"No testing will be perfect, but universal suffrage is foolishness."
I think so too, but people say the test will invariably be manipulated by those in power to stay in power.

It does have a clearly defined role and is required to be small by the contract that limits it (the constitution). The contract failed to impose those limits on all fronts.

Suppose at the end of each term (before they were allowed to run for re-election) each congressman, judiciary or executive were put on trial and if found in violation of the contract (constitution) they were sworn to uphold they would be imprisoned for a minimum term of twice what their term of office had been and disallowed from every running for office again?

The Dems are pushing this because something very dire happened when they lost the WH to Trump.

The Congressional reactions (both emotionally and in legislation) to the last election remind me of dysfunctional parents excessively punishing their children because the parents hate each other.

They are very afraid of the voting public and of reality.

Isn't it nice how the Democrats want no ID for voting yet Mayor Lightweight in Chicago said that you had to produce an ID to get your China virus shot because too many people were getting shots. You can't make this stuff up.

Let's throw it in the laps of the oligarchs. Let 16 jobless brats sign contracts for cars and houses and then default. Make sure they must sign up for the military. Kick them out of parents houses and let them pay their own college, or get a loan they will never repay. Not sure who wold scram first, kids or oligarchs. Voting is something you should grow into, be mature enough to read and discern what candidates support, not what Taylor Twit wells them to do.

Heinlein was a brilliant writer. He is by far my favorite sci-fi writer. (Note that Heinlein wanted a career in the Navy, but his physical condition got in the way and he became a writer to pay his bills. )
On occasion, in his writing, Heinlein made a naive suggestion. This was one of those occasions. While service to the country could be an admirable trait and might provide some useful experience, there is no correlation of service to ability to think rationally about political issues. Starship Troopers was,iirc, a voluntary system, however.
Drafting people is using force and suppressing free will. It is the way of dictators, not free people.

This brings to mind the system Robert Heinlein portrayed in Starship Troopers. A person could only vote after serving a term of government service--and they could not choose the service. They might be assigned to paper-pushing--or they might be in the Infantry.

The Founders originally wanted voting restricted to those who were property owners or held steady jobs, regardless of age, as that was considered to be a sign of maturity and responsibility. It was also logical in their minds, because any law which placed tariffs or fees on financial activities would affect those people, who should have a right to decide on them. Very logical and non-progressive.

You'll think I'm crazy but think about this: What if we drafted people to serve in government? People over xx years of age drafted for a 2 or 3 year hitch just like we used to do for the military. I know we'd get some idiots but don't we get them now?

Testing is an excellent approach!

I agree completely, Thor. I favor testing for the things mentioned in my post above. No testing will be perfect, but universal suffrage is foolishness.

40 to vote in lieu of testing for rational thinking. If one size has to fit all, probably over 80's shouldn't vote (or hold office) either. I favor testing. One size doesn't fit all. It never has. All men are not created equal, nor do all "adults" exhibit improvement in thinking with age.

Yep, she knows how impressionable they are, and how good "free stuff" looks to them. Many/most of them have no real understanding of earning one's own way. And if they can vote the proceeds of the treasury to themselves, they'll do it in a heartbeat. In short, young people WILL vote D, almost as a whole.

I was listening to Shelia Jackson (the D. Houston Rep) talk this morning on the news about all the wonderful stuff her district is getting from this new "rescue" package. What a shameful person she is, promulgating a shameful, immoral law.

Maybe if government was really small and had a clearly defined role, it wouldn't matter who we chose.

22 and many 30 yr old people have no idea either.

21 to buy/drink alcohol. 18 to be drafted and go to war. 18-21 to buy a firearm. 18 to buy cigarettes. 18 to be tried as an adult... Blah, blah blah.

Pick a date people are adults, and then they are adults. End of story.

My home is in Florida. I spend time in Georgia during summer/fall. While in Florida I went to county elections office and requested a mail in ballot be sent to me in Georgia. Filled out all the paperwork. Got my ballot by mail in Georgia and signed and returned it.
Like you in Texas, this is the way it is SUPPOSED to be done.

Not yet anyway. Trump made some of us almost demand a huge reset, coming I hope. If only I had more energy I'd work much harder to make it happen.

Sure. This way they can illegally vote as if they were <18 and yet no one can be prosecuted for it!

How to wisely choose leaders is a question for the ages. Is there such a thing as a benevolent dictator? How do you find them?
Perhaps the only way to avoid the problem is to not choose someone.
As far as who should choose, being old enough does nothing to guarantee that people choose wisely. Therefore the only wise choice would be to have a contract with the governing officials that could be enforced against those who claim authority; such as a constitution. Which America has but it has been turned on its head and is now used to enforce the demands of the governors on the governed.

The biological and psychological data are very clear. Children are not "done" becoming adults (the developmental processes of brain and body) until somewhere around the age of 25), thus they shooul NOT be allowed to do many "adult" things until at least that age. In that vein Voting tops the list followed by breeding.

At 16 most people have no clue what their government does, what their vote means, or what the constitution says. They have little life experience to draw on to make decisions and no investment in the outcome because they are almost exclusively parasites on their parents (and on the taxpayers.) Most have not been taught to make rational decisions.
Letting anyone vote (regardless of age) without ability to think rationally, or without the experience to make a rational decision, or without the understanding of the true history of the constitution and bill of rights, socialism, free market capitalism, monarchy, corruption from power, and many other things is utter foolishness and a recipe for disaster. This is what changes to the original constitution that have widened suffrage and expanded government political power have wrought. Expanding suffrage to more irrational beings is more foolishness.

I want 16 y/os to be able to vote, but I would be open to some sort of test and/or even limiting voting to people who pay some federal income tax (not just Social Security payroll taxes, but actual income tax). If they didn't the income tax requirement, it would disqualify almost all teenagers and half the adult population.

I know this idea has a horrible racist history, and maybe it wouldn't work. I just think it would be better if it were harder to vote. I would be cautious, though, that politicians would take advantage of a test or other requirements to undermine their opponents.

And the People are doing nothing about the theft of the last of their liberty.
Americans exceptional? Prove it People. Defend your liberty.