Voting age should be 25, not 18... wtf is up with CA's legislators?

[MadRat]

Originally a man wasn't a man until he was at least 21, was free, and owned land. Back then the median life was under 50 years old, which meant about half a lifetime you were to be unrepresented in government. Granted it had alot to do with the squalor lifestyles people lived back in the pioneer days, but people just didn't know better. Problem was that even people old enough were often wrapped in servitude and could not afford land ownership, meaning voting fell into the hands of the elite. The tradition of writing the voter registration in an official book form is traditional, because it dates back to the time were books were rare and rather thin; hardly need for much room in those voter lists. (The book at my local precinct today is about four inches thick.) People really take for granted what the U.S. was founded upon, and that is community structure.

The age of 21 is something that dates back from the Middle Ages, something about "requims". The exact term escapes me for the moment, but it has to do with property in the event of non-survivorship, that is no heirs to take over. Basically an estate could be set up for a trust until 21 years after the death of the last owner that had vested rules over that property. Until the 21 years was over then any new owner that was not heir could not change the rules upon which that trust was set. I'm not sure what brought about the number of 21, but it was probably something to do with sevens and luck. People were pretty scared silly in superstitious subtlety back then.

The mere thought of being 18, let alone 14, and legal voting age probably makes millions of our ancestors roll over in their graves.

 

[Siddhartha]

I think voting should be mandatory for anyone 18 and older. People who do not vote are endangering our political system by giving certain groups, the christian right for example, too much power to shape the national agenda.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Piano Man
If you are old enough to die for your country, then you are sure as hell old enough to vote. Nuff said.

Not to mention drink, but that is an issue for another day.

How about being able to drink before being able to drive?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I would support a legislation that required voters to be informed rather than voting for just a name or because someone belongs to a certain party.

One should the uninformed vote from a fry cooker at McDonald's whose political views are garnered from musicians at concerts count the same as some one who reads the papers every day and is in touch with what is going on.

Either that or weight votes.

Why should your vote count the same as one from a non-elitist?

You're going under the knife for some surgery, would you rather someone fresh from med school do it or a seasoned veteran?

You're sending your kids to school on the school bus, would you rather have an 18 y/o drop out drive them or an assistant teacher who has been driving for 10+ years?

You're electing the leader of the free world, would you rather it be by uninformed and ignorant people or people who know the world that they live in?

Just a preference, that's all

I understand the point your making about the tyranny of the (sometimes dumb) majority, but I don't think requiring some sort of means test to vote is the right way to go. The best way to solve the problem is to have Proportional Representation in all facets of government.