jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (44 posts)

“Foolish” college students shouldn’t vote.

  1. OLYHOOCH profile image59
    OLYHOOCHposted 6 years ago

    That’s the message of the New Hampshire GOP, who is pushing a pair of bills that would prevent students from voting in their college town.

    “Voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do,” said state Speaker William O’Brien. Students lack “life experience,” and “they just vote their feelings.”

    Sound familiar?  Humboldt County conservatives issue the same complaint when they lose county-wide elections, blaming students at Humboldt State University.


    In national elections, young Americans have become a voting bloc to be reckoned with.  But you can thank the Republicans for that — Richard Nixon lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1971.

    Wake Up America. Mr. Obama is at it again. Pay attention to who he is talking to right now.

    Colleges and Universities students.

    Wake Up America,

    OLY



    source link,

    http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/201 … ldnt-vote/

    1. profile image59
      ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Young people are hardly "a voting block to be reckoned with." Few other identifiable groups are less consistent and reliable voters (thankfully). Old people are a voting block to be reckoned with. And in Chicago, dead people, but that's another story.

      1. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        dead voters....lol

        young folks have ideas and voice and strength and are fine with their votes an opinions. They are part of America not enemies of it. I'd be more concerned with outside illegal foregin votes and the re-drawing of districts off of skewed censis numbers, than college age voting.

        at least the kids are current on history and political science, not necessarly ignorant of it.

        1. profile image59
          ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They are, by and large, dopes and more easily led than a flock of sheep on prozac, but if over 18 and citizens they still have the right to vote. Fortunately, most don't most of the time.

          1. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Surely voting requires less maturity than drinking big_smile

            1. profile image0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Or becoming a soldier...

              1. Misha profile image75
                Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                ...and operating a mass killing machine called "a vehicle" requires even less maturity.

                No doubt all those age limits were carefully thought through, and no agenda - state, partisan, corporate, or activist - were allowed to influence the decisions big_smile

            2. profile image59
              ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              If you are a homeless person in Chicago, voting and drinking go hand in hand.

              1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
                Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There are many not homeless who partake of these activites too.

                1. Misha profile image75
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That's down there. Over here only drunk vote tongue

                  1. Greek One profile image78
                    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    up here in Canada the drunk don't vote.. they just get elected

                  2. Eaglekiwi profile image72
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    lol lol


                    I been thinking, what about foolish politicians? gosh they are allowed to lie,cheat n steal, THEN give themselves a pay rise!!


                    (Bet they aint checking adsense or analytics)

                    I need to change my career smile

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        As all young people are more likely to be left wing than right, then surely picking on students alone seems a little unfair.
        Deny the vote to everybody under the age of forty, who holds a blue collar job and who doesn't own property.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Young people usually are left wing.

          Thank God most grow out of that.

          Most.

    2. Dave Mathews profile image59
      Dave Mathewsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds like real crap to me. If a college student is of an age to form in informed decision, and is legally permitted to vote, they should not be prevented from doing so.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Neither should illiterate Tea Baggers!

      1. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Or you...mainly you

      2. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Speaking of the illiterate.

        West Palm Beach County residents who think B U C H A N A N spells G O R E should be prohibited from voting.

    4. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      hmm, sounds like someone is afraid of young adults voting, now that they can finally exercise their right to make a difference.  I think there are far more 'experienced' adults who vote with their feelings and prejudices.

      If young adults are looked upon as less able to make an informed decision, what does that say for the parents who raised them?  I know plenty of young people who are more than capable of making an intelligent decision.

  2. Lisa HW profile image82
    Lisa HWposted 6 years ago

    Isn't the thing just to stop them all from voting in the one area where the school is, and instead have their votes distributed around (based on where their home is)?  (Not stopping them from voting)

    Suppose you separate out the thing about a lot of college students voting liberal and imagine, instead, a massive university run by, and attended by, some group you find really objectionable.  (Let's say, "The Well Funded, Imaginary Martians" who want to take away all kinds of rights from all kinds of people.  Maybe a big enough such objectionable school doesn't exist now, but imagine that one could.)  Those student-voters could change the whole nature of things in their one region.

    Imaginary scenarios aside, as it is, the issue in reality is mainly the one about who tends to be Liberal.  There are masses and masses of Liberal voters.  What's so bad about distributing them based on where their permanent residences are?  Nobody's aiming to stop them, or shrink them - just aiming to stop "artificial clumps" of them (or maybe some other group of one ideology or another, clumped together by virtue of temporary residence).  Besides, people who live in college towns don't particularly want temporary residents having quite such a permanent say in their own region.

    I'm not even saying I don't think one Republican who'd like his own district changed in favor of his own "thing" isn't above putting this kind of thing forward.  I'm just saying I don't think it's such a bad idea.

  3. BillyDRitchie profile image61
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    I'm thinking that having to identify your state and national representatives should a prerequisite for voting.  If you can't even come up with that, you have no business picking future leaders.

    Of course I'm also for the idea of higher income earners having more than one vote, but that's just me.....

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So Mafia bosses should have more of a say than the police!

      I love all this joined up thinking smile

      1. Lisa HW profile image82
        Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        OR, how about this thinking:

        Nobody gets to vote - only I do.  And I get to say who gets in, what laws get passed and don't get passed, and whatever else suits my preference.  smile  Yes...   More and more, I like this kind of thinking.   smile

        1. Greek One profile image78
          Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm with the Lisatatorship!

          1. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            As long as it is not a liTatorship...

  4. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    And like oppression ever solved anything. roll

    1. profile image59
      ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's solved lots of things. Not in a very moral way, but it has historically proven very effective.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh WOW! roll The blind leading the blind. Good Job Short. wink

        1. profile image59
          ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Do you disagree?

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That you are blind to reality. Yes. I would agree. lol

            1. profile image59
              ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No, that wasn't my question. Do you need me to repeat it or can you shift your eyes upaward a few inches?

  5. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    It's interesting to posit this argument against the idea of "owning property" as a requirement to vote.

    Was there, perhaps, an idea that voters needed to have seen both sides of transactions before they were allowed to vote?

    Anyway, it's basically the same argument, just worded differently.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Oh yes. Property ownership is a fine criteria!
    Didn't we all just live through the great "All Americans deserve to be homeowners" debacle?
    Under this "only property owners get to vote" scenario, do you lose your right to vote if your home is foreclosed on?
    If you are six months behind on your mortgage do you get 1/2 a vote?
    What if you own multiple properties? Do you get one vote for each property?
    If you own an apartment building, perhaps you, as the landlord, should get to vote on behalf of each apartment instead of the residents of said apartments.
    Whaddya think?
    Sound Constitutional to anyone?
    Me neither.

    roll

    1. I am DB Cooper profile image68
      I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm glad others see how crazy this idea is/was.

  7. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    The problem in not young people voting.. it is young educated people voting.. or more educated people in general voting.

    If that trend continues, the GOP might never elect another president smile

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Did you mean brainwashed? wink

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        i would rather have a president elected by those who have brains that can be washed, then those who have brains that can be flushed :p

        1. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ROFLMAO

          1. Greek One profile image78
            Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            i have no political axe to grind, but I do think that was rather funny myself smile

            1. Misha profile image75
              Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              neither (or either?) do i big_smile

              1. Greek One profile image78
                Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                can't type.. looking at women holding guitars..

                1. Misha profile image75
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I guess I need to add a fresh one wink

                  1. Greek One profile image78
                    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    no..it's ok.. these are good

  8. brimancandy profile image80
    brimancandyposted 6 years ago

    If they take away the votes of college students, they should also be allowed to take away the votes of people who reside outside of the United States. Like those outside votes from people serving in the military over seas. Which was a huge portion of the vote going to whomever is running the country. and probably one of the reasons why George bush was elected to 2 terms in office.

    But, I am saying that only out of fairness. If you are going to take away a vote that might be objective, you should also take away the votes of those who may be pre-selected to be sure to vote in only one parties favor. Or do we forget the black neighborhoods in Florida where they did not open the polls or closed the polls early, so that thousands of people could not vote, even though there were thousands that insisted they were denied their right to vote. While the government denied it.

    Or, inviting only certain people to your "town Square." meetings so that you do not let anyone in who doesn't agree with your policies and then air it on national television as a real community debate...Again, as George Bush did.

    We are supposed to be moving forward as a country, and all our countries leaders are doing is sending is decades back. Losers.

 
working