Absolutely NOT!!!....In order to make an informed decision on who you want to lead this nation I feel you need some life experience. You need to get up every morning, work your keyster off, and PAY TAXES....You need to SEE the money that is taken out of your paycheck....and you need to drive the roads that those taxes are suppose to repair, and you need to see those who don't work and getting a government check that YOU are in part supplying to them...you need to see the person who truly needs government help, you need to see all things that effect you in this life and THEN you can make an informed decision.,...
2007-09-03 00:20:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
The age group would be brought down if the youth has a perfect idea of voting. I'd bring the voting age down, but not right away. We'll have to wait because almost all the youths under the age of 17 in the U.S. have no idea of who to vote, not to vote, or which candidate is capable of running the state or the country. If the time comes in which the youth is knowledgeable about the government enough that they have the will to vote, then it would be suitable to bring down the age group. But not right now.
Good question!
2007-09-03 06:51:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Frankenstein 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Most 18-year-olds are too uninformed and irresponsible to vote prudently. Lowering the age further would make that problem even worse. Keep the age where it is. Children do not need to vote.
2007-09-03 02:52:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Hoosier Daddy 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
The answer is 'NO'. Age isn't the reason though: people who have not assumed and accepted the responsibility of taking care of themselves, regardless of age, shouldn't be aloud to vote! This includes children, adults on welfare and anyone else who fits that bill.
2007-09-03 02:51:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. I think they should raise it. Most adults here arent paying enough attention to the real issues to give informed votes, why would a high schooler?
2007-09-03 00:04:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Such action would only increase the number of uneducated and maybe somewhat naive voters.
Politicians are always looking for the crowd that they can most easily sway over with cheap soundbites.
Older voters would be more discering, wise and educated.
2007-09-03 00:14:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by shiverz 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
absolutely not! We need people who are mature enough to make decisions, and why have someone younger vote when they don't understand the issues and they sure don't pay taxes. As it is I believe we have many who vote who don't have the responsibilities of most taxpayers.
2007-09-03 01:32:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by Moody Red 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
It can stay where it is, I can't really see any reason to move it - perhaps it would be a good idea. But a far better idea would be to make it illegal not to vote without good reason (in a coma etc). It works in Australia. Providing you have a "none of the above" box then people would have no excuse for not voting.
2007-09-03 00:23:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by Mordent 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
I would do away with the voting age altogether. In its place I would have a competency test, those who pass, regardless of age, would be allowed to vote. Those who don't, can retake the test as many times as they need to pass, but will not be allowed to affect the course of the nation if they cannot demonstrate their grasp of simple civics, history, economics, and geography.
2007-09-03 00:21:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by panzerfahrer81 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
Yes. The future affects the young much more so than the old, and their idealism is still intact. In many ways, they are a lot more decent and optimistic than older voters and thus will expect more out of the people they elect.
At any rate, age does not confer maturity, nor wisdom, though many think it does.
2007-09-03 00:22:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Runa 7
·
1⤊
4⤋