The voting age in the United States should be eliminated

"That is a logical failure. The argument is for the purpose of ELIMINATING taxation (by providing people another reason to oppose it). Obviously, then, the reverse is true-- it is relevant to the extent that taxation currently exists." The right to vote should not be a gambit in your anti-taxation campaign. "That is a copy of the expected social studies cirriculum [sic] for Kindergarten. Obviously, this wouldn't be taught if most pre-kindergartners [sic] already knew it. Such things are so simple not only are they needed for competent voting, MUCH MORE is needed for competent voting." During last election season, Howard Stern had a segment covering voter knowledge. Numerous adults were asked who they supported, but then, when quizzed as to their political beliefs, often had the exact opposite beliefs as that candidate. Clearly we don't use knowledge as a prerequisite for voting. "I am saying that in any context 'Should,' the constitution is irrelevant because it CAN BE CHANGED to match what should be. It has been before. The constitution, mind, at one point encouraged slavery :)." The constitution certainly can be amended, but in two hundred years, I can think of no amendments that restricted the right to vote, only expansions. Why would this trend be reversed to codify an equally discriminatory reason as previous amendments ended? "I was not speaking of intellectual influence. I was speaking of the fact that a toddler's ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION is usually their parents. Rates of deviance from parents may not typically become too high, but they clearly rise with age, because the level of influence falls." Weren't you just saying things could change? It would be much easier to change, for example, school lessons and youth-oriented television programs than to change the constitution. Your claim that young people have no other source of information than their parents is simply false. Even if currently the only source for political information is parents, if the voting age were eliminated, other sources of information would spring up. "No young child would be allowed in a voting booth alone-- nor any older child if their parents disagreed with them. Absentee ballots would likely be the only way most could 'vote,' and those would likely be filled out with the parents right there, withholding privileges and tearing up the ballot if the child should vote 'wrong.'" I think I've heard this before, where was it? Oh right, the early 1900s! "No wife would be allowed in a voting booth alone. Absentee ballots would likely be the only way most could 'vote,' and those would likely be filled out with the husband right there, withholding privileges and tearing up the ballot if the wife should vote 'wrong.'" But that didn't clearly doesn't happen often enough to deny women the right to vote. Nor would your situation occur often enough to deny the most basic right to vote to those under a certain age. In closing, I would like to point out that even if all of your arguments were correct, it wouldn't matter. The right to vote is, of course, a RIGHT. It is not a "privilege", it is in fact a right (that's why we call it the "right to vote", not the "privilege to vote"). There are no qualifications on rights! In short, you are basing your entire argument on the false premise that rights can be restricted. As an argument based on false premises is clearly wrong, I urge voters to support me with their votes.