OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,600
- 2,220
Holy smokes. Go live under an oligarch.No. They shouldn’t. Those on the take, and without property ownership should never be able to cast a vote that determines how the nations funds are allocated. Or vote for those who do.I've talked to lots of people who can't tell you how many people are in the House of Representatives or why, or how many judges are on the Supreme Court or what kind of cases they hear, but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc.There's really no way to come up with a formula that determines a person 18 years 0 days old is "qualified" to vote while another person 17 years 364 days old, is not. It ain't like the Vote Fairy descends with a magic wand of flooby dust on one's 18th birthday.
In truth some people are knowledgeable and qualified at 18 or much younger while others expend their entire life never attaining that state at all. Which is why the Duopoly party dumbs everything down to catchphrased pandering.
What should really happen is we develop a civics test that determines whether you know enough about how things work in order to vote. Regardless of age. I'll wager we'd lose a hell of a lot more voters than we'd gain.
I don't agree with a civics test, although I teach the rudiments of it to our Hi-SET students. The more you know, the better. But the laws apply to all, so all should have a chance to voice their choice.