Sorry, but I don't think it's a logical argument. If 17-year-olds can vote, then why not 16-year-olds? And then why not 15? 14?
You have to make a cutoff SOMEwhere. My personal opinion is that 18 is a reasonable one. Perhaps there are a few people under 18 who are ready to vote, and perhaps there are also a few people over 18 who aren't. On the whole, however, 18 is a good, solid cutoff.
Okay, sure. But that's my point...and the reasoning was used to pass the legislation giving 18-year-olds the right to vote in the first place. If 21-year-olds can, why not 20? or 19? Or 18? 18 is generall seen as the arbitrary cutoff because that's the age most graduate high school and move on to college, where you're more-or-less "independent" for the first time. Which is fine...I mean, I agree that some cutoff should be used, but I think the whole "maturity" thing is off-base. There's no evidence that your average 18 year old is more mature that one who is 17 1/2 or 17 and 364 days or whatever.
perhaps there are also a few LOT people over 18 who aren't.....amd the vast majority vote democRAT. Let's face it, if we got rid of all the people who are too ignorant, incompetent or unqualified to vote, the RAT party would die a swift death.