[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Voting age (Page 1 of 6)
Posted: 2/5/2012 6:37:32 AM EDT
|
Do you have a problem with the voting age in the US being 18?
|
|
Quoted:
I'd like to see the minimum raised to 25, or 30 or 35, and I'd like to see some sort of rule where people who don't pay taxes can't vote and people who accept government assistance forfeit their right to have a say in elections. This would be much better than the current state of affairs. Voting age should be between 21 and 25. |
|
Quoted: I'd like to see the minimum raised to 25, or 30 or 35, and I'd like to see some sort of rule where people who don't pay taxes can't vote and people who accept government assistance forfeit their right to have a say in elections. So landed votes or weighted wealth votes? 
|
|
Quoted:
I'd like to see the minimum raised to 25, or 30 or 35, and I'd like to see some sort of rule where people who don't pay taxes can't vote and people who accept government assistance forfeit their right to have a say in elections. I would be happy if people would actually put a little effort into investigating the actual positions a person holds instead of blindly voting for someone just because they have an r or d after their name. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd like to see the minimum raised to 25, or 30 or 35, and I'd like to see some sort of rule where people who don't pay taxes can't vote and people who accept government assistance forfeit their right to have a say in elections. So landed votes or weighted wealth votes? No. Didn't say that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd like to see the minimum raised to 25, or 30 or 35, and I'd like to see some sort of rule where people who don't pay taxes can't vote and people who accept government assistance forfeit their right to have a say in elections. Sales or income taxes? Income (assuming we still had an income tax). |
|
Quoted:
Definitely too low. How can you make an informed decision with no life experience? 21-25. The higher, the better. I know plenty of 40 and 50 yr. old idiots who aren't even remotely rational thinkers. Age is not in and of itself a determinate of intelligence/rationality/judgement. The line is currently drawn at 18, which is considered legal adulthood at the fed level and in many states. So unless that age for adulthood is changed, the voting age isn't changing either. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd like to see the minimum raised to 25, or 30 or 35, and I'd like to see some sort of rule where people who don't pay taxes can't vote and people who accept government assistance forfeit their right to have a say in elections. Sales or income taxes? Income (assuming we still had an income tax). Gotcha |
|
Quoted:
Does everyone who wants to raise the age for voting also wish to raise the age at which someone can enlist in the armed services to the same age, or do we expect some people who fight for the country to have absolutely no say in who gets elected? No. Let people enlist at 18, vote at 30. If they don't like that, they don't have to enlist. If we went back to a draft, I'd say let draftees vote at their draft age. My reasoning, quite simply, is that enlisting in the military does not in any way automatically confer the wisdom needed to vote intelligently. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Definitely too low. How can you make an informed decision with no life experience? 21-25. The higher, the better. 25 makes sense to me I think it should be 50 years old. Neither would that age restriction bother me. Your not the person you were at 18 and can make better informed decisions. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does everyone who wants to raise the age for voting also wish to raise the age at which someone can enlist in the armed services to the same age, or do we expect some people who fight for the country to have absolutely no say in who gets elected? No. Let people enlist at 18, vote at 30. If they don't like that, they don't have to enlist. If we went back to a draft, I'd say let draftees vote at their draft age. My reasoning, quite simply, is that enlisting in the military does not in any way automatically confer the wisdom needed to vote intelligently. Neither does age. I have known plenty of people older than 30 who aren't intellignet enough to be make sound decisions. Perhaps we should use IQ instead. How about no one with an IQ under 150 gets to vote? Or we could use SAT scores. No one who didn't take it gets to vote and no one who scored lower than the 85th percentile gets to vote. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd like to see the minimum raised to 25, or 30 or 35, and I'd like to see some sort of rule where people who don't pay taxes can't vote and people who accept government assistance forfeit their right to have a say in elections. This would be much better than the current state of affairs. Voting age should be between 21 and 25. Unless the person is in the military fighting for our country. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Definitely too low. How can you make an informed decision with no life experience? 21-25. The higher, the better. 25 makes sense to me I think it should be 50 years old. Neither would that age restriction bother me. Your not the person you were at 18 and can make better informed decisions. If it is going to be changed it better be to one end of the spectrum. Either 18 which is what it is now and I believe is fine or it should be old. I am smarter than most 25 year old people I know. So either leave it alone or let the old and presumably wise vote. But, age does not necessarily mean wisdom. just as being young does not equate ignorance. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does everyone who wants to raise the age for voting also wish to raise the age at which someone can enlist in the armed services to the same age, or do we expect some people who fight for the country to have absolutely no say in who gets elected? No. Let people enlist at 18, vote at 30. If they don't like that, they don't have to enlist. If we went back to a draft, I'd say let draftees vote at their draft age. My reasoning, quite simply, is that enlisting in the military does not in any way automatically confer the wisdom needed to vote intelligently. Neither does age. I have known plenty of people older than 30 who aren't intellignet enough to be make sound decisions. Perhaps we should use IQ instead. How about no one with an IQ under 150 gets to vote? Or we could use SAT scores. No one who didn't take it gets to vote and no one who scored lower than the 85th percentile gets to vote. I'm sorry, but any method we use will be artbitrary to some extent. I'm fine with the arbitrariness of saying '30'. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd like to see the minimum raised to 25, or 30 or 35, and I'd like to see some sort of rule where people who don't pay taxes can't vote and people who accept government assistance forfeit their right to have a say in elections. This would be much better than the current state of affairs. Voting age should be between 21 and 25. Unless the person is in the military fighting for our country. No exception for military service unless you were drafted. Nobody forced you to join. |
|
Quoted:
If it is going to be changed it better be to one end of the spectrum. Either 18 which is what it is now and I believe is fine or it should be old. I am smarter than most 25 year old people I know. So either leave it alone or let the old and presumably wise vote. But, age does not necessarily mean wisdom. just as being young does not equate ignorance. Just curious, but how old are you? You sound like my 15 year old son, who of course, knows everything at his age. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it is going to be changed it better be to one end of the spectrum. Either 18 which is what it is now and I believe is fine or it should be old. I am smarter than most 25 year old people I know. So either leave it alone or let the old and presumably wise vote. But, age does not necessarily mean wisdom. just as being young does not equate ignorance. Just curious, but how old are you? You sound like my 15 year old son, who of course, knows everything at his age. I am 20. I did not say I know everything. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it is going to be changed it better be to one end of the spectrum. Either 18 which is what it is now and I believe is fine or it should be old. I am smarter than most 25 year old people I know. So either leave it alone or let the old and presumably wise vote. But, age does not necessarily mean wisdom. just as being young does not equate ignorance. Just curious, but how old are you? You sound like my 15 year old son, who of course, knows everything at his age. I am 20. I did not say I know everything. I rest my case. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it is going to be changed it better be to one end of the spectrum. Either 18 which is what it is now and I believe is fine or it should be old. I am smarter than most 25 year old people I know. So either leave it alone or let the old and presumably wise vote. But, age does not necessarily mean wisdom. just as being young does not equate ignorance. Just curious, but how old are you? You sound like my 15 year old son, who of course, knows everything at his age. I am 20. I did not say I know everything. I rest my case. You have nothing to rest your case on. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Definitely too low. How can you make an informed decision with no life experience? 21-25. The higher, the better. I know plenty of 40 and 50 yr. old idiots who aren't even remotely rational thinkers. Age is not in and of itself a determinate of intelligence/rationality/judgement. The line is currently drawn at 18, which is considered legal adulthood at the fed level and in many states. So unless that age for adulthood is changed, the voting age isn't changing either. Age isn't a determinate, but maturity is. The age for adulthood has nothing to do with it. If it did, we wouldn't have set the drinking age at 21. Anyway, it's not so much about intelligence, or judgement, but life experience like I said. 18 year olds typically haven't amassed enough knowledge about the realities of the issues, and tend to vote based on other peoples' opinions, rather than their own. As a group, young people tend to start out biased to the left, largely because of the crap they're fed in school. As far as I know, the legal age for adulthood has been 18 for a very long time. The age to vote has only been 18 since the 70s. One has nothing to do with the other. But no, it's not going to change, unless it's lowered, like some people want. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it is going to be changed it better be to one end of the spectrum. Either 18 which is what it is now and I believe is fine or it should be old. I am smarter than most 25 year old people I know. So either leave it alone or let the old and presumably wise vote. But, age does not necessarily mean wisdom. just as being young does not equate ignorance. Just curious, but how old are you? You sound like my 15 year old son, who of course, knows everything at his age. I am 20. I did not say I know everything. I wasn't insinuating you did know everything, although I thought I did when I was your age. To say I've done a 180 degree turn around politically since I was 18 would be an understatement. Now I vote using knowledge and experience, instead of emotion. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd like to see the minimum raised to 25, or 30 or 35, and I'd like to see some sort of rule where people who don't pay taxes can't vote and people who accept government assistance forfeit their right to have a say in elections. So landed votes or weighted wealth votes? the poor will always outnumber the rich and most will always vote themselves money. not new concept, not going away anytime soon. Quoted:
I have no problem with the voting age. The real problem is that we allow ignorance to go rampant. The ignorant reach critical mass somehow and voted themselves the allowance to run rampant. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it is going to be changed it better be to one end of the spectrum. Either 18 which is what it is now and I believe is fine or it should be old. I am smarter than most 25 year old people I know. So either leave it alone or let the old and presumably wise vote. But, age does not necessarily mean wisdom. just as being young does not equate ignorance. Just curious, but how old are you? You sound like my 15 year old son, who of course, knows everything at his age. I am 20. I did not say I know everything. I wasn't insinuating you did know everything, although I thought I did when I was your age. To say I've done a 180 degree turn around politically since I was 18 would be an understatement. Now I vote using knowledge and experience, instead of emotion. Most of the people I know who are at around the 25 year old age all voted for Obama and thought he was going to be great and I argued and pleaded telling them he was not going to be good for this country and of course no one listened to me. Even most of my professors who are around 40 thought he was going to be great. From those experiences I see that age is not the problem. Stupid people are always going to be stupid just like ignorant people will be ignorant. In a free society we have people who are FREE to be ignorant and stupid and vote without any real knowledge of candidates or issues. You can try to minimize this risk but it will not work out like you suspect. Why do you think it is so hard to keep a Republic form of government? Freedom has the flaw to allow us to vote in people who can ultimately enslave us. Freedom gives you the choice to have the greatest country or end up the worst country. Hopefully people will learn from their mistakes (like voting in Obama) and correct themselves to be more informed next time or they can remain ignorant and we will continue down the long dark road. |
|
Quoted:
I'm fine with the arbitrariness of saying '30'. At least there was a rationale for choosing 21 and then 18. Choosing any other number IS simply picking a number without any basis - which is the most arbitrary method of doing anything (and BTW, it's one method of which the courts never approve). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it is going to be changed it better be to one end of the spectrum. Either 18 which is what it is now and I believe is fine or it should be old. I am smarter than most 25 year old people I know. So either leave it alone or let the old and presumably wise vote. But, age does not necessarily mean wisdom. just as being young does not equate ignorance. Just curious, but how old are you? You sound like my 15 year old son, who of course, knows everything at his age. I am 20. I did not say I know everything. I rest my case. You have nothing to rest your case on. My 30 year old daughter and I got in an argument a while back, and she said, "I'm not a naive 18 year old anymore Dad!" I said, "You look back now and see how naive you were at 18. Wait till your 50, and you'll still see the same thing, looking back at 30. It never stops." (Can I get an Amen?) |
|
Quoted:
Definitely too low. How can you make an informed decision with no life experience? 21-25. The higher, the better. There's a Dem Cong congressman who wants to lower the voting age to 16. The Dems need uninformed voters, who will respond to emotional appeals rather than any logic. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it is going to be changed it better be to one end of the spectrum. Either 18 which is what it is now and I believe is fine or it should be old. I am smarter than most 25 year old people I know. So either leave it alone or let the old and presumably wise vote. But, age does not necessarily mean wisdom. just as being young does not equate ignorance. Just curious, but how old are you? You sound like my 15 year old son, who of course, knows everything at his age. I am 20. I did not say I know everything. I rest my case. You have nothing to rest your case on. My 30 year old daughter and I got in an argument a while back, and she said, "I'm not a naive 18 year old anymore Dad!" I said, "You look back now and see how naive you were at 18. Wait till your 50, and you'll still see the same thing, looking back at 30. It never stops." (Can I get an Amen?) I hope to always be progressing in my wisdom as I age. But, where is the cutoff? Like I said make it very young or very old. |
|
Quoted:
Most of the people I know who are at around the 25 year old age all voted for Obama and thought he was going to be great and I argued and pleaded telling them he was not going to be good for this country and of course no one listened to me. Even most of my professors who are around 40 thought he was going to be great. From those experiences I see that age is not the problem. Stupid people are always going to be stupid just like ignorant people will be ignorant. In a free society we have people who are FREE to be ignorant and stupid and vote without any real knowledge of candidates or issues. You can try to minimize this risk but it will not work out like you suspect. Why do you think it is so hard to keep a Republic form of government? Freedom has the flaw to allow us to vote in people who can ultimately enslave us. Freedom gives you the choice to have the greatest country or end up the worst country. Hopefully people will learn from their mistakes (like voting in Obama) and correct themselves to be more informed next time or they can remain ignorant and we will continue down the long dark road. You do sound like you have a good head on your shoulders, but your only life experience is dealing with naive kids and liberal Professors. Liberals will always vote for free shit over freedom. Conservatives know someone has to pay for that free shit. Most of those kids will mature and realize this, the rest were a lost cause to start with. |
|
Sure, provided that you do the same with the age for buying firearms, enlisting in the military, serving on a jury, and entering into a contract. I mean, if an 18 year old can't be trusted to vote then how can they be trusted to safely handle weapons, determine guilt or innocence, or agree to be legally bound by their decisions? |