should kids get to vote?

aol news ^ | Sept. 17 2003 | Geraldine Sealey

[freepatriot32]

Sept. 17 -- Americans may be getting used to the Terminator on the ballot. But can they handle his teenage fans in the voting booth?

Laura Finstad says yes. She works, pays taxes, and has been a political activist for years. And she's finally won the right to vote in the United States.

Her big accomplishment? Turning 18 last Saturday.

Finstad fumes about the law that made her wait so long and is campaigning for the voting rights of younger teenagers. The teen is gathering signatures for a petition to lower the voting age in suburban Takoma Park, Md.

"Young people have jobs, pay taxes, go to school to learn about government, and know about the issues," Finstad said. "We think 16 would be a fair age to be able to vote."

Supporters of lowering the voting age from 18, the national legal standard since the 26th Amendment was ratified 32 years ago, think the time for their issue has come. There's movement in several states and municipalities to give younger teens the right to vote.

In Baltimore, Md., 16- and 17-year olds voted in the mayoral primary on Sept. 9. An electoral quirk separated the primary from the general election by 14 months, and anyone who will be 18 during the general election was eligible to vote. Now, a prominent lawmaker wants to permanently extend the privilege to these younger teens.

The Cambridge, Mass., city council recently approved lowering the voting age to 17, and now the state legislature must approve the petition.

A Maine legislative panel in April approved, then reconsidered, extending voting rights to 17-year-olds. Similar legislation is being considered in Texas and California, and has been debated in Minnesota.

Youth voting rights advocates are also campaigning to lower the voting age in Florida, Hawaii, North Dakota, Anchorage, Alaska, and New York City.

Hot Topic Overseas, Too

The debate has caught momentum in Europe, as well, with Great Britain considering a proposal to lower the voting age from 18 to 16.

Globally, though, the most radical proposal to enfranchise youth belongs to Germany, where parliament will consider this fall giving children the vote from infancy, giving new meaning to the social policy "from cradle to grave."

Under the proposal, which would immediately increase the number of potential voters by 13.8 million, parents would vote on behalf of their children until they are 12, when the children could decide whether to allow their parents to vote for them.

A key rallying point for the German proposal is balancing out the political clout of the elderly, a growing demographic there, and boosting the political prowess of families. But U.S. advocates for youth voting rights say they're less interested in countering the power of the elderly than empowering people of all ages.

"The right to vote is essential, no matter who you are," said Alex Koroknay-Palicz, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Youth Rights Association.

Germany's proposal might be extreme, but supporters of youth voting rights here say it's a step in the right direction.

"As people begin to respect young people as individuals, parents will give children the right to cast their own ballot," Koroknay-Palicz said. "If it happens in Germany, it will change the law for the better. Then it will be a matter of changing the mindset and changing the culture."

Not Ready for Democracy?

Typically, youth voting rights supporters in the United States advocate lowering the voting age by a couple of years. They argue that teens often work, and should not be subject to taxation without representation, an American battle cry dating back to Boston Tea Party days.

Also, if teens went to the voting booth at younger ages, they would grow accustomed to casting ballots and more likely become habitual adult voters, advocates argue. Teens' political involvement would also boost the civic interest, and perhaps voter turnout, of their parents, say supporters of youth voting rights.

Critics of a younger voting age, however, say teens are not ready for democracy, and their participation as voters would not improve the electoral process.

"You're dealing with people who don't have any knowledge of or any stake in our democracy," said Curtis Gans, executive director of the Washington-based Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. "If they're lucky, they will have had one civics course before 16, and many won't have that. They're not parents, not homeowners, not raising children, and they're not in any responsible jobs."

Gans argues that younger voters are actually less likely than older citizens to make it to the ballot box on Election Day, so extending the vote to teens younger than 18 would damage already poor voter turnout.

Influence, With or Without the Vote

In Baltimore's mayoral primary last Tuesday, teens did not seem to be much of a factor in voter turnout. Approximately 2,400 16- and 17-year-olds registered to vote. Voter turnout was about 35 percent, matching the turnout for the most recent primary four years ago, the city elections office said.

Still, with 40 million young people between the ages of 12 and 19, teenagers should not be underestimated as a political force, says Sara Jane Boyers, author of 'Teen Power Politics.'

"They're thinking people. They're working, contributing and buying — they're a huge economic force," Boyers said.

Even when young people can't wield voting power, Boyers said, they can influence their parents' votes or use other political tools such as protests. "They want people to pay attention to them," she said.

With young, college-aged voters expected to be a swing vote in the 2004 presidential election, lowering the voting age could get more attention in the coming months. "I think it's going to continue to pick up steam," Koroknay-Palicz said.

"As people realize that young people have power in politics, they're going to key into their interests and desires. Lowering the voting age will come up as part of that."

09-17-03 11:49 EDT

[newgeezer]

Like I said, "grand and meritorious." I didn't say it was realistic. ;O)

[becounted]

Once again, voting alone cannot bring, or assure freedom. Participation in the affairs of government at the grass roots level is what made our independence from England possible. Such participation included attending town hall meetings, serving in the local militia, publishing newspapers, and attending to other civic needs.

The colonists did not simply vote and leave government matters in the hands of elected officials until election time came again. They participated in local government affairs as often as time permitted. We, the present day inheritors of their contribution, participate in local government affairs seldom. We have shrugged off the one, and most important element of their hard fought freedom. The one element that brought independence from centralized control. That element was participation in local civic affairs.

The very guarantee of a republican form of government for the states (Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States) can only be assured by local participation. Here, in our local communities, not in Washington DC, is the foundation of a republican form of government. The closer to home we draw government, the less control the centralized government can exert.

Aside from those that do not vote, citizens that limit their participation in government to voting alone are the laziest and least qualified to make decisions affecting our government.

A parting note on the age of voting issue. Age alone cannot measure a persons commitment to cast an intelligent vote. But age alone should not disqualify a citizen from voting. The youngest soldier in the Revolutionary Army was only 10 years of age, as a drummer and fifer, but his participation alone distinguishes his commitment far above those colonists that feared rising against the tyranny of the King. I myself served in the military with kids as young as 16 years of age during the Viet Nam era. These kids had less voice in our government than people over 18 years of age that had earned, by age alone, the right to vote.

And on a last parting note, just as the Democratic Party does not represent democracy, never assume the Republican Party is representative of a republican form of government. Both major parties are for more, not less centralized control.

(see post #56)

[humblegunner]

Quite frankly, although I was absolutely convinced I knew everything
about everything at 18, I was a dumbass. The same at 21.

I shudder to think of 16 year-olds voting..

If I could confront myself at 18, I'd kick my punk butt.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I don't disagree with you that felons should be allowed to own guns.

In fact, I think that a 14 year old girl should be able to walk into Home Depot and buy a fully automatic chain fed .50 machine gun with no taxes to pay, no id to show, no background check to pass, and no waiting period to expire.

But that said, just because the government wrongly limits the rights of the citizens in one area shouldn't be justification for the other.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I'm amazed that you're having trouble grasping the concept.

A government which subjectively limits the voting rights of citizens is authoritarian and tyrannical per se. If the government is no longer accountable to the people, what else is it?

[weegee]

People in jail are denied the right to "life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness". Let's do away with jails since the violate rights by their very existance.

[Publius6961]

So what you're saying--and correct me if I'm wrong--that you want to give the government the power to subjectively test its citizens for "intelligence," and then let the government grade these tests and then the government will announce who has the "right" to vote. This is your great idea?
Ummmm. I doubt that. Limited experience almost always extracts the wrong message. The IQ test referred to is not the one the 6th grade gets in school. It is more along the lines of a simple true or false test such as:

1. When driving a nail, the nail is struck on
a) The pointy end
b) The flat end.
c) the long end
d) anything you can hit

2. Our country's political system is:
a) A democracy
b) A tribal council
c) A representative Constitutional Republic
d) A proletariat.

3. Our space program astronauts planted the US flag on:
a) Vulcan
b) Mars
c) Earth's moon
d) the fourth moon of Jupiter

4. If you accidentally scratch your finger, the first thing you should do is:
a) Call your lawyer
b) Have your representative introduce a new law to fix it.
c) Get a bandaid and apply it.
d) call 911

5. When returning a shirt to a store, the amount you are entitled to request is.
a) The price on the sticker, even if you stole it.
b) What you paid for it, including taxes.
c) The amount of the refund that guy who is returning a refrigerator is getting.
d) $100

6. The government get all the money it spends from:
a) The most modern printing press in the world.
b) The money fairy.
c) Taking it from people who earn it, as taxes.
d) Welfare recipients who accidentally get two checks.

7. When ironing a shirt, it is imperative that:
a) A cold iron is always used.
b) You find a flot surface on the floor to get it right.
c) You take it off before starting.
d) You check the batteries first.

8. When purchasing very hot coffee at McDonalds, the place to put it when not drinking is:
a) On the dashboard of a moving car
b) in a properly anchored cupholder made for that purpose
c) On your lap
d) In the trunk

Is that a little clearer Viva?

No, I can't imagine that there might be any abuses to this process at all. I mean, granted, there are some people in this world--of course not you--that can't logically follow the consequences of an idea to its rational conclusion and really have no business making any decisions at all in their daily lives, except maybe which clothes to wear in the morning.
That's correct. But what the hell, let's allow them to make decisions that affect millions, sometimes for generations, and may perhaps even trigger deaths as a result. Makes sense to me

But, this is the risk we run for protecting our rights from government intrusion. I have to put up with these people that can't intellectually go from point A to point B. In exchange, I get a rock-solid guarantee that I can walk into the booth and pull a lever.
Not a risk I'm willing to take, given a choice. Having morons to cause a law to be passed that enables the destruction of the very system which we value, is not a rational option. The Constitution can not be interpreted as a suicide pact. Sorry.

[weegee]

If "tax the rich" continues, 51% of the people will be exempted from taxes. How will those who pay taxes have a say when those who don't pay taxes control the votes?

This is part of the "accountablity" too.

How low do you propose lowering the voting age? 0? Fetus?

Should expectant mothers get an extra vote (or 2 more if carrying twins) like the parents in Germany?

[weegee]

Man, that's some test. Think you can get it posted on the Onion where people may actually see it?

[Viva Le Dissention]

So I think you're a moron to want to pass such a law that gives the government the power to subjectively grant the "right" to vote to its citizens.

Does that mean you can't vote? I mean, frankly, I think this goes WELL BEYOND ignorance. It's so much worse, since it comes from people supposedly on this intellectual high-horse, like they don't want the ash and the trash having a say in the way things go, when the fact is that they are the ultimately stupid ones. Perhaps I go home and tear my clothes and gnash my teeth and pull my hair and wail and moan that people like you, for instance, cast votes based on the ideas which your espouse, but I will continue to support your right to be a moron and vote in a similar fashion.

Everyone has a right to vote, and everyone will continue to have a right to vote. This subject is a dead letter.

I grow tired of this. I'm depressed by stupidity and short-sightness, so I think this will be my final thought on the subject for now. This is obviously going nowhere.

[Publius6961]

So I think you're a moron to want to pass such a law that gives the government the power to subjectively grant the "right" to vote to its citizens.

Not necessarily, Einstein.
You decide yourself, and no one has to "grade" it.
If you can't answer questions at the 4-year-old level, the voting machine shuts down. Worried?

If you can't tie your shoelaces, I don't want you running my life.

[weegee]

The US government has had the power to define who could and could not vote since the foundation of this country. Nothing has changed in this principle. You want to restrict the government in ways that the founding fathers did not dream of.

You want to create a new country, you fight for it. Don't look at overthrowing our American government to create "your" country.

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

I voted in the presidential election the year I was 18; registrating with the party my parents were affilliated with. (Republician)

It wasn't until my mid-upper 20's when I realized the potential that voting had in my and my families well-being, and began to really, really pay attention to who I was voting for.

[glory]

for a petition to lower the voting age in suburban Takoma Park, Md.


Oh great, from what I know of Takoma Park, this young lady is likely a certified granola crunching, birkenstock wearing feminist lib. This area is where my uncle turned aunt turned lesbian went to school at and became a raving lib. What struck me when we were down that way when my grandma passed was the sheer number of signs AGAINST the war in Iraq(this was in April). in front lawns.

[glory]

That's my concern. And what about local levies? Should your local high school student be able to up help raise levies to support their sports programs with their vote while having no stake whatsoever in property taxes? This is an issue here because most of the people in this community own their homes. If you throw in another 300 or so votes for levies, you'd get a wide enough margin to pass levy after levy on homeowners by TEENAGERS who would risk nothing, but benefit immensely from the levy. I know this gets into a larger issue of issuing basic requirments(civics knowledge, property or business owner) to vote. I'm all for it. I know that may tick people off, but there are too many Pauls trying to take from the Peters in this country. At this point, making it TOUGHER(so it's taken as the serious responsibility it is) and not easier to vote is the only way I think we will turn this country around.

[glory]

I think that's a reasonable requirment.

[glory]

LMAO--too true!

[MeekOneGOP]

A Maine legislative panel in April approved, then reconsidered, extending voting rights to 17-year-olds. Similar legislation is being considered in Texas and California, and has been debated in Minnesota.

It used to be age 21 to vote. I just happened to be born at the right time that when they changed it to 18 I was able to vote the first November after my 18th birthday. I voted for Richard Nixon that year (1972).

So, I wonder how young a voter the 'RATS wanna ultimately do ? Is 8 too young ? How about 4 ? ...

How ridiculous. It seems like another case of the LIBERALS trying to gather more votes for themselves ...

[MeekOneGOP]

... and thanks for the ping. :O)

[becounted]

"The US government has had the power to define who could and could not vote since the foundation of this country."

Correction! I don't believe you meant to make such a statement.

The US government never had such right. What part of the Constitution grants the federal government this right? It is a state right stolen by the federal government. To further this point, the tenth and final Amendment to the Bill of Rights states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."