Raise the draft age to 21 unless you are in the military.

[OldLady]

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'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.
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.

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.

Holy smokes. Go live under an oligarch.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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'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.
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.

"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"

Knowledge

"but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc."

Feelings.

Neither qualifies a 16 year old to vote.

 

[Pogo]

You can volunteer for the military at 18 and should be able to vote if you do so, except you should not be able to be drafted until you are 21. Also, raise the voting age to 21 for non-military.

You do know why they want draftees and voluntary draftees to be as young as possible right?

They get you in there before you're old enough to know better.
Simple as that.

That's actually the reason they want voters to be as young as possible.

Could be. More impressionable. Although the reverse argument can be made about all the old farts on this site entrenched in their own ways.

Me I still think voting should be awarded on some sort of civics test that would demonstrate the subject knows at least a minimum about how things work. Otherwise political rhetoric is going to aim for a lowest common denominator, which means emotional bullshit, because there's no need to aim any higher to achieve your numbers. Give people a test and it won't even matter how old or young they are.

 

[Vastator]

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'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.
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.

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.

Holy smokes. Go live under an oligarch.

Holy smokes; the idea that you think otherwise demonstrates why you shouldn’t be a teacher.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1970. This was done because people were complaining about being eligible for the draft at 18, yet ineligible to vote after serving a tour.

You can volunteer for the military at 18 and should be able to vote if you do so, except you should not be able to be drafted until you are 21. Also, raise the voting age to 21 for non-military.

Q. Why

A. 'Cause the Republican Party is composed of old white guns and won't get the votes from the young energetic & energized set, whose life experience has seen mass murders by guns, and the old white guys in Congress taking bribes from those who profit from the sale of guns and the carnage they produce.

 

[OldLady]

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'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.
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.

"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"

Knowledge

"but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc."

Feelings.

Neither qualifies a 16 year old to vote.

I was responding to a poster calling for a civics test prior to voting. I think 16 is too young, and I don't know why it is being proposed. Most kids that age are still mimicking their parents' politics.

 

[Frannie]

The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1970. This was done because people were complaining about being eligible for the draft at 18, yet ineligible to vote after serving a tour.

You can volunteer for the military at 18 and should be able to vote if you do so, except you should not be able to be drafted until you are 21. Also, raise the voting age to 21 for non-military.

There is no draft

 

[OldLady]

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'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.
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.

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.

Holy smokes. Go live under an oligarch.

Holy smokes; the idea that you think otherwise demonstrates why you shouldn’t be a teacher.

I'm interested in how you justify that.

 

[OldLady]

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'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.
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.

"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"

Knowledge

"but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc."

Feelings.

Neither qualifies a 16 year old to vote.

Trump or Clinton? Opinion ("Feelings")

 

[Pogo]

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'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.
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.

Didn't see this post before. This is some waters I'm just treading out to thinking out loud. Clearly there is no magical ability that descends on one by virtue of attaining the age of 18, that wasn't there yesterday, so clearly that's not a legitimate standard. And just as clearly there walk among us (and post among us here) those who are twice, three times, four times that age who haven't a clue what they're doing yet get qualified to vote by the same virtue of having attained X number of years.

So I must conclude that clearly the present benchmark is inadequate and some new one must be sought, else we stay in the same place.

Can't find the clip right now but I refer you to that infamous clip of a voter in West Virginia who says in 2008, "I've had enough of Hussein!". We can all come up with 16 year olds or 14 year olds who know better than that.

 

[Pogo]

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'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.
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.

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.

Everybody owns some kind of property.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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'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.
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.

"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"

Knowledge

"but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc."

Feelings.

Neither qualifies a 16 year old to vote.

Trump or Clinton? Opinion ("Feelings")

Neither. It's just a game they let us play.The ONLY difference between Repubs and Dems is the speed at which they do the same things.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no draft

That and I think his OP meant to be voting age, since that's what he was on about. Those damned college kids with their idealism, not voting for racism and greed.

 

[deanrd]

The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1970. This was done because people were complaining about being eligible for the draft at 18, yet ineligible to vote after serving a tour.

You can volunteer for the military at 18 and should be able to vote if you do so, except you should not be able to be drafted until you are 21. Also, raise the voting age to 21 for non-military.

I voted while I was in the military.

They send ballots through the mail.

And that was in 1975 to 1979.

And I was in Germany.

So I'm not really sure what this is about.

Military and Overseas Voting

 

[OldLady]

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'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.
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.

"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"

Knowledge

"but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc."

Feelings.

Neither qualifies a 16 year old to vote.

Trump or Clinton? Opinion ("Feelings")

Neither. It's just a game they let us play.The ONLY difference between Repubs and Dems is the speed at which they do the same things.

That neatly sidestepped my point, which is that we vote on our opinions, not knowledge of the system. Manipulating the system shouldn't actually be a factor in our decisions. That's for the parties to play.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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'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.
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.

"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"

Knowledge

"but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc."

Feelings.

Neither qualifies a 16 year old to vote.

Trump or Clinton? Opinion ("Feelings")

Neither. It's just a game they let us play.The ONLY difference between Repubs and Dems is the speed at which they do the same things.

That neatly sidestepped my point, which is that we vote on our opinions, not knowledge of the system. Manipulating the system shouldn't actually be a factor in our decisions. That's for the parties to play.

I never sidestep anything, MY point is that our elections are nothings are nothing more than a game they let us play to make us believe what we think really counts. Having said that, when I was still playing the game I NEVER voted on "feelings" and my "opinions" were/are based on my own research, not what TV talking heads said. I will say this, based on what I've found and based on her own words she was not only not qualified to be President of the US, she is an evil *****.

Trump? An actor playing his "role". He tosses bones to the more Conservative folks who are still believers, but behind his back he is spending just like they ALL do. He is provoking other Nations, as they ALL do (Yes including Barry). His NATO has all manner of forces on Puti's border. He just recognized Israel's "right" to keep the Golan (with this I actually agree), he moved the Embassy to Jerusalem (with which I also agree). He isn't doing any of this on his own, he is simply to robot playing the game for those who are in charge.

 

[OldLady]

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'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.
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.

Didn't see this post before. This is some waters I'm just treading out to thinking out loud. Clearly there is no magical ability that descends on one by virtue of attaining the age of 18, that wasn't there yesterday, so clearly that's not a legitimate standard. And just as clearly there walk among us (and post among us here) those who are twice, three times, four times that age who haven't a clue what they're doing yet get qualified to vote by the same virtue of having attained X number of years.

So I must conclude that clearly the present benchmark is inadequate and some new one must be sought, else we stay in the same place.

Can't find the clip right now but I refer you to that infamous clip of a voter in West Virginia who says in 2008, "I've had enough of Hussein!". We can all come up with 16 year olds or 14 year olds who know better than that.

I understand that you would like a more informed electorate. That would be great, but I don't agree that a civics test requirement for all voters would actually get you where you want to be. If you want the bar raised, it has to be raised by the powers that be in how they explain things to us, in how their arguments are presented (carefully, not in three minute soundbytes). We used to be treated like fairly informed adults. Not anymore. I don't know exactly what happened or why.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Raise the draft age to 21 unless you are in the military.


How can you get drafted if you are already in the military?

 

[Vastator]

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'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.
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.

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.

Holy smokes. Go live under an oligarch.

Holy smokes; the idea that you think otherwise demonstrates why you shouldn’t be a teacher.

I'm interested in how you justify that.

Simple really. Foremostly, (not sure if that’s even a word. If not; it should be.) the fore fathers would never have stood for such nonsense. In fact Benjamin Franklin spoke it plainly, that once the people figured out they could vote themselves gifts from the public treasury; the end of our Republic would be near.
Secondly it’s really just simple economics. You cannot have people who have no vested interest/responsibility in the allocation of tax dollars; having authority over how they are spent. It makes no sense whatsoever. I would challenge you to explain how such a nonsensical notion, not only sounds feasible; but also explain where you think such irresponsible policy would lead...

 

[Vastator]

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'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.
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.

Didn't see this post before. This is some waters I'm just treading out to thinking out loud. Clearly there is no magical ability that descends on one by virtue of attaining the age of 18, that wasn't there yesterday, so clearly that's not a legitimate standard. And just as clearly there walk among us (and post among us here) those who are twice, three times, four times that age who haven't a clue what they're doing yet get qualified to vote by the same virtue of having attained X number of years.

So I must conclude that clearly the present benchmark is inadequate and some new one must be sought, else we stay in the same place.

Can't find the clip right now but I refer you to that infamous clip of a voter in West Virginia who says in 2008, "I've had enough of Hussein!". We can all come up with 16 year olds or 14 year olds who know better than that.

I understand that you would like a more informed electorate. That would be great, but I don't agree that a civics test requirement for all voters would actually get you where you want to be. If you want the bar raised, it has to be raised by the powers that be in how they explain things to us, in how their arguments are presented (carefully, not in three minute soundbytes). We used to be treated like fairly informed adults. Not anymore. I don't know exactly what happened or why.

The public education system, and the degree mills that pass for colleges, is exactly what happened.