Raising the voting age to 25

[Coyote]

I did not say they were. They were examples of things we license and require education, training and passing skilled tests for that are far less important than selecting the people who will decide the future and direction of the nation.


Gee, lessee, must be breathing, have a pulse, made it out of high-school (our grads are like 28th in the world now). That's not much of a requirement. A citizen, sure. But that is not even something we enforce in our presidents (the case can still be made that neither Obama nor Harris meet the requirement of being natural-born citizens). And the crime thing I'm a lot more flexible on. Many are falsely convicted and I'm not sure what difference a crime makes in a person's opinion on elected leadership!

Seems to me that we have pretty low standards for voters, and you know what happens when you set a bar low, you get more low-bar people, which is just what we have today. Maybe we should RAISE the bar to vote. Not to exclude anyone, but just to make them work harder to be qualified so THEY MAKE BETTER VOTERS AND CITIZENS by getting INVOLVED IN THE COUNTRY BY BEING BETTER INFORMED.

People who make that argument typically define “better informed” as agreeing with them on issues.

If you talk about removing rights, there better be a damn good reason, and that isn’t one of them.

 

[toobfreak]

Take any of the anti-“CRT” laws or the so called parental rights laws…or Florida’s law that even restricts the rights of private companies.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to be a lot more specific. I don't know any CRT laws but it seems to me a bad idea to be teaching kids to feel bad about themselves just because of the color of their skin. And when it comes to children, the parent's rights to direct and protect their kids usurp all, don't you think? And I'm not sure how a company can have "rights" when a company is as business, not an individual entity.

What you propose is to effectively ban dissent because YOU define those policies as “crazy”. Disenfranchising entire groups of people is the first step in fascism and authoritarian rule.

But isn't that exactly what the left have been doing to people who disagree with them for years? Or don't you know how the government worked with Google, Facebook and Twitter for years to oppress the opinions and views of people? All I'm proposing is a BETTER-INFORMED VOTER. That is a win-win for all.

Who defines the issues? What is important to you might not be to another.

The people define the issues. But these days, they are being defined by Big Government, politicians, media mofuls working with government, and special interest lobby groups.

American citizenship is not easy get

In California, they are working hard to give it away to anyone who can sneak into the country and get into a program, to stay here.

 

[toobfreak]

People who make that argument typically define “better informed” as agreeing with them on issues.

That is why I said a simple, NON-PARTISAN test.

If you talk about removing rights,

I've mentioned not removing a single right, simply making them better defined and set so that complete idiots aren't voting having no idea who and what they are voting for. Do you really want idiots or people with 70 IQ deciding the direction of the country? Stupid people are more easily misled.

 

[Coyote]

That is why I said a simple, NON-PARTISAN test.

And do you really believe such a test wouldn’t get misused? This isn’t the first time.

I've mentioned not removing a single right, simply making them better defined and set so that complete idiots aren't voting having no idea who and what they are voting for. Do you really want idiots or people with 70 IQ deciding the direction of the country? Stupid people are more easily misled.

It absolutely is removing a right on a subjective basis.

I would rather have “stupid” people vote than a system in place that denies them their right.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Is

I was thinking about banning the book on Ruby Bridges and similar books on black people or with LGTQ characters as ordinary people. Is that a good thing? We’ll let history judge that.

None of that has been banned. It is all still available.

You use a misleading term quite intentionally, as setting curriculum standards does not ban those materials from the public sphere.

Do you think an r rating on a movie is BANNING that movie?

 

[Coyote]

Is

None of that has been banned. It is all still available.

You use a misleading term quite intentionally, as setting curriculum standards does not ban those materials from the public sphere.

Do you think an r rating on a movie is BANNING that movie?

This is one of the books pulled from Texas school. Does it deserve an R rating?

 

[candycorn]

Soldiers and sailors can't vote if they are under 25?

 

[Foul Owl]

Believing we should raise the voting age to 25 is terminally retarded. If you're old enough to serve and die for your country then you're old enough to vote.

 

[SavannahMann]

You guys crack me up. You can’t stand the idea that a demographic tends to vote against you so you want to ban that demographic from voting.

Idiocy.

Here is an idea. Why not do what the people want. Instead of insisting that people adapt to you. Adapt to them.

The job is called Representative. We are a Representative Republic. The job of the elected officials is to Represent their districts in the Government. And to Represent the ideals and opinions of that district or State.

But you want to exclude people. Fine. Only Veterans can vote. They are the ones who wrote a Blank Check to the nation. Payable on demand my life for your freedom.

This way those who put skin in the actual game are the ones who decide what happens. Doesn’t that sound fair?

 

[toobfreak]

And do you really believe such a test wouldn’t get misused?

So what you are contending is that mankind is hopelessly biased and corrupt beyond all resolution. Therefore our elections are hopelessly biased and corrupted beyond all solution.

It absolutely is removing a right on a subjective basis.

What right? Where is it written that people shouldn't have to make at least as much effort to qualify for or prove their competency to vote than we require every day just for a person to have a driver's license? Boy, I sure gotta say Mrs. C., you sure do have a far more bleak and fatalistic view of what you think people are capable of than I do!

I would rather have “stupid” people vote than a system in place that denies them their right.

No one is denying anyone a right, just requiring them to put the effort into it that the action DESERVES. And as far as that bit about rather having stupid, uninformed, clueless people adding into the pool of votes just so you can say they voted, is in effect what they call noise in any form of communication, be it signal processing, imaging, telecom or video.

Stupid people being clueless, uncaring and uninformed amounts to nothing more than a RANDOM element in an otherwise dataset of informed voters (signal). If you care at all for the QUALITY of the outcome rather than just sheer QUANTITY, I would no more expect clueless people to dilute the pool of votes with garbage than I would ask you whether I'm better off with a 12" Intes Rumak Maksutov over a 9" f/12 LZOS triplet because you're simply not qualified to decide.

 

[martybegan]

or go to war.

I have a feeling the modern military wouldn't want to draft anyone younger than 21 or so due to the changes in war with technology today.

That being said, just pick one, 18 or 21 for everything.

 

[AsherN]

Many people are not mature enough at 18 or 21.

But mature enough to be trusted with multi-million dollar weapon systems and to die for the country?

 

[L.K.Eder]

better informed: Obama was born in Kenya, the 2020 election was won by trump and stolen from him.

 

[playtime]

I’m being nice today. Normally I’d have said 45.

Personally, I think there needs to be testing to allow for voting and all alcohol, tobacco and drugs should be banned.

how very constitutional of you, mr. crow.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

This seems like a good idea.

Vivek Ramaswamy proposes raising voting age from 18 to 25

Republican presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy is set to announce a proposal that would raise the voting age from 18 to 25 unless Americans serve in the military or pass a civics test.

www.washingtontimes.com

This is NOT a good idea. Leave the voting age as it is---18 years old. It is never a good idea to take away a person's voting rights.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

This seems like a good idea.

Vivek Ramaswamy proposes raising voting age from 18 to 25

Republican presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy is set to announce a proposal that would raise the voting age from 18 to 25 unless Americans serve in the military or pass a civics test.

www.washingtontimes.com

I wonder if Vivek would be OK with 25 yrs old being the legal age to buy a gun? He is such a hypocrite.