Should the Age at Which People Gain the Right to Vote Be Lowered. If So, to What Age?

[^_^ 5,021]

Voting is irrelevant. The only change for good would be the requirements for politicians.

What kind of requirements? Requiring they be educated would run afoul of the "i hate dem college edumacated people" types and requiring that they be gun owners would run afoul of the "gun owners are scary freaks please keep them away from me" types.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

What kind of requirements? Requiring they be educated would run afoul of the "i hate dem college edumacated people" types and requiring that they be gun owners would run afoul of the "gun owners are scary freaks please keep them away from me" types.

Some sort of vetting process like specialized exams. Ask yourself, how intelligent ARE the people in Congress. Doesn't that scare you a bit when you realize they are no where near our best and brightest.

[^_^ 5,021]

Some sort of vetting process like specialized exams. Ask yourself, how intelligent ARE the people in Congress. Doesn't that scare you a bit when you realize they are no where near our best and brightest.

I would like them to be our best and brightest but there are a lot of people in this country who don't. They want someone "like them". You and I may disagree with them, but I don't think their opinions on this can be disregarded in a representative form of government.

[Nikita2Charles 32]

I don't beleive it has something to do with the 17th amendment, at time prior to the establishment of the 17th amendment some states wasn't able to send 2 senators to congress therefore misreprenting the people from that state. If anything at all, I beleive the electoral college should be abolished let the people vote, and the majority select the President.

With the breakdown of the electoral college, A presidential candidate can win the popular vote but still lose the election, like what happened to Al Gore and Bush.

Even though Gore had more votes but still lost the election.

Ask yourself this question?

ALMOST HALF SHOULD I SAY 44% of THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND ABOUT 2/3 IN THE SENATE ARE MILIONAIRES even though they don't take millions in Salary, As a people we are always ready to point fingers at corrupt politicians in 3rd world countries, but we should take a look at our own backyard.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/07/am-how-many-millionaires-are-in-congress/

RICHTER: The median U.S. family has a net worth of about $120,000. For the average member of the U.S. House of Representatives, it's $666,000. So that goes to show that in terms of the representativeness of the U.S. Congress, there's a lot of rich people there and very few average folks.

IN some countries in south american, it's not uncommon for teens from 16 onward to buy drinks and cigarettes, if you are good enough to die for your country why not to buy a drink, Vote, Smoke yourself to death, at least it's your Choice where as in the military people is making the choice for you to live or die.

I'd be perfectly fine with the voting age being 18 with no restrictions IF we abolished the 17th amendment.

It has done more damage to this nation than any other part of the constitution that has been added on.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Nikita2Charles

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Perhaps voting rights should be based on whether or not one pays taxes - i.e. has an income. No income, no taxes, no vote.

We had the system at one time. It was finally banned in 1964. Most states had dropped it before then.

[wshc 46]

If anything at all, I beleive the electoral college should be abolished let the people vote, and the majority select the President.

Anyone that thinks like that should not vote. Get rid of the electorial college and one would have to win only CA, TX, PA, OH, FL and NY and a few smaller ones and they would be president. Those states would receive all of the campaign visits as well as receiving all of the ear marks and attention of the President. The rest of the states would be forgotten. At least now, even a small state with 3 electorial votes can decide the election so candidates pay attention to all fifty states still.

[^_^ 5,021]

Anyone that thinks like that should not vote. Get rid of the electorial college and one would have to win only CA, TX, PA, OH, FL and NY and a few smaller ones and they would be president. Those states would receive all of the campaign visits as well as receiving all of the ear marks and attention of the President. The rest of the states would be forgotten. At least now, even a small state with 3 electorial votes can decide the election so candidates pay attention to all fifty states still.

That is true but the reverse is also true. The states with the most people can't get a lot of what they want because sparsely populated states that have nothing but cattle have 2 senators each.

[wshc 46]

That is true but the reverse is also true. The states with the most people can't get a lot of what they want because sparsely populated states that have nothing but cattle have 2 senators each.

A lot of those cattle are much smarter than a lot of voters.

[Ban Hammer 13,484]

A lot of those cattle are much smarter than a lot of voters.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't beleive it has something to do with the 17th amendment, at time prior to the establishment of the 17th amendment some states wasn't able to send 2 senators to congress therefore misreprenting the people from that state. If anything at all, I beleive the electoral college should be abolished let the people vote, and the majority select the President.

With the breakdown of the electoral college, A presidential candidate can win the popular vote but still lose the election, like what happened to Al Gore and Bush.

Even though Gore had more votes but still lost the election.

Ask yourself this question?

ALMOST HALF SHOULD I SAY 44% of THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND ABOUT 2/3 IN THE SENATE ARE MILIONAIRES even though they don't take millions in Salary, As a people we are always ready to point fingers at corrupt politicians in 3rd world countries, but we should take a look at our own backyard.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/07/am-how-many-millionaires-are-in-congress/

RICHTER: The median U.S. family has a net worth of about $120,000. For the average member of the U.S. House of Representatives, it's $666,000. So that goes to show that in terms of the representativeness of the U.S. Congress, there's a lot of rich people there and very few average folks.

you seriously need an education in American History...

There is a reason why we were a Representative Republic. There's a reason why the people had the house and the STATES had the Senate.

A true Democracy always leads down a horrid path.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

18 is fine. 18 year olds cannot buy handguns, but they should be able to. That will change soon. They are adults and cannot be arbitrarily denied rights. Drinking may also be a right that cannot be denied to them, but I will let someone else pick that fight. The NRA has filed litigation which will have sweeping impact on gun laws.

1. Heller established individual right to bear arms

2. McDonald established individual right applies to states and localities

3. Age litigation will establish that the right cannot be arbitrarliy restricted.

18 year olds should have all the rights any other adults have...and the same responsibilities.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That is true but the reverse is also true. The states with the most people can't get a lot of what they want because sparsely populated states that have nothing but cattle have 2 senators each.

Not true.

The purpose of the Senate was to allow unpopulated states to protect themselves from being over-run by the populated states. It is SUPPOSED to be difficult to get federal legislation passed.

The populated states can have whatever they want anytime they want...just PAY fot it. There is nothing in the constitution to prevent a populated state from implementing whatever it wants and having their huge population pay for it. No need for permission from anyone else.

The flawed concept is that we "need" the federal government to "do it" Just do it. The people of Vermont have no quarrel with the people of New York (or California, or Texas, or Illinois) having any damn thing they want. Just don't ask us to sell our cows to pay for it!

And FYI, each state has ALWAYS had TWO Senators. What wacko thinks they didn't?

[SMR 368]

If anything at all, I beleive the electoral college should be abolished let the people vote, and the majority select the President.

Anyone that thinks like that should not vote. Get rid of the electorial college and one would have to win only CA, TX, PA, OH, FL and NY and a few smaller ones and they would be president. Those states would receive all of the campaign visits as well as receiving all of the ear marks and attention of the President. The rest of the states would be forgotten. At least now, even a small state with 3 electorial votes can decide the election so candidates pay attention to all fifty states still.

With respect, you clearly don't understand either the current election environment or what the abolishment of the electoral college would mean. Whether or not it matters if the president is telling you what you want to hear or people in another state what they want to hear during the campaign is a complicated but related question but I suppose that depends on the faith you have in our political system.

But to your statement, at present, almost all campaign funds and attention are spent on a handful (maybe a dozen maximum) of "battleground" states. That's because in the EC system, most states are decided one way or another long before the campaign begins. Both campaigns recognize that the Democrat will take DC and the Republican will take Utah. So nobody spends campaign money there. That's because the EC doesn't worry if a candidate takes 60% or 70% of the vote in a given state so long as he gets a majority. To be strictly pedantic, the winner takes all methodology of the EC is not dictated by the Constitution but rather is determined by each state individually. But all but a couple small states use winner takes all. In short, the problem you have pointed to with popular election of the president is exactly what we have right now. Of course, the money isn't focused on large states necessarily (California gets little campaign money while Colorado gets a lot). But the campaign focus is still on a handful of states. To your point about earmarks and the president's attention, the political system is so convoluted and 4 years so long a period for the memory of the electorate that I don't think this focus of attention on certain states really plays out except in the few months leading up to an election. After that, the president just does what he wants.

As far as your understanding about what a popular election would do, let's take an example of one state you mention, California, for example. Most election years, the democrat wins between 55% and 65% of the vote in California. In the EC, everyone ignores it because it matters not if it's 55 or 65. In a popular vote, 5% of the population of California is critical so you will see campaigning in California. But on the other hand, in a popular election, no one will ever "win" California. At best, a Republican is hoping for 50% of California (unless he's Ronald Reagan and can get a little more), and a Democrat is hoping for 70%. If a candidate could expect to get every vote in the states you mention, your statement that those states are all that is needed is true. But if you only get 60% of California, you also need to get some votes in Wyoming and Delaware. You see, a popular system means that 1,000 votes gained in California is the same as 1,000 votes in North Dakota. So candidates will campaign wherever they can to get those 1,000 votes.

While one might argue that it will be easier to get votes by campaigning population centers and ignoring other areas, I don't think this would happen for a number of reasons. First, if that were true, both sides would realize it and make those votes that much more contested and give an advantage to whichever candidate diverted some money to other areas where votes weren't contested. Second, advertising in big cities is usually more expensive. Third, best case, you can only get a certain percentage of a big city with at least 30% on either side that won't be swayed by campaigning. Fourth, it isn't as if you can simply campaign in California at large. All politics is local and so you'll end up campaigning in a certain area of LA or in the vineyard country or in silicon valley, etc. Campaigning in California is not a neat, one-size-fits-all solution. When you break it down that way, campaigning in a certain area of California isn't any more or less effective for getting those 1,000 votes than campaigning in Kansas.

While I can't prove what would happen in a popular election, your complaint that it would cause the focus to be on a few states is odd since the EC clearly does that at present.

To the original question, I think it would be reasonable to drop the voting age to allow anyone who files a tax return based on earned income the opportunity to vote. At 18, anyone would be allowed to vote regardless of income. So you could have people as young as 14 voting if they had a job. The thing is, I don't think it matters too much. Most of them won't vote and even if they do, the politicians won't change what they are doing.

[wshc 46]

While I can't prove what would happen in a popular election, your complaint that it would cause the focus to be on a few states is odd since the EC clearly does that at present

Good information you provide, but the above statement you make is the one flaw. With the EC everyone's vote is just as important as the other guys. Take for an example a close election where say a small 3 electorial vote state like New Mexico could be the deciding state. It could be very close and my vote might be the one that makes the difference. The same holds true for everyone that votes, so theorically we all could decide an election and that makes us all important and all equal. The odds of one vote making the difference in an election with 100 million voters or more is much slimmer.

You make the case so well it is clear that it would not be the end of the world to do away with the EC, but the morons that don't have a clue and just repeat the get rid of the EC because it is owned by big oil, corporations, insurance companies, robber barons etc... make me sick. In fact, all that class warfare makes me sick.

Good point about the voting age. If you have to pay income taxes you are allowed to vote. Do you think it would also be that if you don't have to file because all of your income is from the state you don't get to vote, would ever be approved?

(people don't rag out, I know welfare people file income taxes. How else would they get their magic refunds.)