National Youth Rights Association

What could possibly be a better reason for lowering the voting age
Some unemployed guy defeated a former legislator in South Carolina's Democratic senate primary. He had no money, no signs and no website. Did he win because of his brilliant policies? Or because his last initial came first in the alphabet?
Tonight, 32 year-old unemployed veteran Alvin Greene won a 16-point victory over his seemingly much more qualified opponent, 64 year-old Vic Rawl, a former judge and legislator. Greene did not fundraise at all, while Rawl had about $186,000 in cash, according to the AP. Greene is such a nobody that the Huffington Post asks at the end of their article: "Do YOU know anything about Alvin Greene? Do you have any photos of him? Email us."
Greene really does seem like some random dude. Here's what he told a reporter for the Columbia Freetimes, when they asked why he was spending so much of his own money to campaign against a popular incumbent, Republican senator Jim DeMint:
Asked if he thought it was a good investment to spend so much of his own money in a two-way Democratic primary to run against a popular Republican with millions in campaign cash, Greene replied: "Rather than just save the $10,000 and just go and buy gasoline with it, just take [it] and just be unemployed for [an] even longer period of time, I mean, that wouldn't make any sense, um, just, um, but, uh, yes, uh … lowering these gas prices … that will create jobs, too. Anything that will lower the gasoline prices. Offshore drilling, the energy package, all that."
Oh, OK! So how did he win? The chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic party speculated to the AP that "people who didn't know either candidate and voted alphabetically may help explain Greene's win."
Alvin Green: An inspiration to random unemployed dudes everywhere
http://gawker.com/5558760/random-unemployed-dude-wins-south-carolina-democratic-primary

Just think . . . if Al Gore's name had been Al Bore, and George W. Bush's name had been George W. Gush, we might have avoided the disaster in Florida.

I think the article unfairly reports his stuttering, as it's something that public speakers do quite regularly, especially on the news or in the presence of journalists. It simply reflects that the person is uncomfortable leaving silence while he's delaying to think. I think they singled him out for it because it is the intention of the article to argue that he is unqualified. I think the results of that primary do reflect that voters do not place a lot of thought into their vote simply because they wouldn't have had any means of knowing his qualifications, but the vast majority of the population of voters being unqualified to vote is not news. However I don't think that a surprising outcome of the vote necessarily makes him an unqualified candidate. He probably is, as is most every senator. However, I don't think he is spectacularly less qualified than the usual candidate. He does have a college education, a degree in political science which is not mentioned here. Seeing as most senators do not read the bills and usually vote the party line or with respect to a vague outline of their constituency, I wouldn't say it requires any more qualification or experience than a college education in most any subject. Not that I don't think the qualifications should be higher or that senators shouldn't put more mental effort into it, but they aren't, and they don't, so asking for high quality standards in a senate election is silly.

wow… voting alphabetically? thats pretty funny.. imagine if you won an election by random chance