Comments on: Universal Childhood Suffrage

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Mon, 12 May 2008 13:49:41 +0000

FWIW I filed my first tax return when I was 14 and have been paying taxes since then.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Mon, 12 May 2008 13:48:23 +0000

There's actually some pretty decent science supporting the idea that the brain doesn't mature until roughly the 20's.

We have a representative democracy and believe that those who will have to pay for and abide by government policies should elect those who make said policies. We also believe that those who are voting should be educated, have a stake in society, and be mentally competent to make decisions.

Unfortunately, we abandoned all of those ideas formally about 40 years ago. Now the conditions for voting are strictly arbitrary.

I think there's a serious question lurking behind this idiotic one: who should be allowed to vote and why? If we limit voting to net shareowners, that would limit the franchise indeed. If we extend it to all stakeholders, why limit the franchise to naturalized Americans and those American born?

My view: the voting age should be raised to 25, naturalized Americans and American born only. A literacy test would be good, too, if such a thing could be administered in a way that wasn't racially biased.

By: fred gill

fred gill — Mon, 12 May 2008 04:47:02 +0000

When I saw the link to this article I thought it was a gag. Who are these two morons? Or is Obama already planning his reelection strategy on the theory that his current youth base will have caught on to him by 2012? If so someone please remind him he needs to get elected before he can be reelected.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Mon, 12 May 2008 02:34:16 +0000

The likelihood is that it would less be a function of furthering a specific ideology as would simply be a means of amplifying the vote of the parent(s).

(heh)
Clearly, you didn't grow up in the 60's.
Let's just say that's not been my own observation.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:36:22 +0000

adults in Washington DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, and V.I. pay taxes, are subject to our rule, and have a stake, yet those adults do not have voting rights

They have voting rights in all those places. They're not states, so they don't have voting reps in the House and Senate. (They do, however, have non-voting representatives.) But they vote.

They vote for their chief executive and legislative representatives and probably judges as well. DC residents even vote for president.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:38:09 +0000

Bithead:

The likelihood is that it would less be a function of furthering a specific ideology as would simply be a means of amplifying the vote of the parent(s).

By: EG

EG — Sun, 11 May 2008 19:40:38 +0000

If you are going to link it to taxation, 16 should obviously be the age. Most of my friends and I were working by 16 and being taxed for it. Indeed, at that age, we suffered from taxation without representation. Accountability - I believe most 16 years old are responsible for traffic violations at the very least. Most states would also probably try them as adults for serious crimes.

In this country, age assumptions are often absurd. At 16, you can drive a potentially lethal vehicle, but you aren't responsible enough to vote. At 18, you can shoot a gun, drive a tank, fly a warplane, die for your country etc, but aren't responsible enough to buy alcohol. At 70, when many peoples faculties are greatly diminished, they still assume you are competent to drive. No testing required.

By: Cleve

Cleve — Sun, 11 May 2008 19:26:20 +0000

Premise: the key is paying taxes or having a stake.
conclusion: we should extend the franchise to minors.

Inconvenient fact:

adults in Washington DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, and V.I. pay taxes, are subject to our rule, and have a stake, yet those adults do not have voting rights.

The argument made to extend the vote to kids seems academic and trite -- unless we first ensure full voting rights to all citizens and all adults taxed by our laws, or subject to the rule of our government.

Otherwise, the whole argument seems to be just a silly parlor game.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sun, 11 May 2008 17:09:25 +0000

I suppose it would be gauche to ask which of the major political philosophies would benefit from lowering, or the removal of the age restriction... the strong minded, independent, 'keep government out of my life and our pockets' philosophy, or the 'I need government to take care of everything' philosophy. Obviously, younger people will lean toward the latter. I find myself amazed that someone like Gorby, who proclaims himself from the French Right, hasn't worked that one out for himself. That's even assuming a total lack of fraud... which Yglesias' readers give fine example to.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Sun, 11 May 2008 16:28:54 +0000

On the positive side, at least those in high school will government issued picture IDs.

By: floyd

floyd — Sun, 11 May 2008 16:07:56 +0000

""Similarly, it would be absurd to allow infants to vote. They obviously can’t communicate their ideas in a manner comprehensible to us and they have limited ability to process information."" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" This sounds like over half of the candidates!!

By: floyd

floyd — Sun, 11 May 2008 15:58:33 +0000

I think it rather obvious that we allow too many children to vote already!
30 years of age sounds about right to me, you should gain control of your own life before deciding the fate of those around you.

By: DavidTC

DavidTC — Sun, 11 May 2008 15:20:26 +0000

I think you're exactly right about the age of voting needing to match the age of legal liability...

...which argues that, in many places, it needs lowering, because in many places 17-year olds are in adult court under adult laws.

By: Bill H

Bill H — Sun, 11 May 2008 14:22:36 +0000

Robert Heinlein once wrote a novel that posited a society based on the premise that only those who had completed a tour of national service would be entitled to vote. The service did not need to be military, it could be administrative or civil service, and it needed to be completed in full. One could not vote while in service, only after completion of it.

I've always thought there was some merit in that concept.