Ramaswamy proposes raising voting age to 25, unless people serve in military or pass a test

Well I kind of like this idea...

Ramaswamy proposes raising voting age to 25, unless people serve in military or pass a test

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy on Thursday voiced support for changing the overall U.S. voting age to 25, unless younger Americans fulfill at least six months of service in the military or as a first responder — or pass the same citizenship test administered to those seeking to become naturalized citizens.

Ramaswamy’s campaign announced the biotech entrepreneur and “anti-woke” activist’s push for a U.S. Constitutional amendment promoting “civic duty voting,” which he announced in a news release and detailed during a campaign event in Urbandale, Iowa.


Won't happen, but I like his moxie.

 

If I was in charge I'd say only veterans could serve in elected office or vote for those positions.

But like you say, Lil Mike, never happen.

 

I'd be satisified to raise it back to 21. The reason for lowering the voting age was the Vietnam War. The thinking if 18 is old enough to serve in the military, fight and die for one's country, then 18 ought to be old enough to vote. With our present day all volunteer military, that reason no longer applies.

 

I feel conflicted. I think voting age at 18 may have worked for US for many years, especially with more educated and intelligent population, but I think over time IQ levels (intelligence) have been going down. Poverty level also go up, in big part due to housing prices going so high up in many city areas, all the wealthy areas where most middle class job opportunities are, this of course caused by population increase from large immigration. This drive more social divide and contention. Media do not help, dishonest, appeal to mob emotion. So this is not good for democracy.

Next up, I think soon coming decades progressive faction are going to try to pack upper level appellate courts with stupid incompetent people. This will be the end. Will not be good for justice and will throw wrench into economic system. If you think lawsuits are bad and ridiculous now in U.S., just wait until then.

Society and country can deal with a lot of stupidity, so long as still exist good people in leadership in large companies and in high level position courts. Even if have bad laws, can still manage to work. But take away those last pillars, and I think society will fall apart. Will be no different than Third World country. And the savings of the country will deplete within just a few generations.

Look in many Third World countries. Democracy does not work there, the people cannot rule themselves well.

If no big country with democratic freedom like the U.S. left, then I think global freedom is doomed. Because U.S. has big influence on these other countries, has a stabilizing effect. Government of other country know they cannot get away with starting war or too much human rights violation without U.S. getting involved. Even reason why democracy maintain in some unstable country is because threat from U.S.

 

I think18 is right for voting age because it's the age we've accepted as the age of majority. 21 was rhe voring age when I first voted. 18 was the legal drinking age and should be again.

 

Old enough to fight and die for America, old enough to vore for the people who will send you to fight.

 

But...if you are not in the military, and have no plans to ever join, why should you free ride age-wise with the people who are "Old enough to fight and die for America," and have actually volunteered to do just that?

 

Yeah, it is kind of crazy that a legal adult isn't allowed to consume alcohol. I'm not sure whether that means the drinking age should be lowered or the age of majority raised, though. But either way the current situation is messed up on principle.

 

Why try to create two separate classes of citizenship and rights? That's what that amounts to.

 

Doesn't that already exist?

 

No?

 

Well i thought the issue was "how old should one be to vote, not how wise, or what qualification(s) to vote".

 

Let's keep in mind that before 1920, only men of at least 21 years of age could vote in the U.S.

I think many might have argued for the age to be a little bit higher if women were also going to have the vote.

Girls also had to be 21 years old to marry without the consent of their fathers until the 1940s.
(Keep in mind that back then sex was pretty much synonymous with marriage for most of the population, even with laws banning cohabitation of unmarried couples, motels would commonly demand to see a copy of the marriage certificate)

 

In many states if you're a felon you lose the right to vote. Are they second class citizens?

 

Well, that is an interesting point and comparison. Felons lose that and other rights and privileges. But on the other hand, most people have the option of not becoming a felon, whereas not everyone can necessarily qualify for military service even if they are willing.

 

This is not stable though. It's only as stable as the US can throw its military weight around. We act as though it's not possible for us to lose a war.
In many ways, we have the imbued arrogance of the ones we defeated in WWII. We think we're untouchable, unstoppable and no one can come close.

And I think something that would change our voting views and our foreign policy views is if we actually were to face a real military attack on US Land. Then we'll be like 'SHTF.'

 

I don't support that idea either. The only distinction I support for voting is an age of majority at which we assume mental competence to make decisions absent extraordinary medical circumstances documented in a competence hearing, an age to contract, to drink, be drafted, to own a gun etc. There are states which allow for the emancipation of minors from legal guardianship with court consent earlier, which presupposes those minors have mental competence and right to contract before 18. I'd let them cast ballots as well

 

Another day, another Republican proposal to limit voting - now by age. A cynical person might start to see a pattern here. This idea won't stay fringe for long. I wonder how long it will be before some deep red state tries to legislate it.

 

Because men still have to sign up for the draft at 18. I made a commitment to serve if called upon should a massive war break out when I turned 18. So still "old enough to fight and die for America" (with very small odds of being called upon). Anything other than full acceptance is ridiculous. So those who haven't been to war can only vote at 23. If you are just in the national guard 24?

Yeah it is really hilarious to see REPUBLICANS, you know the people for smaller government and less interference, all of a sudden start meddling on the federal level to decide who is worthy and not worthy to vote in each state. I understand, you will trade in your principles for a few extra votes. Still amazing that republicans see no disconnect in that position.

 

Well .. Ramaswamy knows that most voter age between 18-45 vote Democrat. If you can move the age to 25, you cut of millions and millions vote from Democrat.

 

Maybe they should cap it at 65 as well, since most people that age are are not producing any more, - or just exclude retired people.

Or.....maybe just keep it the way it is. Clearly Ramaswamy doesn't have very good ideas, - bombing Mexico, military action on US soil, ban voting from millions of people........tut-tut

 

Your being a dictator, who could change the laws with the wave of your hand, to cater to your own, particular views-- yeah, you're not the person, for whom I could imagine that being a tangible possibility.

 

Make the voting age 46.

 

Amazing some of the stupid s that gets traction these days.
Why not go with the rules of the Shire and make it 33?

 

Except, you forget, that arbitrary law designations, like this, are not based on anyone's idea of what is most practical: they are, ultimately, based on popular opinion (you know-- democracy). There are probably not enough people who strongly feel as you do-- that is, strong enough in favor of this, to make it a top voting issue-- as there are current voters who would feel very strongly against this (namely 18 to 20 year olds-- at least, those who vote).

That said, I would not be against the requirement of passing of a government/civics type test, in order to vote; but this would, first of all, be likely considered an unConstitutional restriction on voting-- even if the test were provided on tape or video, for those who can't read: yes, depriving the illiterate of their voting rights, is unConstitutional. Next, the devil would be, of course, in the details of what was on that test. Unfortunately, while this might seem something in which partisan politics should play no role-- just like the teaching of black history-- there almost certainly would be attempts to propagate partisan political ideas, on such a test.