Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should 18 year olds to Vote?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 9:58:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've known several 18 year olds who are leaps and bounds ahead of most adults. That being said, my first vote at 18 was a fail because I voted for Barack Obama. A beginner's mistake, it's rare to get it right on the first try.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 10:34:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Depends on how well they keep track of politics. By age 18, most people are at least in the process of taking US Government or Economics classes, and have already taken US History. All that's left is whether they have sufficient knowledge of the candidates and their views.

Plus, I think that this would present too much of a risk to the Republican Party of choosing some idiot like Rick Perry for their presidential candidate if implemented. We want the baby boomers to lose influence sooner, not later.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 10:51:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I didn't vote when I was 18, I worked the entire day and didn't want to wait in line at 5 30 to decide between Obama and McCain, I got it right at the last election though, primary vote for Ron Paul and against incumbent dick lugar then straight libertarian in the general election.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 2:49:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 9:42:02 AM, leojm wrote:
I think not, because their brain is not, fully developed. Till 20 years of age.
http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Post your argument on what you think.

No critical decision-making parts of the brain don't fully developed until age 25.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 2:52:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 9:42:02 AM, leojm wrote:
I think not, because their brain is not, fully developed. Till 20 years of age.
http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Post your argument on what you think.

I think you should have to take a government assessment, and if an 8 year old can pass it but a 40 year old can't, then the 8 year old can vote and the 40 year old can not.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 3:21:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 9:42:02 AM, leojm wrote:
I think not, because their brain is not, fully developed. Till 20 years of age.
http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Post your argument on what you think.

100% brain development is not a requirement to make decent judgements. In terms of structure the brain changes through out our lives along with hormones and other factors that impact decision making.

I would even allow 14 year olds to vote if I didn't think their parents had an overtly influential role in their decisions.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 4:53:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As if it makes a difference. Voting is an arbitrary practice with arbitrary results that reflect no sentient intention.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
leojm
Posts: 1,825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 5:00:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 9:58:40 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I've known several 18 year olds who are leaps and bounds ahead of most adults. That being said, my first vote at 18 was a fail because I voted for Barack Obama. A beginner's mistake, it's rare to get it right on the first try.

I agree with you on that, I was mature at age 17. But the brain doesn't fully develop till your 20.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 6:13:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 5:28:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I would restrict voting to people with doctoral degrees.

I hope that's a joke. I don't want the metric to be how long you were molded by and pumped out of an indoctrination factory. College produces so many pseudo-intellectuals it's laughable.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 6:18:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 2:52:04 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/13/2013 9:42:02 AM, leojm wrote:
I think not, because their brain is not, fully developed. Till 20 years of age.
http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Post your argument on what you think.

I think you should have to take a government assessment, and if an 8 year old can pass it but a 40 year old can't, then the 8 year old can vote and the 40 year old can not.

You'd have to be careful with that, though. Who gets to define what is on the assessments? Who gets to choose the correct answers? Who grades it? Will it be on US history, or on actual current issues such as what each candidate stands for?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 6:28:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 6:18:36 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/13/2013 2:52:04 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/13/2013 9:42:02 AM, leojm wrote:
I think not, because their brain is not, fully developed. Till 20 years of age.
http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Post your argument on what you think.

I think you should have to take a government assessment, and if an 8 year old can pass it but a 40 year old can't, then the 8 year old can vote and the 40 year old can not.

You'd have to be careful with that, though. Who gets to define what is on the assessments? Who gets to choose the correct answers? Who grades it? Will it be on US history, or on actual current issues such as what each candidate stands for?

Someone first might have to make a clear definition of the prevalent ideologies in America.

I.e describe the following ideologies:

-Liberal
-Conservative
-Libertarian

etc

Then maybe you will have to explain four important platforms that candidates run on. I.e describe the following platforms:

-Economics
-Foreign Policy
-Social Issues
-Education

etc

I think something along those lines would be pretty reasonable.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 6:32:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 9:42:02 AM, leojm wrote:
I think not, because their brain is not, fully developed. Till 20 years of age.
http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Post your argument on what you think.

18 year olds are legal adults, who can go into the military, legally be emancipated, be finished with high school, live on their own, etc. Yes, they do have a right to vote.

I love how the reactions of those who aren't happy with the way the country is going, is to restrict voter rights. It's one thing to have voter IDs, but it's another to take away voting rights from legal adults, or to require tests to see if you are capable of voting. There's no reason why 18 year olds can't vote. Their brains aren't fully developed? C'mon. There's no good reason why all of a sudden, 18 year olds cannot vote.

Oh, and I can point out some grammatical mistakes in your post. If you cannot grasp the English language, should you not be allowed to vote? Not trying to offend, but if we're going to go around trying to restrict voting rights, I can play along.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 6:41:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 6:32:44 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/13/2013 9:42:02 AM, leojm wrote:
I think not, because their brain is not, fully developed. Till 20 years of age.
http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Post your argument on what you think.

18 year olds are legal adults, who can go into the military, legally be emancipated, be finished with high school, live on their own, etc. Yes, they do have a right to vote.

If they are idiots and fail to pay their rent/mortgage, or fail out of high school, that only effects them (except that they become a burden to society). If they elect a terrible leader because he has pretty election posters, that does effect me.

I love how the reactions of those who aren't happy with the way the country is going, is to restrict voter rights. It's one thing to have voter IDs, but it's another to take away voting rights from legal adults, or to require tests to see if you are capable of voting. There's no reason why 18 year olds can't vote. Their brains aren't fully developed? C'mon. There's no good reason why all of a sudden, 18 year olds cannot vote.

It isn't restricting rights, really. Testing might even give more people the right to vote, I know plenty of teens who campaign and are in political clubs that would be way more informed and intelligent voters then their parents. I want someone who knows what the person who they are voting for is going to do with the country to vote, not someone who thinks that one candidate has louder and more colorful advertisements.

Oh, and I can point out some grammatical mistakes in your post. If you cannot grasp the English language, should you not be allowed to vote? Not trying to offend, but if we're going to go around trying to restrict voting rights, I can play along.

Ad Hominem
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 7:05:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 6:41:36 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/13/2013 6:32:44 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/13/2013 9:42:02 AM, leojm wrote:
I think not, because their brain is not, fully developed. Till 20 years of age.
http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Post your argument on what you think.

18 year olds are legal adults, who can go into the military, legally be emancipated, be finished with high school, live on their own, etc. Yes, they do have a right to vote.

If they are idiots and fail to pay their rent/mortgage, or fail out of high school, that only effects them (except that they become a burden to society). If they elect a terrible leader because he has pretty election posters, that does effect me.

"Terrible" by your own definition. There are those who voted for Bush twice, and those who voted for Obama twice. That makes up the vast majority of the population, and both leaders have done a terrible job, by my own definition. Both leaders have effected myself and many others badly. However, I don't call for limiting voter rights to a small amount of people whom I believe have the competency to vote.

Again, what is "terrible", and who defines it?


I love how the reactions of those who aren't happy with the way the country is going, is to restrict voter rights. It's one thing to have voter IDs, but it's another to take away voting rights from legal adults, or to require tests to see if you are capable of voting. There's no reason why 18 year olds can't vote. Their brains aren't fully developed? C'mon. There's no good reason why all of a sudden, 18 year olds cannot vote.

It isn't restricting rights, really. Testing might even give more people the right to vote,

I highly doubt that. And who decides what is on this "test"?

I know plenty of teens who campaign and are in political clubs that would be way more informed and intelligent voters then their parents. I want someone who knows what the person who they are voting for is going to do with the country to vote, not someone who thinks that one candidate has louder and more colorful advertisements.

What if the voters do know what their favorite candidate is going to do with the country, and agrees with it?


Oh, and I can point out some grammatical mistakes in your post. If you cannot grasp the English language, should you not be allowed to vote? Not trying to offend, but if we're going to go around trying to restrict voting rights, I can play along.

Ad Hominem

Not really. What if I want to limit voter rights to those who can grasp the English language?
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 7:56:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 7:05:28 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/13/2013 6:41:36 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/13/2013 6:32:44 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/13/2013 9:42:02 AM, leojm wrote:
I think not, because their brain is not, fully developed. Till 20 years of age.
http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Post your argument on what you think.

18 year olds are legal adults, who can go into the military, legally be emancipated, be finished with high school, live on their own, etc. Yes, they do have a right to vote.

If they are idiots and fail to pay their rent/mortgage, or fail out of high school, that only effects them (except that they become a burden to society). If they elect a terrible leader because he has pretty election posters, that does effect me.

"Terrible" by your own definition. There are those who voted for Bush twice, and those who voted for Obama twice. That makes up the vast majority of the population, and both leaders have done a terrible job, by my own definition. Both leaders have effected myself and many others badly. However, I don't call for limiting voter rights to a small amount of people whom I believe have the competency to vote.

Again, what is "terrible", and who defines it?

There is no clear cut definition of terrible, but if someone elected a president who had nothing to offer and only elected them because they gained more attention with attention grabbing ads or doing controversial things is probably not going to to have a lot to offer as our leader.


I love how the reactions of those who aren't happy with the way the country is going, is to restrict voter rights. It's one thing to have voter IDs, but it's another to take away voting rights from legal adults, or to require tests to see if you are capable of voting. There's no reason why 18 year olds can't vote. Their brains aren't fully developed? C'mon. There's no good reason why all of a sudden, 18 year olds cannot vote.

It isn't restricting rights, really. Testing might even give more people the right to vote,

I highly doubt that. And who decides what is on this "test"?

I know plenty of teens who campaign and are in political clubs that would be way more informed and intelligent voters then their parents. I want someone who knows what the person who they are voting for is going to do with the country to vote, not someone who thinks that one candidate has louder and more colorful advertisements.

What if the voters do know what their favorite candidate is going to do with the country, and agrees with it?

That would make them an informed voter.


Oh, and I can point out some grammatical mistakes in your post. If you cannot grasp the English language, should you not be allowed to vote? Not trying to offend, but if we're going to go around trying to restrict voting rights, I can play along.

Ad Hominem

Not really. What if I want to limit voter rights to those who can grasp the English language?

If they have a grasp on the vocab of the English language, the grammatical part doesn't effect their intelligence in politics.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 8:02:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 7:56:56 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
There is no clear cut definition of terrible, but if someone elected a president who had nothing to offer and only elected them because they gained more attention with attention grabbing ads or doing controversial things is probably not going to to have a lot to offer as our leader.

Have an example of when this has ever happened? Every president, good and bad, has had something to offer. Every one of them have run snappy and attention grabbing ads.

That would make them an informed voter.

Yep.

If they have a grasp on the vocab of the English language, the grammatical part doesn't effect their intelligence in politics.

Neither does "full brain developement". Again, this only seems to be a problem when people disagree with the elected leader.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 10:36:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 6:13:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/13/2013 5:28:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I would restrict voting to people with doctoral degrees.

I hope that's a joke. I don't want the metric to be how long you were molded by and pumped out of an indoctrination factory. College produces so many pseudo-intellectuals it's laughable.

No doubt I would run education differently as well.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 10:50:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 6:13:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/13/2013 5:28:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I would restrict voting to people with doctoral degrees.

I hope that's a joke. I don't want the metric to be how long you were molded by and pumped out of an indoctrination factory. College produces so many pseudo-intellectuals it's laughable.

If you have a better way of objectively measuring intelligence, then by all means, tell us.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2013 7:40:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 8:02:19 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/13/2013 7:56:56 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
There is no clear cut definition of terrible, but if someone elected a president who had nothing to offer and only elected them because they gained more attention with attention grabbing ads or doing controversial things is probably not going to to have a lot to offer as our leader.

Have an example of when this has ever happened? Every president, good and bad, has had something to offer. Every one of them have run snappy and attention grabbing ads.

Some Presidents has nearly nothing to offer, case in point, Zachary Taylor

http://www.usnews.com...


That would make them an informed voter.

Yep.

If they have a grasp on the vocab of the English language, the grammatical part doesn't effect their intelligence in politics.

Neither does "full brain developement". Again, this only seems to be a problem when people disagree with the elected leader.

No, but maturity and at least some knowledge in the ideology of each main party should be required. There have been both conservative and liberal leaders that have done a terrible job and won for idiotic reasons. JFK beat Nixon because Nixon happened to be sick on the first televised debate and couldn't make a very good showing.

People are easily manipulated, want to know why most people ended up being against the Vietnam War? Not because of the death toll, by the time the war was over we had about 50,000 dead, while killing millions of VC and NVC soldiers, that is a damned good ratio. People hated the Vietnam war because it was the first televised war, media and pictures do a lot to evoke the feelings of ignorant people, and those feelings often turn in to action.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:06:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 9:42:02 AM, leojm wrote:
I think not, because their brain is not, fully developed. Till 20 years of age.
http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Post your argument on what you think.

Age is subsidiary to the fact that at 18, you theoretically become a "legal adult." Adulthood is the condition necessary for one to vote. Should one be considered a "legal adult" at 18? Probably not, but the number isn't the issue so much as is the fact that at 18, one reaches the age of majority.
Tsar of DDO
marc88567
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 8:35:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think its the age of the voter but the education. We need to have some kind of qualifying test for voting. I don't know what would be on it...but most 18 -25 year olds vote because the candidate looks cooler on facebook than his opponent. They have no idea what the issues are, as many many many social surveys have proven!
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:16:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I honestly think 18 may be too high of a threshold, in fact.

I personally think even 16 could be considered a better age.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:55:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:16:26 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I honestly think 18 may be too high of a threshold, in fact.

I personally think even 16 could be considered a better age.

Why?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 10:45:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 10:34:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
Whenever we're willing to let a kid be drafted by the army, that's the lower bound for voting.

That's pretty much where I stand on the record, FYI... though I think the draft age should be 21.
Tsar of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 10:46:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 6:13:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/13/2013 5:28:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I would restrict voting to people with doctoral degrees.

I hope that's a joke. I don't want the metric to be how long you were molded by and pumped out of an indoctrination factory. College produces so many pseudo-intellectuals it's laughable.

For Bachelors degrees, you might be right. But somebody who is willing to spend 10+ years in school for a degree is leaps and bounds more intelligent than the average person.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 10:47:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 4:53:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
As if it makes a difference. Voting is an arbitrary practice with arbitrary results that reflect no sentient intention.

So you agree that a democratic system is crap?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 11:04:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 10:46:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/13/2013 6:13:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/13/2013 5:28:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I would restrict voting to people with doctoral degrees.

I hope that's a joke. I don't want the metric to be how long you were molded by and pumped out of an indoctrination factory. College produces so many pseudo-intellectuals it's laughable.

For Bachelors degrees, you might be right. But somebody who is willing to spend 10+ years in school for a degree is leaps and bounds more intelligent than the average person.

Ehh.. as a general rule many people think they are a lot more intelligent than they are. I've known MANY dimwitted college students, quite a few dimwitted graduates, and a few dimwitted Ph. D.'s. That to say this, while one's level of education may correlate with the possibility of one's being smart (or at least increase the odds of one's being knowledgeable) educational level isn't really sufficient to indicate the extent to which someone is bright.

Let's talk about bring "intelligent" though. When a host of people (outside of academia/law/medicine/other intellectually rigorous fields) I've interacted with talk about others being "intelligent" what they mean is that the person whom they're describing as "intelligent" shares their political views, value structures, moral persuasions, etc. -but not actually talking about "intelligence" as it were. When I see people on DDO -especially you, Geo (though others are surely guilty)- talk about people, how stupid they are, how they are idiots, etc. I can't help but laugh because what you're really saying when you say that someone is "stupid" or "an idiot" is "I disagree with you!" What you're implying is "I think I'm smart and if I'm smart and you and I disagree, then you must be dim." Of course, that's nonsense logic, but it's the actual meaning behind observations and descriptions like "stupid" or "idiot." That in and of itself is pretty hilarious... to me, at least.

I'd be happy to restrict voting to people with Ph.D's too, if every Ph.D. thought like me. Having actually worked in a university, alongside both Ph.D's and grad students (i.e. future Ph.D.'s) I can tell you that while there are some people whose judgement I would trust, there are a WHOLE HOST of others who I'd strongly prefer just not vote (like the English professor I know is a perverse marxist-feminist hybrid, the rabid socialist who taught an undergraduate Soviet history class I took a which back, or the poli-sci professor I know who spent an entire lecture period lambasting Bush for no coherent reason whatsoever). Really the only people I can even imagine who would have the gaul to suggest that only Ph.D.'s should vote don't know them or work with them. But I suppose there's some irony in that too. Btw. Newt Gingrich has a Ph.D. Ever think of that? So does Mohammad Morsi (though he obviously wouldn't vote in the US). Dick Cheney was only a few years away from completing his Ph.D. and he was actually published in the APSR (which is a HUGE deal for anyone in the poli-sci world).

Just things to consider... from a guy who knows a few guys.
Tsar of DDO