I'd like it restricted to people who have been Honorably Discharged from one of the armed forces.
2007-09-05 04:37:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by open4one 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
That is a silly idea. That is age discrimination.
Some 35 year olds know less than 18 year olds in matters of politics.
Instead of making voting compulsory, give incentives to vote. I am sure that 18 year olds will vote if the issues raised by the politicians concern their age group. Such as the Draft, for example. Would 18 year olds vote for a candidate that will re-instate the Draft, or would they vote for a candidate that will not allow that to happen?
It's all about relevance and education. Let the politicians do the talking instead of the government forcing people to vote. Voting should be a joyful event since you vote for someone you want (or a vengeful event if you are voting against someone you hate). Either way, it should motivate you, not make you drowsy.
2007-09-05 05:16:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Think Richly™ 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I have a lot of issues with your question:
How exactly would you determine who has "a working knowledge of the real issues"?
Would we test all 18-20 year olds at time of registering to vote? Who decides on the questions? Who decides on the answers?
Would we assume that all 21+ year olds have a "working knowledge of the issues"? Or would we test registered voters for all ages prior to allowing them to vote?
And what exactly do you define as "the real issues"? Who gets to decide what are "the real issues"? Do the "real issues" change over time?
What issues are not "real"?
2007-09-05 04:42:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Plea_of_insanity 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
A 35 year-old could be a nutcase and vote for a supreme dictator.
2007-09-05 04:45:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not good dude. Let the eighteen year olds vote, they are more of the future than you think. Time passes pretty quickly and you may need their sympathy sooner than you want. Remember, sometimes we get what we wish for, and this topic has a lot of bite to it.
2007-09-05 04:35:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Maybe we should make the voters take a test to show their knowledge of the issues? The problem with this would be that all of Mississippi would have about 2 votes.
The point of a representative democracy is to elect someone who represents you. If you are an ignorance voter, you will most likely elect someone who represents that.
2007-09-05 04:33:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
NOPE no must be annoying! i be attentive to a brilliant form of fellows and gals whom are older and nonetheless virgins. have confidence me you pick for it to be with somebody you like no count how long it is from now. yet purely a clue, that's beneficial to masturbate earlier your first time, so which you will carry out longer or perhaps you 2 start up out with oral and you drop a load after which you will pass longer. be happy, no existence is infrequently approximately intercourse and luxuriate interior the existence your living. it is going to take place while it happens.
2016-10-10 00:11:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by newmans 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I loved Aviator's comment about ignorant voters...
Why should one's age be a determinant of how informed one is? I'm sure a large amount of people who vote did no research and/or have no idea about issues (no matter what their age).
2007-09-05 04:36:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
tha voting age is fine, tha age of presidential elegibilty should be lowered and tha term limits repealed, say are best president had to wait to 45 and could have lead at 21, were losing out on a possible 24 years of our best president
2007-09-05 04:37:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by Thin King 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
In the US it should be more like 35.
2007-09-05 04:50:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋