COMMENTS:
Just the top half and a photograph of the bottom.
the ability to vote should be gained through some form of exam to test civil responsbility and maturity, it is foolish to assume noone below 18 has these qualities, and that everyoen over 18 does
fuck it doesn't matter. What "ability" are you talking about ? To not be influenced by propaganda, TV, feelings,etc ?
Its bullshit. Most people who vote couldn't choose a dinner anyway.
hence why democracy dooesnt work, most ppl are to stupid to make their own decisions *sigh*
If you give under 18s the vote you might as well give dogs and cats the vote.
Dogs and cats would probably make wiser political choices than a bunch of pubescent teenies.
Partial votes?? That's a recipe for miscounts!
Well the whole concept of placing ANY defined age after which something is OK in the eyes of the law is inherently *ridiculous. Why not 17? Or 19? 16 1/2?
Personally, my high school peers were a very well-educated, intelligent lot; fully capable of deep thought, and therefore, the ability to vote. I don't know if that's the "norm", but it's foolish to underestimate the intelligence of the growing mind of a teenager. If we do that - then why do we let people over 95 vote?? Their brains, along with their bodies, are actively degenerating. Most brain diseases occur when a person is elderly. Why assume a 95-year old is any more competent to vote than a 16-year old? Can you tell me that.
Teenagers may be more impressionable, but they are also more open to new ideas. That's not a bad thing.
I might suggest lowering the national voting age to *17.
age is irrelevant. i am sure there are 10 year olds who would be responsible voters and 40 year olds who should never go near an election.
all those idiots who voted for schwartzman in california for example (they were trying to vote for "the action guy" and got the wrong name)
what would a partial vote be? How would you count it. In most schools, they have mock elections and supposedly hold elections for various clubs etc.
so mean
|
