(09-17-2019 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 03:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-17-2019 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Second, you're looking at this on an individual level. Do you think it's more likely that the entire population of 16-18 year olds or 50 to 52 year olds have learned about the US political process within the last year? The entire population of 16 to 18 year olds are pretty much in high school. Now compare that to the entire population of people that are in the post-secondary portion of their lives.

I'd also add that 16-18 year olds mostly learn what our system of government is SUPPOSED to do... while 20+ (and especially 50+) have learned what it REALLY does or how people exploit it.

Many young people are idealists. By the time you reach 50, you also learn the risk of unintended consequences. You've usually been around long enough to see great ideas turn into cesspools.

Older people tend to look at what could go wrong while younger people tend to think only of the potential for good.

Youthful optimism is a great thing, perhaps the greatest of things, but should always be tempered by the wisdom of experience.



I will throw one thought in that just sort of came to me....
I do find it odd that the left is simultaneously arguing to lower some ages, but raise others... It seems they want more people to vote, but not live on their own/take care of themselves. I'm sure there are reasons beyond the political, but I just found that thought interesting. The argument is that they're better informed etc etc than they were 20 years ago, but they're less able to live on their own.

I'd agree with everything you said about knowledge of government, but OO's point, which you're responding to, is in no way germane to the citizenship test, which doesn't ask questions like that. Unless someone thinks questions like "What is Benjamin Franklin famous for?" or "Name one of the authors of the Federalist Papers." fit that bill...

Seriously, the citizenship test is basically a US history quiz, which will be a lot easier for high schoolers to answer.

https://my.uscis.gov/en/prep/test/civics/view

And to your last comment - I agree that young people are better informed than years past because of how accessible information is, but are also less able to live on their own. Stagnant wages, higher costs of living, higher costs of healthcare, etc. have create that situation where living on their own is a lot more difficult. You can't easily put yourself through secondary school with a part-time job in 2019 like you could in the mid to late 1900s. Do you think that, overall, that assessment isn't correct?

Yes.

In the mid to late 1900's, more families were intact and there was less need of people to put themselves through secondary school with a part time job, like my dad did in the 0's but I did not have to do in the 60's.

But go ahead and give me a citation on it.

Stagnant wages? Cite something.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/averag...rs-2060808

"Average hourly earnings for non-management private-sector workers in July were $22.65, up 3 cents from June and 2.7% above the average wage from a year earlier, according to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s in line with average wage growth over the past five years: Year-over-year growth has mostly ranged between 2% and 3% since the beginning of 2013."

I think we are in agreement that the Citizenship test is just a regurgitation of factoids. It's a simple test. What bothers me is that so many natural born Americans could not pass it. Not everybody is a straight A high school grad. I don't understand why you think 16-18 YOs will forget it what they had to learn by the time they are old enough to buy a gun (21, under the new proposals). So we have the strange juxtaposition of 18 YOs knowing more about the Second Amendment but 21 YOs being mature enough to own a gun. Both Democratic positions.

Sometimes, Lad, I wonder if you take your positions just to be opposite mine.

You really want to argue that wages haven't been stagnant for the past few decades?

If so, I'll start pulling information out from a multitude of sources to show you that they have remained relatively stagnant.

And what's your point with the last comment in bold? Did I say that 16-18 yr olds would specifically out perform 21 year olds? Or did I say they would outperform the voting age population? I said the latter, which is made up by a majority of people who have not taken a class on the US government in decades. THOSE are the people I am saying 16-18 year olds, on average, would outperform.

I don't take positions just to oppose yours - in this case, I disagree with your comment that the passing rate of the US citizenship test for voting age individuals would decrease if you changed the voting age to 16. I've explained why, in a very logical way.

High school students have more recently taken classes on US history and government, and would therefore be more likely to score higher on a test that probes those specific topics, than the general population of adults, which have, on average, not taken a course on US history and government in decades. Your comment about not all high school students being straight A students applies equally to all adults. So those borderline C students who could likely pass the test right after they took the class, likely wouldn't once they hit middle age...