I want to share in your optimism but my realism is kicking in. Why then would the Democratic turn-out be so high? It could I suppose just be plain opposition to Bush and Republicans in general. But it seems Americans are screaming for what the Democrats are offering and what are they offering? More government.

I understand that but do you honestly think that a majority of them are going D because they want more government? Or maybe it is just exciting to them because of who the candidates are and the fact that they hear change and believe it.

__________________
“It is anomalous to hold that in order to convict a man the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind, but can extract what is in his stomach.”

Probably a mix of both, with importance on the latter.

Heck, if you want more government then you don't have to vote democrat, as it appears republicans can bring it with the best of them. We've seen very sweeping expansion with a republican in the White House and a republican majority 6 out of 8 years.

Both major parties love growth of the federal sector, it is the directions of that growth that you are voting on.

I'm thinking both the parities and the labels associated with them have grown old and stale. Not to mention disengaged from the public who funds all of this.

Yes, just anyone should be able to vote. For two reasons.
1. Any "test" to determine who can vote will be arbitrary and biased to the political agenda of those who set it.
2. Voting determines legitimacy. It is more stable for those in power to have support from the masses, regardless of how dumb they may be.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

yes, everyone who is old enough (ie considered as competent) to enter into a contract should be allowed, and encouraged, to vote.

if you are not at the age of majority you should not vote, nor should you enjoy many of the other rights & responsibilities of citizenship like being drafted, consuming food & beverage of your choice, or providing informed consent. it s the responsibility of a guardian in that case. once at the age of majority i believe one should enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

My guess is that 50% of the anti-Iraq war folks, couldn't find it (Iraq) on a map.

In order to vote you should have to pass a test. The test should be on current events, things the candidate has said or done in the past, and national history. This way, the only people who are voting are the ones who can make the most educated decision.

__________________
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Who decides on which parts of the histories and which current events are important?
Different people tend to look at different aspects and different people find different things important.
And how does this prevent people from making stupid decisions on the basis of correct information? It happens more often than you'd think.

Furthermore, why do you think there is something wrong with a person voting for a president over issues of personality traits or ideological principles? Or as a check on party power?

Who gets to decide that voting on "issues" is more important, let alone which "issues" are most important?

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Same applies to the pro-war folks.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?