“Foolish” college students shouldn’t vote.

1. 61

   OLYHOOCHposted 13 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/

   replyreport
   1. 47

      ShortStoryposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 47

            ShortStoryposted 13 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Surely voting requires less maturity than drinking

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sophia Angeliqueposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Or becoming a soldier...

                  replyreport
                  1. 66

                     Mishaposted 13 years agoin 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

                     replyreport
               2. 47

                  ShortStoryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        That's down there. Over here only drunk vote

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                           replyreport
                        2. 75

                           Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           
                           
                           
                           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

                           replyreport
      2. 62

         John Holdenposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Young people usually are left wing.
            
            Thank God most grow out of that.
            
            Most.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Dave Mathewsposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   3. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Neither should illiterate Tea Baggers!

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Or you...mainly you

         replyreport
      2. 62

         Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
   4. 85

      rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
2. 62

   Lisa HWposted 13 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.

   replyreport
3. 61

   BillyDRitchieposted 13 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.....

   replyreport
   1. 62

      John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So Mafia bosses should have more of a say than the police!
      
      I love all this joined up thinking

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Lisa HWposted 13 years agoin 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.    Yes...   More and more, I like this kind of thinking.   

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm with the Lisatatorship!

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               As long as it is not a liTatorship...

               replyreport
4. 72

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   And like oppression ever solved anything.

   replyreport
   1. 47

      ShortStoryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 47

            ShortStoryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Do you disagree?

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
               1. 47

                  ShortStoryposted 13 years agoin 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?

                  replyreport
5. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 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.

   replyreport
6. 76

   Mighty Momposted 13 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.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 85

      I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
7. 65

   Greek Oneposted 13 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

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Did you mean brainwashed?

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin 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

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            ROFLMAO

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  neither (or either?) do i

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I guess I need to add a fresh one

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                           replyreport
8. 76

   brimancandyposted 13 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.

   replyreport