should kids get to vote?

aol news ^ | Sept. 17 2003 | Geraldine Sealey

[TheBigB]

Are we going to lower the age to register for selective service?

Not that I know of.

Got to show some responsibility in order to get voting rights in this country.

Technically, no. You could be a worthless, shiftless bum at age 18, with no job and no prospects, and you still have the right to vote. Don't mean it's right, mind you, but it's true.

Tell the parents that they won't be able to deduct their voting children as "dependents" anymore either. After all, if they are mature enough to vote, they are mature enough to provide for themselves.

Ease up a bit. I didn't have a job in college. I was still dependent. But I studied and received my degree (two in fact) and now support myself wholly. Unless you're going to tell every college student over 18 to quit and get a full-time job, that idea doesn't fly.

[Lunatic Fringe]

She doesn't "pay" taxes. She gets a full refund if federal taxes are deducted from her check.

[spodefly]

Profoundly stupid idea, but sounds like what the Democrats would love ... freshly programmed minds from the public school system voting for the latest socialist/idealist candidate.

I realize that teens are smarter than everyone else. I, for example, was the smartest person on the planet when I was 17 years old.

Now, at 44, I believe the voting age should be raised to at least 30. And even then, you should get to vote only if your last 1040 shows that you were a net contributer to the tax coffers.

[King Prout]

I am forced to wonder who designed this toy... NAMBLA of Edinburg? < /vile humor >

[exile]

Geesh lady, it was a freakin joke. Lighten up

[bmwcyle]

For all you Freepers still on AOL------GET OFF!!!!!

[ChewedGum]

I'm not sure I disagree with the "No representation with out Taxation" idea completely, but it would be sorely difficult to implement. I do think you should be a citizen, have ID, understand english and have the intelligence to pick the right candidate on the ballot.

Gum

[weegee]

How about requiring people to vote in a primary election several years before they are elligible to vote in a general election? How about requiring that they vote in a general election to be elligible to vote in the run off election?

Since turn out is generally quite small (well under 50%), a commitment to voting must be proven in order to exhibit the right to vote. No one will see your ballot. If you go to the polling center and select no one but enter your ballot, you will be considered a voter.

Hold them to appearing at every election.

Once voting rights have been established, some absences are accepted (and there is absentee and early voting don't forget) but if a voter is "dormant" for too long (several election cycles) remove them from the active voter rolls.

If someone does not use their voting priviledge, it is possible that someone else might steal their ballot. Best to keep the voting rolls limited to active voters who might use them. Heck, if the voting rolls were paired down to the active voters, there wouldn't need to be so many polling centers. Some could be consolidated.

[pyx]

Another promotion by The Cult of the Anus and their LEFTIST affiliates. Homosexualists desparately want to promote this... along with radically lowering Age of Consent laws.

[Fraulein]

Sheesh!



(Well at least this ballot machine makes it clear what the sheep are getting...)

[Redwood71]

Unfortuneatly, the greatest killer in the US is on the public roadways and 16 year olds are given licenses. Make them drive at 18, vote at 18, drink at 18, and be held responsible for their actions across the board: contractually, law (tried as an adult), and treated as an adult with taxes. Take the good with the bad, just like mommy and daddy. If a 12 year old can get an abortion without parental notification, then how do you stop something as little as alcohol?

[weegee]

I don't accept the "IQ" test either. It's been done and you could require that all voters read a paragraph in Spanish. There is no way to ensure that such a test would not be abused.

Look at how the states test kids in public schools. Every school is called "exemplary".

How about requiring that all voters have a high school diploma or equivalence degree? That sounds fair.

[HamiltonJay]

No way, frankly dropping the age to 18 was a bad move when that was done... no way under 18s should be voting.

[weegee]

It would, however, be fine with me if welfare recipients were banned from voting in any election cycle in which they received welfare.

The DemocRats have spent decades building up that base and keeping them poor. You'll never see them accept such legislation. Look at how the Chicken Ds in Texas kept leaving the state when the Republicans were finally in charge of redistricting after over a hundred years.

[weegee]

Got to show some responsibility in order to get voting rights in this country.

>>Technically, no. You could be a worthless, shiftless bum at age 18, with no job and no prospects, and you still have the right to vote. Don't mean it's right, mind you, but it's true.

The responsibility at age 18 comes whether you want it or not. That shiftless bum can be prosecuted under the law for being a shiftless bum in ways that he cannot be at age 17.

The law sees a big distinction between 17 1/2 and 18. Some minors are tried as adults. No one selling cigarettes to an older 17 year old gets let off because the kid "was mature".

[King Prout]

baaaaad news at the polls?
fleeced?
Monicaed?

[weegee]

You missed my point on that second bit. The argument for lowering the voting age to 18 wasn't that they were paying taxes, it was the draft.

The argument for lowering the voting age to 15 is that they pay taxes. If they claim that they are responsible because they pay taxes, then their parents should lose that claim.

I do not push for the lowering of the voting age and do not see that the minors earn any significant taxable income. We all pay sales taxes thus we all pay taxes. Foreigners visiting American pay sales taxes, should they get to vote too?

[Viva Le Dissention]

Your argument still misses the mark.

While a GED or a diploma is perhaps in some ways more objective than an IQ test, it still conditions the right to vote on something--even worse, something which is controlled by the government in the vast majority of cases.

No. The only way to secure the right to vote is if the right to vote is entirely unconditional. You state it in as plain as terms as possible: the government WILL NOT prevent anyone from voting who has reached the age of 18.

Like I alluded to before: there are a lot of stupid people in this world. There are a lot of people that I'd just the same rather stay home come November. But in exchange for allowing them to cast a ballot, I get a rock-solid assurance that I can do the same. That's a fair trade.

[Fraulein]

LOL! Yep, the sheep get fleeced, Monicaed, stiffed, screwed...

(The sheep getting screwed is on the Democrat side. They decided to place 'Republican' on the side with the gluttonous cookie monster and a (capitalist) pig. Hmmm...)