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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Listening to a couple political pundits discussing a local election result - I heard them agree that the low voter turnout for the election probably helped unseat an incumbent.Their logic was that the voters that did...