Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why stop w/14yr olds? If ignorant illiterates can vote (elect Sen.Vasconcellos)toddlers deserve say.
Orange County Register | 3.12.04 | Richard Kirk

Posted on 03/14/2004 1:48:52 AM PST by w-pat

Friday, March 12, 2004 Why stop with 14-year-olds? If ignorant illiterates can vote (and elect Sen. Vasconcellos), toddlers deserve say

By RICHARD KIRK Free-lance writer who lives in Oceanside

State Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, is at it again. The same dude who, over a decade ago, established that immensely productive state task force on self-esteem, has recently joined with a group of like-minded legislators to propose giving partial votes to teen-agers. He would give 14- and 15-year-olds quarter-votes. Their 16- and 17-year-old siblings would get half-votes.

What's surprising is that the esteem guru of Sacramento would stop short of a constitutional amendment that fractionally enfranchises all of California's citizens. Why not seek a law that makes both grade-schoolers and toddlers feel good about exercising the obligations of citizenship? After all, if "Home Alone's" Macaulay Culkin could rake in millions of taxable dollars before the age of 12, why shouldn't tweeners possess at least a sixth of a voice in the way those dollars were spent?

Concerning younger Californians, the tired old conservative position holds that language acquisition and continence skills are required to exercise the basic rights of citizenship - an argument that shows how small-minded the opponents of full fractional representation really are.

First of all, a significant number of California's high school graduates are already functionally illiterate, so extending rights to other cognitively challenged citizens seems only fair. Furthermore, voters in Depends constitute one of the fastest-growing classes of enfranchised citizens in the Golden State. Allowing Pampers people equal access thus can be seen as a logical extension of the basic democratic principle that government has no business peering into people's underwear.

If one asks how pre- and neo-bipeds are supposed to vote, I reply that it is incumbent upon a government of "all the people" to accommodate the developmental stages of citizens by providing height- and age-appropriate selection mechanisms. A ballot for 2-year-olds, for example, could show a scowling face shouting, "Bad boy, bad girl," for one party and a cheerful mommy figure saying, "Does baby want candy?" for the other. These sound-signals would necessarily reflect the state's ethnic diversity. Similar access-enhancing devices have long been employed by the DMV - an agency that could provide invaluable guidance to registrars as they transition to a truly inclusive voting system.

Other creative symbols could be used for minor party candidates. Greens might be represented by Ansel Adams prints and foresty smells. Sour grapes, on the other hand, would provide an adequate scratch-and-sniff stand-in for Ralph Nader. A one-tenth vote based on such odio-visual cues would doubtless provide as accurate a reflection of scentiment as the choices made by those Palm Beach seniors who couldn't tell the difference between Pat Buchanan and Al Gore.

The last refuge of electoral scoundrels, of course, is the intelligence argument. Elitists claim that children don't know enough to vote responsibly. Yet literacy tests were declared impermissible decades ago. Surely the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wouldn't hesitate to also declare an intelligence requirement for voting unconstitutional.

The truth is that obstructionists have always been against the expansion of voting rights - to nonpropertied males, to blacks and women, to 18-year-olds. They always say that the new group isn't qualified and doesn't know enough to responsibly exercise the franchise.

To these doubting Thomases I say this: What's knowledge got to do with it? If the well-educated voters of Santa Clara can elect, time and again, a representative as frivolous and intellectually benighted as John Vasconcellos, how could incontinent 2-year-olds do worse?


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: teenvote; vasconcellos; voting; votingtoddlers
Remember the days when the propaganda was - to have more than two children was contributing to the population explosion and ruining the planet?
1 posted on 03/14/2004 1:48:53 AM PST by w-pat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: w-pat
There was a Sliders (old sci-fi show) Episode on this subject.
2 posted on 03/14/2004 1:52:29 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup (Motto: 'Live and let live' is a suicidal belief...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: w-pat
Election year politics marketed as being "for the children."
3 posted on 03/14/2004 1:53:09 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Voting machine/changing table.
4 posted on 03/14/2004 2:18:03 AM PST by w-pat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Voting machine/changing table.
5 posted on 03/14/2004 2:19:00 AM PST by w-pat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: w-pat
18 is too young. Anything under that is obviously...ummm...words fail me.
6 posted on 03/14/2004 3:18:30 AM PST by Grit (www.NRSC.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: w-pat
A lame attempt to lower the age of sexual consent so the #$ can get at little boys, IMHO
7 posted on 03/14/2004 3:34:14 AM PST by tkathy (Our economy, our investments, and our jobs DEPEND on powerful national security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: w-pat
What about the pre-born?

Don't they get a say?
8 posted on 03/14/2004 4:57:05 AM PST by auntdot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: w-pat
Oh dems would never go for that because us conservative parents could march our 5 yr olds in the booth and pull for the candidate they don't like. That is why they pull for teens and no younger. Younger than 14 are likely to go the way of their parents and they can't risk all those conservative votes lingering down there, particularly in some of those large homeschool families that will at least get a vote or two out of it for Bush;-)
9 posted on 03/14/2004 4:59:35 AM PST by cupcakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: w-pat
A diabolically clever idea from the dems. They know that young = stupid = democrat voter.

Sen. Vasconcellos' next plan is goldfish suffrage.

10 posted on 03/14/2004 5:11:32 AM PST by NYpeanut (gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, "Why did you lie to me?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYpeanut
If our California friends can redefine  "GENDER" to "a person's actual or perceived sex", (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1096993/posts) then they can redefine "AGE" to "a persons actual or perceived chronological age", and "CITIZEN" to "a persons actual or perceived alliance to a Government". That would solve the entire question.  Everybody could then vote.
 
But why stop there?  Lets redefine "SPECIES" to "a persons actual or perceived being".  That way I could perceive my self as a dog, sleep 18 hours a day, and lick my self the remaining 6 hours.
 
If "EMPLOYMENT" was redefined to "being busy", then 2 years olds could be gainfully employed.
 
This could go on and on, but sensibility has got to kick in sometime.

11 posted on 03/14/2004 5:23:35 AM PST by Lokibob (All typos and spelling errors are mine and copyrighted!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
NAMBLA Alert!
12 posted on 03/14/2004 7:25:47 AM PST by TheDon (John Kerry, self proclaimed war criminal, Democratic Presidential nominee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lokibob
...but sensibility has got to kick in sometime.

You sure are an optimist! :^)

13 posted on 03/14/2004 7:32:48 AM PST by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
Re Post 7. My first thought was that immigrants usually have many more children as most here have fallen for the two-children-only propaganda. Since legal and illegal immigrants vote in our elections, they would be assured, sooner than expected, of "The Reconquista". The rest of the states will follow. "The Reconquista" gives me chills. The subject of your post gives me chills and makes my stomach churn.
14 posted on 03/14/2004 2:14:21 PM PST by w-pat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: w-pat
Next thing we will see in voting booths (directed to those under 5) is a happy face next to democrat and an unhappy face next to republican. Toddler will have to press one button to vote.
15 posted on 03/14/2004 2:19:45 PM PST by Trillian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
I would be willing to bet, this guy has been to a few meetings.
16 posted on 03/14/2004 2:31:03 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson