Do you think the U.S. should institute a civics exam to be able to vote?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Good lord! I've never heard the "soap" comment before.

As far as I know, it's not a very common insult outside the white supremicist groups.

They treat us like dirt, and I used to be called "cracker" and "whiteboy" all the time, and I'll tell you, it was not something I looked upon lightly.

The difference is the threat behind it. In your case, these kids are trying to put you down. Cracker is being used as a weapon against you, and in this context, it's the same as the n-word. Usually, however, it's not.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Trip:
Look at the restrictions on franchise before universal suffrage, before those revolutions you complain about. Would you have been able to vote?

Secondly, once you start restricting franchise, what will stop those in power from implementing a similar property limitation? Or even one for age? Would you like to wait until you are 30 in order to vote?

Why can't people under 18 vote?

[Ben Kenobi]

They'd all vote according to their emotions, Trip.

How could we possibly expect them to be politically informed?

[Jon Shafer]

Are you mimicking me or is that a serious answer?

[Dom Pedro II]

I was wondering that myself... because if it was serious... CHECK... MATE.

[Jon Shafer]

If it's serious then he's already made my argument for me.

[Dom Pedro II]

That's what I mean.

(Let's wait and see.)

[chequita guevara]

People under 18 aren't full citizens. You are not legally responsible for yourselves yet and you have guardians. People who have guardians can't vote.

[Dom Pedro II]

But thats an arbitrary age: 18. Why not make kids legally independent at 16? or 14?

They don't because they're not ready yet.

Well, somebody who has little or no idea of the issues or past precedents of this country are not ready yet either. As I've said before, this is not like an issue or race or religion. A person's knowledge can be added to. If they don't pass the first time, they can study up, and then they can pass the second time. It is beneficial for them and it is beneficial for the society that they be educated.

I mean considering the fact that it was the true ignorami that elected Bush, I think it would be better that they get some sort of clear understanding about this country... for example, the founding fathers and the huge standing armies don't jive... or that the rights of privacy are not officially guaranteed in the Constitution, so be careful who you elect because he might push through a USA PATRIOT Act or a Homeland Security Bill.

[Ben Kenobi]

Trip:

The less educated vote based more upon emotion and spur-of-the-moment swaying of opinion, and often times vote without being informed.

My last argument against 18 year olds is just as valid as your argument here.

If one is wrong, both have to be wrong as well.

[Jon Shafer]

You are apparently saying one is right and one is wrong. I believe it depends on the individual. After all, you can have a very educated and involved 16 year old, but being less educated and informed directly relates to your value in voting.

Or do you feel that isn't the case, and an uninformed voter helps society by casting a vote?

[RGBVideo]

I believe it depends on the individual. After all, you can have a very educated and involved 16 year old, but being less educated and informed directly relates to your value in voting.

Yeah, you're correct.
18 is an artificial limit for the citizenship. We have to put the limit somewhere. Or how would you suggest to calculate the right to vote? More complex systems would probably just create much more bureucracy and corruption.

They'd all vote according to their emotions, Trip.

'All'? Surely you ment 'most'?

[Guynemer]

srholmes--

Christ, dude. I just really don't think it is necessary to explain a rather obvious point--restricting the vote among citizens is completely contrary to democracy. It's just asinine. I have no problem with people expressing their thoughts; however, when those thoughts involve restricting people from voting based on "intelligence," you're goddamned right that scares the **** out of me.

[FrustratedPoet]

OK, I'm loathe to drag you back to what was obviously a heated topic, but could someone tell me what the hell NASCAR is?

Also, my two cents on the actual thread title: No tests needed - voting is the inalienable right of every law-abiding citizen (it's a duty, even, but that's another story ). If this means that you should also scrap that crazy test for immigrants then so much the better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

People under 18 aren't full citizens. You are not legally responsible for yourselves yet and you have guardians. People who have guardians can't vote.

If voting is to be considered a 'fundamental right' then this justification for restricting voting to those over 18 is not valid.

After all, they are full citizens for the purposes of driving in most states.