[subs]

The issue wasn't about prejudice, it was about who would be paying more attention to the issues at hand since they have more to lose. I don't like the fact that anyone who is at least 18 can vote. I would like to see people who have received gov't aid within a short amount of time preceding the vote not being able to vote. There are way too many people voting only to get bigger checks from the gov't, and it must stop.

yea, i was just trying to say that the "founding fathers" r out of touch with the realities of today. the argument Andy posted was based on their views. surely, to base political/economic policy on outdated ideas/prejudice is horribly messy.

the problem today is there r only, lets say X number of jobs and X + Y number of people. so there just HAS to be some people without jobs. the economy/labor market is set up like that to keep labor prices down. 1 minimum wage is not enough for a family. how can u even call it minimum wage then (that's another subject).

i do not understand y 1 person's right to vote should be more important than another's. some people vote for smaller checks and some for bigger checks. u can't say they don't vote the right way (ur opinion) so we'll just take away their vote. it is just plain wrong.

BTW how do u vote to get a bigger check? u either vote R or D. the issues r inseparable, did i miss something?

maybe we should take away the right to vote for racists? or maybe for CEOs because they vote/lobby for less taxes for the ridiculously rich. or maybe for political dissenters/anti-war protesters. it is a slippery slope based on generalising and prejudice.

+ some people, handicapped or disabled or terminally sick can not work, who r u to take away their right to vote?