That is not correlation; that is textbook conflation.
If you want more educated voters, why not make it mandatory to attain higher education? You don’t need to answer that rhetorical question, we already know the answer; the Republicans would never win a state-wide or national election ever again.
The reason to enfranchise more voters by making it easier to participate will not only moderate both sides of the political spectrum by requiring them to stop pandering to their base, but also serve to increase civic knowledge and experience in the general population.
Young citizens are under-represented in government, and yet they are the ones who are going to be most heavily impacted by the policies enacted. They should have every right to have a say in how their future is shaped.
If anyone should be excluded from the political process, it should be retirees. But of course this is also something else that the GOP wouldn’t ever allow they because again, they would never again win a state-wide or national election ever again.
Returning to the original point; it’s not the 2000s anymore, and it’s perfectly acceptable to sign multi-year contracts with colleges and banks for tens of thousands of dollars - what makes voting any different?
Beyond of course removing the voter suppression barrier that is likely there to serve your preferred candidate.
I used correlate very intentionally because that is literally what it is. It is textbook the definition of correlation.
Higher education does not equal better voter. Life experience and having a mind that works well is the best way to get a better voter. And I would be one of the people that realizes that our current voting system doesnt work and we get to many voters that dont know what they are voting for. So maybe a test would be in order to vote, or some other thing.
I CORRELATE age with knowing what is going and being deceived less. So now see above question.
That is not correlation; that is textbook conflation.
If you want more educated voters, why not make it mandatory to attain higher education? You don’t need to answer that rhetorical question, we already know the answer; the Republicans would never win a state-wide or national election ever again.
The reason to enfranchise more voters by making it easier to participate will not only moderate both sides of the political spectrum by requiring them to stop pandering to their base, but also serve to increase civic knowledge and experience in the general population.
Young citizens are under-represented in government, and yet they are the ones who are going to be most heavily impacted by the policies enacted. They should have every right to have a say in how their future is shaped.
If anyone should be excluded from the political process, it should be retirees. But of course this is also something else that the GOP wouldn’t ever allow they because again, they would never again win a state-wide or national election ever again.
Returning to the original point; it’s not the 2000s anymore, and it’s perfectly acceptable to sign multi-year contracts with colleges and banks for tens of thousands of dollars - what makes voting any different?
Beyond of course removing the voter suppression barrier that is likely there to serve your preferred candidate.
I used correlate very intentionally because that is literally what it is. It is textbook the definition of correlation.
Higher education does not equal better voter. Life experience and having a mind that works well is the best way to get a better voter. And I would be one of the people that realizes that our current voting system doesnt work and we get to many voters that dont know what they are voting for. So maybe a test would be in order to vote, or some other thing.