Why shouldn't the voting age be lowered if the teenagers will vote Dem?

seriously. They don't care about taxes and guns, and have socially liberal views. Most 18-30 year olds who do vote vote Democrat, and teenagers would be the same.

Crazy 60s movie starring Christopher Jones. It's about a young radical candidate who wants to lower the voting age to 14. It's a hoot. Plus, it contains the classic garage-rock hit "Shape of Things to Come."

Very fun movie.

"Anyone over 10's outta business"


i love that movie! :bounce:

I fought for vote 18 because it made no sense that you could get drafted and killed without being able to have an electorial say in the matter.

There is no justification for going lower than 18.

see redeye's thread

can't go lower than 18

Are so easily lead and angry, and have the fuck em all but me attitude, that I couldn't see it woking.

because they hate the religious right. same with teenagers.

Why not say 18-30 and 70-??? is the voting age?
I bet the 31-69 age group has plenty of Republicans.

because you think younger voters might vote Democratic.

"Why shouldn't the voting age be lowered if the teenagers will vote Dem?"

Personally, I don't think MOST (not all, I said most) kids under 18 are anywhere near mature enough to know diddly squat about politics.

Honestly, I think everything should be legal at one age. If it were me I would make voting, the draft, drinking, age of consent, gambling, etc all legal at one age - and I think 18 is about right.

On your question. I really think we shouldn't be pushing for anything just because we think it might mean more Democratic voters. The question is, do you think kids under 18 are mature enough to vote? If you do, then I would imagine you should be for lowering the voting age. If not, I would think you should be against it.

Here is an example of what I am trying to say. Many Democrats are for allowing convicted felons to vote. Most Republicans oppose it. The conventional wisdom is that the majority of convicted felons are poor and/or minorities - basically those percieved to vote Democratic.

I don't support allowing convicted felons to vote because they might vote Democratic. I DO support allowing convicted felons to vote once they have paid their debt to society. In my opinion, once someone has served their time they should get an entirely new lease on life and be allowed to start off again with a clean slate. So I guess what I am saying is that I support something that MIGHT mean a few more votes go the Democrats way - but I don't support restoring felons rights to vote simply because it MIGHT mean more Democratic votes. For me it is the principle of the thing.

Imajika

and anything that helps the right is bad. that's also why i have no problem with Dem-beneficial gerrymandering. Those evil fascists don't play fair, neither should we. if they Texas plan goes through, we should gerrymander the hell out of every state the Dems own.

to go further, I actually agree with Clarence Thomas and the right wingers that the Lawrence v. Texas decision is not constitutionally sound. However I don't care, getting rid of such stupid laws is more important to me. So I support the decision.

and even if they don't know about politics, they won't vote for a guy blabbing about "family values" and that's all that's needed.

They don't care enough.