Posted on 10/21/2014 2:26:08 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
Right now, millions of Americans are disenfranchised by our political process. They can pay taxes and contribute to social security, but they can’t vote. They can be sentenced to life in prison, but they can’t vote. Every day, their bodies, lives and futures are affected by politicians and policies they did not choose. Who am I talking about? Felons? Guess again.
We need to lower the voting age.
This is a prime moment to ask ourselves whether our voting system is yet fully equitable. Last month, Scotland made history when, for the first time in British politics, 16- and 17-year olds were allowed to vote in its independence referendum. Last year, Takoma Park in Maryland took a similar step when it allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in municipal elections. That’s progress, but those steps don’t go far enough. In the forthcoming national midterm elections—and in all elections throughout the United States—teenagers deserve the right to vote. Seriously.
Okay, not all teenagers. Only the ones who can work and pay taxes on their employment—which the Department of Labor says is anyone over the age of 14. (Sorry, 13-year-olds.) Taxes are an obvious benchmark, since right now, employed teenagers are literally subjected to taxation without representation.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Now *that’s* an idea! If you’re a citizen who pays taxes, you have the right to vote!
So if you pay the federal income tax, you can vote in federal elections; and if you pay state income taxes, you can vote in state elections.
Let’s call the idea “Peak Government”. That there is only so much government to go around, so it has to be rationed this way, to the most productive members of society.
Tie the age to vote to the age for CCW.
Wow. Well I guess the younger they are the more easy to control. People tend to be more liberal at younger ages too. No wonder the left wants them to vote younger.
Personally I think it should be 21.
Ah, no.
We need fewer voters rather than more.
Little children have to pay sales tax when they buy stuff: should they have the right to vote.
They’re supposed to collect sales tax too when they have lemonade and bake stands in some areas: should they have the right to vote too?
I’d be embarrassed to have written an article like this.
Your idea puts a married man’s ability to vote in the hands of his wife. If she leaves, he is penalized.
I disagree with your premise.
However, I would also state that being a net taxpayer should be a prerequisite to vote. (We can haggle about whether government employees are net taxpayers, too!)
No ... they don’t. Too many out there already that vote according to their emotions, we don’t need more of that.
Perhaps we should revert back to property owners only are the ones allowed to vote.
Yes. If a marriage fails, the man can no longer vote.
That’s not a bug; it’s a feature.
It’s not “penalizing” him. It’s maintaining the principle that government should be in the hands of people who are successful adults with an investment in the future. I.e., married men living with their children. No shack-ups. No welfare “moms.” No transient men living off women’s welfare checks.
The point of my proposal is that the basic unit of society is the functional family, not the failed family, and not the atomized individual.
Newsweak still exists??
why?
I’m not married, either.
I am against government schools, so that takes care of the business about paying for other people’s children’s education.
You say that, because you get to vote, you have a say in how “your money” is disbursed. So you’re saying you votef YES on giving Solyndra $500 million? You voted YES on the Chrysler/GM bailout? You voted YES on giving Obama’s union cronies several trillions?
No, I'm saying none of those things, in fact, they'd be pretty silly things to say, wouldn't they? I find it irritating when my point is deliberately misrepresented like that. You can't be seriously suggesting that to vote is to provide blanket approval for the winning side's government policy even if you vote against it, can you?
Yes, a vote is a citizen's voice. It does not mean that the election will go his way. It does not mean that the resulting government will behave either as he wants or as they promise they will. But he does have a say. And I would lay, and have laid, my life on the line to hold and protect that right, and I would be cross to the point of physical violence with anyone who tried to take it away.
And so would you. Admit it. :-)
No, I wouldn’t. I think my vote is far, far less important than most of the other “freedoms” I have. I would give up my vote if I could be certain to get rid of the 16th, 17th, and 19th amendments, Soshecurity, welfare, government schooling, the EPA, and a few other things I can’t think of at the moment.
I am, however, in favor of draconian sentences for vote fraud.
Sign me up for that one. Best to you.
You would disenfranchise half the military? I think not!
More than on few young serviceman has lost a marriage— it’s hard being a military wife and damned near impossible when you’re young, stupid and your new spouse (who never left home before)is now 3000 miles from home and you’re deployed again...
-PJ
As a teen, I disagree. It’s obviously another ploy to get stupid young people to vote Democrat. Raise the minimum voting age to 30.
*************************
Like your style, young lady! I’ll admit that I didn’t really begin to understand politics until my late 20s-early 30s.
I had finished Navy active duty by age 20, so could vote at 21. Didn’t know what I was doing, but just kinda followed what my parents did (voting Dem). I was stupid at that age, though married and with a baby. I woke up about ten years later!
I started paying income taxes when I was 8, so what?
Most 21 year olds tody aren’t smart enough to vote.
We need to return to the origional criteria, male, white property owners.
My mother said when they gave women the vote was the stupedist thing they ever did. She said sh got her votes in at the dinner table and bedroom!!!
I’m not sure how to rationalize the removal of the ability to vote based on what could be *entirely* another person’s decision isn’t a penalty.
Needless to say, we disagree.
Have a great day, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.