager about politics, even if he/she's never looked at it seriously. They'll have likely paid taxes at least once, seen what their money goes to, heard opinions, learned things the hard way, etc. An 18 year old has only had limited exposure to politics, since most schools don't even offer classes on the subject.

I am surprised that you would say that. It is interesting to me that you assume that everyone who pays taxes knows exactly what their money is going to. Can you provide evidence that most schools don't offer classes on politics? It was a requirement where I went to school.

Real world experience matters when you are making choices that affect real world events. An example I see fairly often is people who criticize cops for killing people in shootouts. "Why didn't you just shoot to disarm?" or "Why didn't you let it escalate to that?" They themselves have no idea what goes into a situation like that. It's a split second decision, where you aren't allowed the luxury of thinking or even aiming sometimes. Instead, due to a lack of basic experience with firearms, they're happy to spout off that guns are easy to aim and should never be used to kill. Well no shit, but it doesn't work that way.

The only criticisms that I have heard about police shootings (especially recently) are when they shoot unarmed people. If the suspect has a gun and is shooting back, then I think it's pretty clear cut that the officer is trying to defend his life if he ends up killing the person, but if the suspect is unarmed then I think that is a topic that is seriously worthy of discussion. As far as "why didn't they just shoot to disarm," that's a pretty ignorant statement to make in my opinion. If you pull out a gun, it's because you're prepared to kill a person. The question shouldn't be where they shoot once the gun is out, but at what point should the gun be used. This is an interesting discussion, but I don't see how it is related to age.

The same applies to politics and the decisions behind it, drawing conclusions based on theory, conjecture and what feels correct simply won't do sometimes. Like this national movement to raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour. While it's true that living on minimum wage at its current rate is impossible, kneejerk reacting to it and raising it such large amounts could have disastrous effects on the economy and job market, yet most people lobbying for it seem to ignore that possibility because it would personally benefit them. It would benefit me, too, but at the same time I could possibly lose my job if it became the law of the land if my employer couldn't afford to keep all of their employees anymore.

While it's unlikely to be doom and gloom for the economy like a lot of right wingers like to say, there has to be foresight for the consequences, and that's something you only learn from experience, not from textbook theory. There's too many variables at play for that subject, and for most other subjects, for a textbook answer to apply. A younger me, who was relatively informed about things, would have jumped straight at the opportunity to raise the minimum wage, without looking at what might happen as a consequence. Only with age and after having learned a few harsh lessons did I learn that things have unintended consequences that you just don't see when planning something.

Many people have different opinions on what the minimum wage should be. Some people have worked for years and still think it should be higher. I'm not going to get into a debate on minimum wage, but you seem to be framing it like "young people think that the minimum wage should be higher, but more experienced people such as myself know that it shouldn't be," which I think is a dangerous attitude to have in a debate. And again, this has nothing to do with age, there are young people who don't think minimum wage should be higher.

Also, thinking older people are incapable of being informed seems to be divided by party line these days, at least in this country. I've noticed that if someone disagrees on a political issue, they're accused of being 'ignorant of reality' or 'another x-wing drone', and it's problematic when it comes to actual discussion and actual problem solving. In fact, it's not just a problem, it's an epidemic. I don't know when it started, but I don't remember it being a thing until maybe halfway through Bush's presidency. Right around then, I started seeing people turn vicious on each other over different ideologies, rather than just simply disagreeing. Maybe that's when I started paying attention, but I rarely saw people at each other's throats over politics during the Clinton years.

Are you serious? This has been happening since politics existed. Berating your opponent's viewpoints and trying to discredit her logic through ad hominem attack is not new at all. And finally for the third point in a row, this has nothing to do with age.

I'm not saying you're personally accusing people you disagree with as out of touch, but it's something I see all too much, so I figured it was worth a mention.

I'm glad you're not saying that, because I didn't do anything like that. If you think I am, then please tell me what party you think I'm fighting for, because I honestly don't even know.

Anyways, there are young people who care out there, yes. But not in numbers to justify lowering the voting age or even keeping it where it is. Experience trumps all.

Show me these numbers that you're talking about please.

 

[Beth Pavell]

Before reading your dissertation I didn't have any opinion on the matter, but now I think that the voting age should be lowered to 16. I think the younger generation can provide a fresh perspective that people tend to lose touch with when they get older. Going back to the issue of education, I think it would be nice if some people who would actually be effected by decisions made on the education system would be allowed to vote. Maybe older people would rather have lower taxes than pay more to fund their local school since they think it doesn't effect them.

I can agree to that. Too often during the past five years the Education Minister here in the UK has repeatedly kicked away at the education system based on what he personally would like school kids to know rather than what's going to help them become functional adults. That being said, I'm still not convinced of the idea of lowering the voting age to sixteen.

 

[Misfit Angel]

A lot of my post was comparisons between experience on certain issues and how that would relate to voting. That seems to have been completely missed. Maybe I can be a bit more clear this time.

The argument makes much more sense when talking about voting age than drinking age. Being able to drink alcohol has nothing to do with fighting in the military, but fighting in the military is highly political since the people that we vote for will be deciding whether we go to war. I believe that was the main reason the voting age was lowered to 18. I highly doubt that they would raise the age that you are allowed to enlist since losing all 18-21 year old soldiers would seriously damage our military strength.

I only mention it because lots of people want the drinking age lowered back down to 18 because you can fight in the military but not drink a beer, which to me is asinine. I was using it as a comparison, not as a reason to increase the voting age.

And of course they're not going to raise the minimum age for enlisting. I said ideally. Perhaps I'm wrong; this is why I'm not a politician, I have no desire to be a politician and am not fit to make these kinds of decisions. Again, this is just my opinion on things and it'd be considered warped because of my personal experiences and observations of society around me.

Yeah, living on your own isn't a requirement. I was one of those young people who cared, and I didn't have my own place or my own experience. I was alone in my entire school. I'd ask people, my friends even, what they thought about things like the Iraq war, the economic crisis, Hurricane Katrina, etc and they all just stared at me like a deer in headlights, actively ridiculed me, or spouted some nonsense like "Kill Bush!".

I'm sorry that you have experienced these anecdotal events.

How can you dismiss something on the grounds of it being anecdotal, when it is generally regarded as a widespread thing? I'd offer statistics, but I can't really find any relating to teenagers views on political issues during my time as a teenager. All I know is that a majority of students I had conversed with at my school had no opinions on the war, on the economy, on Hurricane Katrina or anything. They were more concerned with throwing parties on the weekend, how to get alcohol without being caught and who they were going to sleep with next. If it wasn't that, it was how the NFL season was shaping up, which hot video games were being released, or who was the best student to copy homework off of. That is what defines the typical teenager's lifestyle, their social lives. Not politics. Ask anyone and they would probably tell you the same. Some might even have information that I don't.

As for overestimating the ability of older people to have informed opinions, what does that even mean? Yes, just like there are young people who care, there are older people who don't, I'm surrounded by them. But at the same time, I'd trust a 27 year old flunky and drunkard with no hope in his/her life to know more than a teenager about politics, even if he/she's never looked at it seriously. They'll have likely paid taxes at least once, seen what their money goes to, heard opinions, learned things the hard way, etc. An 18 year old has only had limited exposure to politics, since most schools don't even offer classes on the subject.

I am surprised that you would say that. It is interesting to me that you assume that everyone who pays taxes knows exactly what their money is going to. Can you provide evidence that most schools don't offer classes on politics? It was a requirement where I went to school.

I would argue that someone who cares to pay their taxes would have an idea of where there money goes. Not exactly where it goes, because not even state budget offices understand where the money goes. But most people understand that roads don't fix themselves, utility lines don't maintain themselves, city workers are paid wages, etc.

As far as education, NYS Learning Standards and Core Curriculum:CIIT:NYSED

Strictly speaking, for New York State, politics is not required by state education standards. Having spoken with many friends over the years who have gone to both private and public schools across most of Western New York, none told me they had a mandatory politics class, and very few schools offered it. My own school offered a politics class which was cancelled one year because only three students elected to take it. The other three years I was there, the number of students who took the class was relatively low compared to the size of other elective and mandatory classes. It was generally regarded as a free A+ on your report card, which may have influenced some students to take it, for an easy grade, not because they cared.

Social studies curriculum, which politics would fall under, mandated a broad understanding of world history and geography, then focused extensively on American history from 1620 up into the post 9/11 era. We also focused on world history, but in much less detail; We learned about the various Greek and Roman empires, the formation of modern Europe, WWI, WWII and the Cold War, and pretty much nothing else. Our fourth and final year of social studies was filled in with an elective. Most chose economics (mostly because the teacher had a reputation as an idiot and gave us easy assignments), while others chose a broader look at world history (British Empire, various Asian dynasties, African kingdoms). I chose politics, but that happened to be the year it was cancelled and I was shuffled into the broad world history class.

I suppose none of this matters, however. It is, after all, an anecdote.

However, this may differ in other states, but New York is often praised as one of the states with the most intensive, extensive and overall more difficult/better education systems in the country.

Real world experience matters when you are making choices that affect real world events. An example I see fairly often is people who criticize cops for killing people in shootouts. "Why didn't you just shoot to disarm?" or "Why didn't you let it escalate to that?" They themselves have no idea what goes into a situation like that. It's a split second decision, where you aren't allowed the luxury of thinking or even aiming sometimes. Instead, due to a lack of basic experience with firearms, they're happy to spout off that guns are easy to aim and should never be used to kill. Well no shit, but it doesn't work that way.

The only criticisms that I have heard about police shootings (especially recently) are when they shoot unarmed people. If the suspect has a gun and is shooting back, then I think it's pretty clear cut that the officer is trying to defend his life if he ends up killing the person, but if the suspect is unarmed then I think that is a topic that is seriously worthy of discussion. As far as "why didn't they just shoot to disarm," that's a pretty ignorant statement to make in my opinion. If you pull out a gun, it's because you're prepared to kill a person. The question shouldn't be where they shoot once the gun is out, but at what point should the gun be used. This is an interesting discussion, but I don't see how it is related to age.

Here we go with another anecdote, but a lot of folks my age (mid 20s) seem to think that cops are magicians and can aim perfectly in split second decisions during time of duress. This is probably due to movies, where the hero always disarms or otherwise incapacitates the bad guy with a quick but well aimed shot. And yes, "why didn't they just shoot to disarm" is incredibly ignorant, but something a lot of people seem hung up on when it comes to guns.

As for why I brought that subject up, it was to compare experience. A lot of misinformed people think their word is law when it comes to gun safety when they don't even know the first thing about firearms. The same can be said of teenagers about political issues; they will generally not understand the consequences. Some kids may be quick to lobby for war because they think it's cool, while others will be hesitant to despite a clear attack on the nation's interests, because they may think that every problem can be solved peacefully.

Show me these numbers that you're talking about please.

Care to show me numbers that suggest there are enough young people that care, and wouldn't take the opportunity to try to vote in the most damaging of radical ideologies? I mean, I don't have any numbers, but do you? I'd be interested to see them.

 

[Muur]

I'd rather the age be lowered, people should have the right to abstain.

 

[jayrachi]

I'm against compulsory voting. It may take ten minutes where you're from, but generally in the area I live in there's such a high density of people (I live around DC) that I'd have to wait in line for ~two hours to vote for someone I don't like. Besides, why should I have to vote if the only two options in my country both suck?

 

[Lyrebird]

The voting age here is 18 and it is compulsory. It literally takes 10 minutes to get it done because there are so many places to vote. I mean if you don't want to vote for anyone, you just get your name checked off and write a donkey vote. A donkey vote basically means I could vote for a wall, it is a vote that counts for nothing if I don't want to actually vote for anyone or I don't care. A lot of people do that when they are older for some reason. A lot of younger people get really enthusiastic about politics especially with issues that effect them.

I think several people have undersold 18-24 year olds are a group. At that age you are excited because you have that feeling that you can make a difference and you want to vote for people that understand you better. Older people don't generally mean that they care about politics, the example with the 27 year old junkie I found a bit unrealistic. I mean why would you want to listen to a deadbeat who doesn't care. We are assuming that people our age don't know anything which is completely false. Yes it may be your experiences but is that enough to generalize a demographic when it comes to voting? So not.

Since we have to vote, we understand the issues and what's effecting us as an age group. We have to consider how much political ideology comes across during college as well, so really to say that young people have no clue is really much of a stereotype that isn't going to help anyone.

 

[jayrachi]

Waiting for several hours just to write a donkey vote just doesn't seem worth my time.

 

[Lyrebird]

Why the assumption that you would wait several hours? In my area there are several places to vote and several voting booths within each places. Why is there the assumption even if there are a lot of people in your area, that it would take several hours? It takes 10 minutes, get your name checked off and vote and that's it. Are just assuming that whoever sets up the whole voting system in your area would be woefully inept? All of these seem to be harsh assumptions.