I'll be on Fox News Tomorrow

[Theben]

At what age would you stop, ozzy? What criteria must one have in order to be able to vote?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
The concerns of an 18 year old are different than that of a 16 year old. The concerns of a 14 year old are different than a 20 year old.

You can't just ask someone to wait.

Actually, you can. You have to wait to smoke, drink, join the military, buy pornography, and drive. Voting is the same.

Will the 16 year old's concerns really differ that much when they're 18? Remember, they're the same person. And if so, then why should they be allowed to vote at 16, given that in 2 years they'll look back and say "what was I thinking?"

As political as I was at age 16, I don't see a reason at 21 why I should've had a vote then.

And that still doesn't mean that the voting age is the same thing as women's sufferage and the black vote.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


I'm at least trying to be consistent, something that most opponents of this idea seem to have no care for. I've got no love for tests, but I'd definitely prefer them to a discriminatory age restriction.

If you don't want youth to vote because they aren't smart enough, then to be consistent you have to stop equally unsmart adults from voting.

If you don't care whether dumb adults can vote (and most people here don't seem to) then why do you have a problem if dumb youth could vote?

Otherwise you are a biggoted hypocrite.

I never thought I'd end up agreeing with you on this issue, but now I do.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you let them vote, then they will also have to accept all the burdens that come with the privilege.

Would you really want to allow kids to be drafted earlier?

Secondly, I'm also wary that you will have the unintended consequence of lowering age of consent limitations.

We're trying to raise them again here.

[Shi Huangdi]

I now agree with OzzyKP on the need for youth rights:

Forget the swing states: It's the swing set that counts
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
Pundits come and pundits go, but one group has quietly predicted the winner of the presidential election every four years since the Eisenhower administration: kids.
Polling experts say kids' votes reflect their parents' views, but a Gallup official says the results are irrelevant because the poll was not random.
By Tim Dillon, USA TODAY

Most political junkies won't give it the time of day, but the Weekly Reader presidential poll of schoolchildren has pegged every winner since 1956.

This year's winner? George W. Bush — in a landslide.

Most polls of adults put Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry neck-and-neck. But this one wasn't even close: Bush got 65% of kids' votes, while Kerry got just over 33%, says Weekly Reader editor Mia Toschi.

She says Bush's emphasis on terrorism and security won votes. That sentiment was echoed by Patty Spiers, a second-grade teacher in Tarpon Springs, Fla., who says the GOP's security message resonated with her 7-year-olds. "From what I heard from my children, the kids who are for Bush, their parents say, 'Well, Bush will keep us safe.' " The wee Kerry voters tell her, "We'll get better health insurance."

Polling experts say kids' political views often reflect those of their parents. "You would expect the results of a poll of children to look just like the poll of adults," says Cary Funk of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Voting was open to kids in first through 12th grade. Students could vote in class, via the Internet or by dialing an 800 number. Toschi says 327,707 kids in all 50 states cast ballots.

But even a sample size of more than a quarter-million students is "irrelevant," says Frank Newport of the Gallup Poll. He says polls must be truly random to be accurate.

Other kids' polls have picked Bush — one by children's publisher Scholastic sees a 52% victory. Channel One, the in-school TV network, gave 55%.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


I'm at least trying to be consistent, something that most opponents of this idea seem to have no care for. I've got no love for tests, but I'd definitely prefer them to a discriminatory age restriction.

If you don't want youth to vote because they aren't smart enough, then to be consistent you have to stop equally unsmart adults from voting.

If you don't care whether dumb adults can vote (and most people here don't seem to) then why do you have a problem if dumb youth could vote?

Otherwise you are a biggoted hypocrite.

YAY!!!!

Is there a Biggoted Hypocrite Club I can join?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wooo!

Though I'm still unclear on how 16 was picked? Why not 14 or 12? I'm sure there are some intelligent 7th graders who could contribute to the election.

[MrFun]

Actually there are some pretty damn good geniuses in Head Start programs -- why can't we let six year olds vote if they're highly intelligent for their age?

[alva]

message resonated with her 7-year-olds. "From what I heard from my children, the kids who are for Bush, their parents say, 'Well, Bush will keep us safe.'

Hey look, the adds do work !!!

[OzzyKP]

A little late, but as promised, a pic from the show.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

wow, two spiffy characters

[alva]

You're teh gay one on the left, correct?

[OzzyKP]

Nope, I'm the sexy hetero on the right.

[alva]

Any other Belgian know since when Danny Verstraeten works at FOX btw?

[Caligastia]

Good for you OzzyKP. Did you get a chance to talk much about what the standard for voting should be?