Should there be a maximum voting age limit?

[maquiscat]

as are many old people so the logical thing is a test just like you get to drive a car or be a doctor. Make sense? The notion that everyone can vote is an absolute insult to democracy.

No that would be the very definition of democracy. It would be more an insult to the republic concept.

 

[James972]

No that would be the very definition of democracy.

what would be the very definition???????? You clean forgot to say??

 

[maquiscat]

what would be the very definition???????? You clean forgot to say??

Democracy is majority rules. Therefore if the country is a democracy it would have to be a majority of everyone, not just a select few. How hard is that?

 

[SDET]

The maximum voting age should be the age at death.

Unfortunately, it isn't.

 

[James972]

Democracy is majority rules. Therefore if the country is a democracy it would have to be a majority of everyone, not just a select few. How hard is that?

so you want children to vote too and don't care about their intelligence????????

 

[maquiscat]

so you want children to vote too and don't care about their intelligence????????

Do please quote me where I said that. You claimed that allowing everyone to vote would be an insult to democracy. I pointed out where you were wrong because a democracy is one where majority rules and thus all need to vote to determine the majority opinion. I never said that I thought that everyone getting to vote was a good idea. In fact, as long as you can do so in a manner that hold no political bias, I am all for a basics civics test as a means to allow someone to vote.

 

[Moderate Right]

Do please quote me where I said that. You claimed that allowing everyone to vote would be an insult to democracy. I pointed out where you were wrong because a democracy is one where majority rules and thus all need to vote to determine the majority opinion. I never said that I thought that everyone getting to vote was a good idea. In fact, as long as you can do so in a manner that hold no political bias, I am all for a basics civics test as a means to allow someone to vote.

But a civics test would be discriminatory, just as requiring someone to have an ID is discriminatory. Wouldn't want to stop all of those illegals from voting would you? What would happen to the Democratic party?

 

[maquiscat]

But a civics test would be discriminatory, just as requiring someone to have an ID is discriminatory. Wouldn't want to stop all of those illegals from voting would you? What would happen to the Democratic party?

Sarcasm noted.

 

[James972]

a democracy is one where majority rules

silly of course, a democracy is where the illiterate masses are given some authority so they will support the govt. We have a Constitution to severely limit democracy. Do you understand?

I do like your idea about a Civics Test to qualify to vote. Democrats hate it because to them democracy is buying power from anybody on two legs with the promise of more welfare entitlements.

 

[maquiscat]

silly of course, a democracy is where the illiterate masses are given some authority so they will support the govt. We have a Constitution to severely limit democracy. Do you understand?

Why are you responding to my posts as if I have said things I haven't. Yes we have a constitution which sets us up as a republic, where rule of law is supposed to reign supreme over majority rules. Yes our system uses many democratic aspects, as it also uses many socialist aspects. But it is a republic at its foundation.

 

[James972]

Why are you responding to my posts as if I have said things I haven't. Yes we have a constitution which sets us up as a republic, where rule of law is supposed to reign supreme over majority rules. Yes our system uses many democratic aspects, as it also uses many socialist aspects. But it is a republic at its foundation.

Well you said democracy is where the majority rules when you should have said democracy is where the Constitution rules. The cultural habit of saying we are fighting for democracy is very dangerous. We don't want democracy in Egypt etc we want an America Constitution but we said we wanted democracy. Its pretty dangerous.

 

[maquiscat]

Well you said democracy is where the majority rules when you should have said democracy is where the Constitution rules. The cultural habit of saying we are fighting for democracy is very dangerous. We don't want democracy in Egypt etc we want an America Constitution but we said we wanted democracy. Its pretty dangerous.

Democracy is where the majority rules. You don't need a constitution to establish a democracy. These are two separate things. A constitution could establish a socialist system, or even a monarchy. Furthermore, a document that establishes the foundation of a governmental system does not necessarily need to be called a constitution. Add to that, that the Constitution of the United States (commonly referred to as simply the Constitution) established a republic, not a democracy.

 

[James972]

Democracy is where the majority rules. You don't need a constitution to establish a democracy. These are two separate things. A constitution could establish a socialist system, or even a monarchy. Furthermore, a document that establishes the foundation of a governmental system does not necessarily need to be called a constitution. Add to that, that the Constitution of the United States (commonly referred to as simply the Constitution) established a republic, not a democracy.

You lost so you changed the subject. Democracy is mob rule and we don't want it here and especially not in the Middle East despite what confused Americans always say. We want Constitutions like the American Constitution to restrict democracy to only trivial decisions. NOW do you understand?

 

[maquiscat]

You lost so you changed the subject. Democracy is mob rule and we don't want it here and especially not in the Middle East despite what confused Americans always say. We want Constitutions like the American Constitution to restrict democracy to only trivial decisions. NOW do you understand?

Da fuq? Why are you going off into left field? Or right field as the case may be, but still. You are continually jumping off onto some barely related point that has nothing to do with my original comment. You are the one changing the subject. Somehow you keep thinking I am disagreeing with you on what democracy is. Yes it is mob rule. It is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The only part you got wrong, was the part that I initially responded to; that everyone voting was an insult to democracy. I pointed out that everyone voting was the very foundation of democracy. Then you start going off onto other topics such as governmental systems in other countries and constitutions. Maybe you had some thought in your head when you made that first comment, but you never actually put it out that I can see in that post.

 

[Smeagol]

There is a major difference between the regressive, less educated, and less tolerant older generations, and the forward thinking, well informed, and socially tolerant younger generations in the United States.

Older people are far less likely to support basic rights such as the right for a woman to choose, the rights of LGBTQ couples to marry, or the right of people of color to peacefully protest the systematic racism in this country. Voters under 40 often tend to be far less bigoted, and believe in freedom for all citizens, not just white males.

Older voters are far more likely to support policies which will cause extreme harm to the environment, this country, and the world as a whole. Meanwhile, more educated younger voters often choose to implement policies which value the world we live in over the making of a quick buck or two, such as a ban on fracking, a ban on nuclear power, and a focus on renewable energy.

Older voters are far more likely to support imperialistic wars in Mideastern countries which pose no threat to the USA, as well as support the genocidal murder of Palestinian children by the illegal state of Israel. Younger voters understand the importance of peace in this world, and are far less likely to provoke a meaningless war overseas or support enemies of justice such as Israel, Turkey or Colombia.

In fact, an argument can be made that not having a maximum voting age kills 32,000 a year. Older white men make up the majority of gun owners in this country, and even as the rest of the country seeks to end meaningless violence such as the massacres in Orlando or Dallas, old white men who treat guns as more precious than the lives of innocent children are allowed to vote, and by voting, they stall any common sense gun reform that can be made in the usa. These geriatric republicans think that people need guns 'to defend" themselves, not knowing that having a gun makes it 50 times more likely for you to be shot, and that the vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who bought their guns legally.

I personally believe that a maximum voting age limit of 65 should be immediately implemented. This country is on the right path, and the older, less intelligent white men who hold this country back are slowly but surely dying out. However, progress needs to be made faster if the USA does not wish to be embroiled in new foreign wars, be known for its rampant homophobia and systematic racism, and lose 80 people a day to gun violence within the next ten or twenty years.

I think all citizens should have the right to vote including felons. Of course, there should be no age limit restriction. I would even support letting kids vote except I don't think they'd be voting their own convictions but rather voting how their parents and teachers direct.