When George Washington was elected only 6% of the population could vote because you had to be a white male property owner over the age of 21. It wasn't until 1856 that the vote was expanded to include all white men. In 1868 black men got the vote and finally in 1920 women got the right to vote . It wasn't until 1972 that the voting age was lowered to 18 and the steady dumbing down of the voter pool was complete. Before people start screaming racist and misogynist that is not my point here. I'm fine with all races and women voting but we never should have dropped the property owner requirement and never should have lowered the voting age to 18. When you have reached a point in your life where you own property you have demonstrated the ability to participate in this society in a contributing way but the main thing is you have skin in the game. At this point you want America to be a stable functioning country that is prosperous and has an effective economy where your hard work will be rewarded and safe guarded. Kids and non property owners are going to vote on and for different issues than they will or would when they are a participating member of our economy and should not be allowed to vote until they do more than hang around the fringes. The extreme example of this is people on welfare voting and kids in school who have never had a job in their lives. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting against a thriving economy and for give away programs to benefit them and will vote in their own self interest instead of considering what is best for the country at large. IMO we should reinstate the original voting requirement of being a property owner.
So basically, unless you're relatively wealthy, you don't think someone has anything to offer society.
I'm a gainfully employed renter. And in fact, no matter how much money I had, I don't think I'd ever want to buy a house. I'm a city girl, and I like it that way. That means I will probably never own property. How does this mean I'm not intellectually capable of voting?
But even if it were purely an issue of money, how does that make someone unqualified to vote? The wealthy are the ones who set the tone of society for the poor. So why, precisely, should the poor be excluded from the discussion?
The fact that you associate allowing the poor to vote with "dumbing" things down speaks volumes about you.
And why do you believe simply owning a piece of the dirt will make someone interested in America's "success?" If anything, doesn't it make them more interested in themselves, at the expense of others if need be?
That is the logical counterpoint to your illogical statement of human nature, but it's not true, of course. The truth is that money doesn't make people what they are. Plenty of poor people, or simply people who don't own a piece of dirt, are interested in America's well-being. Plenty of people who are wealthy and own dirt aren't interested in the well-being of anyone but themselves.
If you want to raise the voting age, fine. But you should also raise the age at which you expect people to go die for their country along with it.