I'm wondering if perhaps the age limit to vote should be raised.
I'm seeing so many immature words come from people. Even if they ARE older and still talk so immaturely, at least the odds are that we'd cut out SOME of the irrational choices that young people make because of misinformation, aptness to be seduced by charisma, and inability to sort out the facts.
There's a reason that there's an age requirement for, say, such things as the Presidency and Congressional positions and etc.
I've seen that many young people don't even know the facts of life, much less have the ability to sort out political ideology, etc. It's sad, but true. They should be taught better, because they're gonna be the ones who actually are in charge one of these days.
In lieu of proper vetting of potential Officials (which hasn't been done during this Administration at the very least)...........what other options could be considered?
Being able to fight for your country before you could vote in it would be perverse.
On the contrary, kids today are getting pretty smart, they have access to more information and knowledge than anytime in history. Besides, age doesn't have a lot to do with it, there are millions of folks who act and talk irrationally, are misinformed and cannot sort out the facts.
Evolution is a fact, Brenda, yet you yourself reject it. Should you be allowed to vote, then?
Excuse you, but evolution (as in people merging from ape ancestors and other such nonsense) hasn't been proven at all.
I'm not sure that people who believe their ancestors were apes should be allowed to vote, no. LOL. It's always been entertaining to watch films like "Planet Of The Apes", but I really wish impressionable people would take some time to sort out fact from fiction!
Politicians are having this same argument in the UK but with the thought of bringing the voting age down. I think in the main it is because only 40% of the registered voters bothered to vote last time. Maybe the solution is not raising or dropping the age for voting but making it compulsory, with the option of opting out for religious or other reasons with possibly a small financial forfeit for not bothering to vote at all.
That'd be bad news for you, as the elderly tend to vote Democrat.
Be careful what you wish for.
Are you hoping by raising the age at which people can vote, the electorate will be skewed toward the reactionary GOP? What age do you suggest? I will tell you this Brenda, there is no way if I were 18 years of age that I can be sent to war and not have a say as to who is sending me there. You guys are ready to repeal the 26th amendment, you fantasize, that is not going anywhere!
Don't you people ever stop?
I have heard this scuttlebut from rightwing groups before, but I promise you that it is dead on arrival. No chance!
So what age would you raise it to?, 30?
Gee, Brenda, you are a legend in your own mind, what makes you think that your judgement is so golden, while everybody else is mere chopped liver?
The millenials are the most liberal generation alive. They aren't likely to change their views, given the economic stress they've suffered. Consequently, I can understand why conservatives would want to prevent young people from voting.
Yet young people are less likely than our mature conservative friends to believe climate change is a liberal conspiracy, as well as evolution. they are also less likely to believe that the President is a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya. So if we're going to limit the vote (which I don't favor) to people who are in touch with reality, it wouldn't be young adults I'd target
Most appropriate, Paul, it is the rightwinger that wants to restrict access to the ballot for purely political reasons. It is pretty bald face, why they befuddle the issue with their so called maturity because they vote Democratic. I vote for the Dems generally and I don't see the concerns of the younger people today any more uninformed or unreasonable than what it was like when I was their age.
What planet do you live on? I fought for my country before I could vote. A better question for you is, "Just how old are you?"
Thank you so much for your service to our country.
The third rock from the sun, how about you FP? There was a time that the franchise was withheld from people of color, so what are you talking about. That and what it is that your obviously are promoting is unacceptable, PERIOD. Why do you rightwingers bring topics like this when the chances that it will ever be taken seriously is virtually nil. There are a lot of things tolerated in the past that is not and will not be tolerated today, so a better question is what century are YOU living in? I am old enough to continue to vote your rightwing reactionary friends out of office, quite old enough, thank you!
Credence2, I was asleep, watching a documentary on youtube. I woke up and decided to check HubPages and then I saw this thread. I read it and let out a riotous cackle. I wondered where this thread is going with its inverse logic. Really, young people are "too immature" to vote logically, oh boy! Really now. There are some young people who are more logical and intelligent voters than those over 40.
I am glad that you came to the forefront regarding responding to this thread. This thread has gone beyond the pale in terms of inductive and deductive logic. The longer I live, the more "amazements" occur. Just to think that the moment I have never heard anything more incredulous-then something comes from left corner and I am COMPLETELY nonplussed to say the least.
I want to say to Credence2, psycheskinner, aliasis, and zelkiiro, thank YOU for your intelligent rebuttal to the OP. This thread is an example of true inverse thinking, analysis, and logic.
Well, Grace the conservatives, or should I say the reationary, is playing a lame game that is similar to the title character in "the Emperor's New Clothes". These folks are losing on all fronts, with the young, blacks, hispanics, women, even Jews and Asians. But they still continue to make excuses and deny the obvious. Instead of looking at their platforms and policies, they think that they can disenfranchise a swath of the electorate that have yet to descend to their level of madness.
Leave it to the rightwinger to have the nerve to try to circumscribe the rights of others while leaving their own rights intact, this has nothing to do with democracy and representative government.
These people are beyond the pale and beyond help which they desperately need. My task is to put the spotlight on them and their nefarious schemes whenever possible. Thanks for your gracious comment.
Thank you Credence2, in response to the OP's thread regarding changing voting requirements. I have one. Voters should be well versed regarding inductive and deductive logic as well as a high level of critical assessment and thinking skills. That should erase some of the more reactionary portion of the voting population, hmmmm...........
It would prevent Obama from voting. And Eric Holder. And the ditsy Nancy Pelosi. And Harry Reid. And MOST of the Administration. And MANY of his supporters.
So hey, maybe that would work. LOL.
"Voters should be well versed regarding inductive and deductive logic as well as a high level of critical assessment and thinking skills"
Well, Grace, that should eliminate all the ridiculous reactionary GOP voters. While I am not about voter suppression for anyone, I think that you rsolution allows me to say 'put a fork in it, it is done'!.
The source for your lie is? Give us some links.
We have way too many "low information voters" already. I see some answering Brenda's question here.
Brenda the question you asked here will attract low information voters. I am an advocate that only payers of federal income tax be allowed to vote. About 50% of income earners pay taxes. Anyone else should be disenfranchised until they do. Problem solved.
Hi frog prince! All I know is that this Nation seems to be on the verge of being held hostage basically by immature-thinking leaders put in Office by immature-thinking, rude, anti-parental-wisdom people. There are some young people who have good heads on their shoulders, but there are way too many who think they know everything before they've even gained any wisdom and/or experience at all.
I recall even hearing one of them (I don't remember right now if it was Obama or Joe Biden or who...) tell a child at one of the debates that children already know more than their parents!
Yeah, when the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, right. But until then....
a.k.a. "The poor shouldn't be allowed to vote." Because, you know, people just above and below the poverty line don't pay income tax.
Anyone else feeling a bit red? Because it sure is Soviet in here.
Once you hit 18, age and political wisdom have like, no correlation. The fact is, most adults don't know much about politics but tend to vote in party lines anyway (focusing on "easy" gut reaction social issues). I'd say college kids are probably the most likely to be politically savvy, and they are the youngest voting block.
18 is far old enough to know about politics, anyway. Not voting the way you'd like them to doesn't mean they don't understand who they are voting for and why.
"Once you hit 18, age and political wisdom have like, no correlation."
Not sure I can be comfortable with that statement. There are very few young people (in my experience) that, fresh from mommy and daddy, understand that it's not nice to steal from one to give to another. It seems to take quite a few years of actually supporting themselves to understand that simple fact, but until they do they tend to congregate strongly in the Democratic camp. Feed off the efforts of someone else, in other words, and vote appropriately.
In the long run, there isn't a lot of wisdom, political or not, in that approach.
My point wasn't that 18-year-olds are informed voters but that most voters aren't informed, whether 18 or 40. I mean, I definitely agree that especially teenagers will politically agree with parents, but I'm not sure I think most people switch radically from parents even when older.
Now there I would agree with you! That most voters are not informed.
But I don't find young people, around college age, to agree with parents wholesale. For the most part I think that age goes Democrat regardless of parentage.
I'd say that's true, too - college age, particularly those who are actually college students, seem to have a Democrat majority. I'd also put out there that college students probably have more access and ability to be politically learned and involved than most other groups, with classes and expectations that generally (and hopefully) encourage them to explore and understand issues.
Not a hard and fast rule, obviously, but I think it's nonsense to say young voters don't know anything, because I do think college/grad students are likely to be as informed (if not more informed) than others.
Disagree that classes OR expectations generally encourage college students to explore issues. It would be nice, but both colleges and instructors are almost notoriously liberal (and democrat) - neither has any incentive to encourage students to "explore" or understand conservatives or their ideology. And they don't.
But the biggest thing is that those students have had everything handed to them their entire lives. It's all they know - to "support themselves" on someone else's dime - and as a result easily fall into the trap of thinking that's always a good thing. As I said, it's only after years of actually supporting themselves they figure out that it's not automatically good to rob one to give to another, and at that point some leave the Democratic party.
Academia is notoriously liberal? Well, I wonder why. Not just being snarky, but conservatives don't tend to be the most in touch with the sciences or social studies. If a Republican claims that education has a liberal bias because they teach evolution and not creationism, well, so be it.
You could say that college students tend to be privileged, though I think THAT is also a huge generalization - many students work full time and take out enormous loans to get through, and though they are still luckier than the poorest, I'd say it's a gross exaggeration to call all college kids spoiled and unable to "support themselves" - in my own experience, this was not true at least a third of the time, and I went to a private school.
More than that, I think there's something wrong with your reasoning here. True, the young generation is the most liberal yet, but there's no reason they won't remain liberal even when they get older. Today's older conservatives are not from the same generation as the young, it's not a point A to point B situation.
Furthermore, a majority of the poor vote Democrat, so finances don't really play into this.
Upper education is probably liberal because they live off the public dole, not because they are knowledgeable about science. Be careful though - you're almost confusing the far radical religious right with being a conservative.
I didn't say that students were privileged; I said they live off of someone else. They are still children, for goodness' sake! Not one in a hundred is supporting themselves while going to school full time, although it is possible to do so. Better to get loans (that, never having had a large loan, they don't understand the negatives of), grants, or other monies from someone else. And then whine when they have to pay the loan back.
No, they won't remain liberal. When they become one of the "haves" and are on the other side of that "share the wealth" ideology the tendency is to change sides. What I said.
And yes, the poor vote Democrat; that's where they get their support. The liberals that insist on sharing the wealth, whether earned or not.
Meh, this sounds basically like groundless conjecture.
Students have the right to complain about loans. Education in America is absurdly expensive, more expensive than basically any other country and not nearly subsidized enough. And I'd argue with your facts about who supports themselves - I supported myself in college, paid for rent, food, gas, textbooks, everything. I worked full time and went to school full time, and am now paying my loans... still working full time.
And I'm still a liberal. Maybe if I became a straight white Christian upper-class man, that would change, but the outlook is pretty bleak so far.
Education in America is close to what I paid 40 years ago, in terms of real dollars/income. The difference now is that kids don't want to pay it.
If you supported yourself and paid for all that, what are the loans for? Tuition alone? If so, you're one of the few that are willing to do that. Not that that would be surprising if you worked full time during school - that is extremely rare today.
But there is still hope for you - perhaps you will be rich one day and want to keep what you've earned, meaning you'll have to be conservative. Or maybe you'll be poor and need to keep what you've earned instead of Uncle Sam taking it to buy somebody a cell phone or an education they don't want to work for.
eh, I was solidly a Republican in high school. In fact, I even won a mock election running on the GOP ticket in AP US History.
When George Bush won the first election, I was pleased with the result as Al Gore didn't seem to be up for the job.
However, I think most people are getting sick of the Bible thumping and the intolerance when it comes to social issues. If the GOP would get back its roots as a party that actually cared about workers as opposed to throwing all of their rights away, maybe they would win an election in the future.
It is a problem, isn't it? The stereotype of a Republican is indeed a bible thumping street corner preacher spreading nonsense. Much of that is undoubtedly promoted by the left to denigrate any and all republicans, but there is a kernel of truth there, too.
It's one reason I make a very poor Republican.
See, that's the problem, the GOP of the last 15 years or how has been running on gays not getting married, woman having no right to get an abortion and making sure that anyone on any type of assistance is labeled as a taker without any research into who they are or what their situation is.
So if GOP lawmakers are being elected on the premise of their stance on social issues, it must mean that is what the people want, correct?
Isn't there a quote floating around out there somewhere that states something like, Those who criticize this generation forget who raised it? Something for us all to ponder perhaps....
Perhaps a better choice would be expecting a little more of people. The whole idea that people would be hindered by presenting an identification to vote is nonsense. You have to have identification and proof of where you live and much more information to get food stamps and welfare.
Ms. Durham, what are the 10 things YOU propose regarding changing voting requirements besides the variable of age? ALL of US are interested in your premise regarding this discussion.
Oh no no. I'm sure you are all interested! But I wouldn't want you to get even more upset. You said you were getting a bit crazed there, remember?
I'll give you some time to think of options yourself.
Oh okay I'll give you ONE thing.
Some sort of evaluation of mental capacity based on tried-and-true points.
It could even be as simple as ascertaining whether someone knows the facts of life or not, perhaps.
Or hey, maybe we already have that. I just am not aware of it, or else it wasn't properly implemented, what with all the widespread insanity that's been exhibited by so many votes for Barack Obama in the first place...........guess we could start with that woman who was videotaped saying he was gonna take care of her now! LOL. What was that? Was she his mistress, or was she just ignorant of what a President's even supposed to do.........?
Thanks.....I needed a good laugh.
A GOP voter telling who denies evolution is going to tell others that they don't know the facts of life...
So how old do I have to be before you would let me vote, Brenda? I suspect that for the rightwinger any democratic voter is too 'young' to vote, regardless of his or her chronological age... Tell me true, isn't that really what this is all about?
==Some sort of evaluation of mental capacity based on tried-and-true points. ==
Literacy tests used to exist in this country, mainly in the South during Jim Crow. We used to have poll taxes in the South too. Our reactionary friends call those the "good old days."
Seriously, the biggest problem with voting in this country is the low level of participation -- one of the lowest in the world. One reason is lack of competition in most elections. Gerrymandering is far more sophisticated than it used to be and reliably makes districts "safe" for one party or the other.
There are very few truly competitive congressional and legislative districts. In my home state of Illinois, for example, 55% of legislative seats were completely uncontested in last November's election. In other words, we knew with certainty before election day who would be elected in a majority of legislative districts.
I agree, I would take it a pinch further and raise it to 200 years old. The human race is not mature enough to know how to tell each other what to do.
by ahorseback 5 years ago
Collectively younger Americans probably should be barred from voting , not out of an age issue itself , but merely because of social - cultural maturity . Although our overall sense of education should be "better " than...
by Emer Kelly 8 years ago
Do you think people should have to display an understanding of politics before being allowed to voteI don't mean an in-depth understanding, just a basic one of how government works and what each party/candidate stands for.
by Michele Arrvinte 10 years ago
How do we determine the age at which a person is allowed to vote?
by Josak 8 years ago
Winston Churchill said "the greatest argument against democracy is a short conversation with the average voter." Should voters be tested on their knowledge of issues before being allowed to vote and be able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the facts involved?I am not proposing it...
by David Stillwell 8 years ago
Should women have the right to vote?Am working on my first political hub and gathering information. I would like to hear both sides of the opinionated coin about whether or not women should have the right to vote or if only men should vote and speak for their house. This ties a bit into religion...
by Ralph Schwartz 23 months ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday in a press conference that she personally believes it’s “really important” to lower the voting age to 16.What are your thoughts on this topic?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|