Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

That's a fair point, and I agree that the vote is traditionally considered a privilege of citizenship. However, it gets tricky when temporary residents are contributing significantly; economically, socially, and even in terms of civic responsibility (like paying taxes).

Isn't it the case that they pay back the things you mention, in return for the right to residency, however temporary?

[Sushan]

That's a fair point, and I agree that the vote is traditionally considered a privilege of citizenship. However, it gets tricky when temporary residents are contributing significantly; economically, socially, and even in terms of civic responsibility (like paying taxes).

Isn't it the case that they pay back the things you mention, in return for the right to residency, however temporary?

Well, I think what we have to consider more are the results of this payback. They might be paying back for their temporary residency, but the results will be permanent or long lasting and will affect the real and long term citizens. When these temporary residents are significant in their number, as in many countries like the US, the UK, etc., the effect of their voting will be more significant.

[Gabriela Contreras Gonzalez]

It is not about people voting uninformed, manipulated, or by liking or disliking a candidate; it is about who will decide who has the right to vote. Right now, as soon as you reach a certain age (18 in my country), you are considered an adult, and with that comes your rights and obligations as a citizen, including the right to vote, regardless of your race, name, gender, sexual orientation, or professional background. But what if it gets restricted to people who went to university… I could still vote, but could you? What if we change it to those who speak more than one language, pay taxes, are right-handed, have always voted, and can only vote in the same city they were born, etcetera? Restricting rights is only "wrong" for some, as long as they are not affected by those restrictions. Once they start, the restrictions will not stop until only those who guarantee a specific result can vote.

Good point. But how can someone be not mature enough to vote when he/she is 17 years and 364 days old, but suddenly become mature when he/she turns eighteen?

And also, there is no fool like an old fool. (Fools too get old)

I never talked about maturity, I don't believe maturity comes from age, but from experiences. I've met people older than me who behave like children, and people younger who have experienced pain or responsibility in ways I could not even imagine.
I talked about civic responsibility, and that comes with age; it could happen at 21, 25, 18, or 15, as that is not up to me, but to each government.

The same critique could be given to the U.S. Government, people are mature and responsible enough to vote and join the military, but not to drink alcohol.

Who exactly is a fool? An uneducated person? A person with dementia (who cannot vote or drive, or be on their own)? A person I disagree with? Like I said, we believe labeling people is okay, as long as we are not the ones affected by it.

[Sushan]

It is not about people voting uninformed, manipulated, or by liking or disliking a candidate; it is about who will decide who has the right to vote. Right now, as soon as you reach a certain age (18 in my country), you are considered an adult, and with that comes your rights and obligations as a citizen, including the right to vote, regardless of your race, name, gender, sexual orientation, or professional background. But what if it gets restricted to people who went to university… I could still vote, but could you? What if we change it to those who speak more than one language, pay taxes, are right-handed, have always voted, and can only vote in the same city they were born, etcetera? Restricting rights is only "wrong" for some, as long as they are not affected by those restrictions. Once they start, the restrictions will not stop until only those who guarantee a specific result can vote.

Good point. But how can someone be not mature enough to vote when he/she is 17 years and 364 days old, but suddenly become mature when he/she turns eighteen?

And also, there is no fool like an old fool. (Fools too get old)

I never talked about maturity, I don't believe maturity comes from age, but from experiences. I've met people older than me who behave like children, and people younger who have experienced pain or responsibility in ways I could not even imagine.
I talked about civic responsibility, and that comes with age; it could happen at 21, 25, 18, or 15, as that is not up to me, but to each government.

The same critique could be given to the U.S. Government, people are mature and responsible enough to vote and join the military, but not to drink alcohol.

Who exactly is a fool? An uneducated person? A person with dementia (who cannot vote or drive, or be on their own)? A person I disagree with? Like I said, we believe labeling people is okay, as long as we are not the ones affected by it.

I agree, maturity is not automatic at any age; it is shaped by life, not candles on a cake. And also, once we begin deciding who gets to vote based on arbitrary standards, the line becomes dangerously slippery.

My point about age was more about how the criteria we currently use already carry contradictions. So instead of filtering voters, maybe the focus should be on strengthening civic education, not narrowing civic access.