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.
Got to show some responsibility in order to get voting rights in this country.
At one time, this was the property owners.
These kids say that they "pay taxes". How many of them get their taxes back in the Spring as a refund (taxes paid for a part time job that earns then under $12k a year)? Oh sure they don't get the Social Security dollars back but as the program has been explained, that is not a tax (although candidate Jerry Springer wanted to exempt low income people from paying in and soak the rich for extra SS dollars).
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.