Socratic Seminar: Youth Voting
We had a Socratic Seminar on Tuesday about youth voting and changing the legal voting age from 18 to 16. The class was divided into two groups, and we discussed the pros and cons of changing the voting age. The seminar was centered around a New York Times Article discussing one author’s opinion on lowering the voting age. The article was mainly for lowering the age.
My stand on the issue was that the voting age should not be lowered to 16 because, in my opinion, the effort required to lower the voting age would not be worth it because the voter turnout among 16 year olds would be so low that there would be no point. In addition, lowering the voting age would pave the way for lowering the ages of things like drinking, smoking, and marriage. One important point that Dillon brought up was that the teen years are a time that kids make mistakes and learn, and it would be unwise to lower the age of not only voting, but marriage and drinking as well, because teens would perhaps make a mistake that they would regret later.
I disagreed with the article for the most part. The article said that lowering the voting age would make sure that America’s teens felt as though they have a stronger part in society. Also, the article suggested an “early voting pass” that would test high school students on their knowledge of the issues, or even their G.P.A. Although this is a good idea, it would take far too much effort for so little turnout. I think that it would be more valuable to invest that money in high school civics classes so that by the time young people are 18, they are educated enough to make an unbiased decision.
This Socratic Seminar was successful, and I think that many great points were made and that it was a very constructive discussion. Many of the points that were made on both sides were valuable and useful. However, when it came down to the final vote, our group was in favor of keeping the voting age at 18.
Labels: Current Events, Reflections
10 Words that Spell Change for America's Youth
I think that this year will be the year of the youth vote. Barack Obama in particular has gotten many of the potential young constituents hyped up about voting. Even the state referendums are seeing increased voting rates. I think that young people are realizing that who they vote for today will affect their lives tomorrow. I think many young people are dissatisfied with the incumbent president, and want to put someone with a last name other than Bush or Clinton in office. I think that Barack Obama is the progressive candidate of choice for young people. Many people are saying that Obama is too young to have had experience enough to be president, and favor an older, conservative John McCain or Evangelical Mike Huckabee. What about John F. Kennedy? Was he too young for office of president of the
Labels: Presidential Candidates
Presidential Debate
Yesterday (February 11), we had a mock U.S. Presidential debate, in which everyone in our class was on a presidential candidate’s “team” and researched one issue for that candidate. Then, each candidate “experts” presented their issue and argued their case. My candidate was Mike Gravel, the independent candidate from Alaska. I had a bit of a hard time researching his issues, and it was difficult to find his standing on a lot of the issues. It took a long time to get in depth research notes about his standing on most topics. OnTheIssues proved to be the most valuable resource for finding info. The debate overall went very well, although on some questions I had to guess Gravel’s standing on those issues based on his opinions. I was the delegate for National or Homeland security (what’s the difference?), and overall, I did well. I proved good points and I think that I did a good job.Labels: Presidential Candidates, Reflections