Give Kids the Vote!
The great Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry returns to TAS with a stirring, persuasive call for lowering the voting age. You’d be a fool not to read it.
For as long as I remember (yes, even before that West Wing episode), I’ve supported abolishing – not lowering – the voting age barrier. Kids should have the vote. I believed so vehemently as a child, of course, but since I’ve had the vote I’ve only grown more adamant in my conviction.
I know it may seem kooky, but it’s not. Hear me out.
First, let’s dispatch the most common argument against my little obsession: that kids are not reasonable enough to understand the issues and make an informed vote. I disagree.
You’ll remember that the same argument was used time and again to prevent giving women the vote and, in the United States, to certain minorities. It wasn’t valid then and it’s not valid now.
Adults constantly underestimate children. Kids are much smarter than we give them credit for, to know children well is to know this. They are also far from innocent, and often quite cruel, a trait that can be necessary for making difficult political choices (note also that I am not idealizing kids). Are kids more unreasonable than the average voter? I honestly don’t think so.
Indeed, if reasonableness and information is the test we use when deciding to give people the vote, the average voter wouldn’t pass it, nor would the average Harvard professor. We all vote on irrational grounds (nothing is more irrational than voting on “the issues,” given the disconnect between politicians’ platforms and what they actually do once in office (this isn’t intended as a dig at politicians’ honesty, but rather as a recognition of the difficult necessities of government)), and this is a good thing, because we vote for people who are irrational themselves, to undertake that most irrational of human endeavors: the political art. Either we live in an aristocracy, or we don’t. If we give Joe Sixpack the vote, then we should give little Jimmy Sunny D the vote.
Furthermore, if I had to sum up why I think we should give kids the vote, I would say because kids are the future, and we should vote for the future. A platitude, I know, but it’s true, isn’t it? Winning elections is about pandering to particular groups, and the groups who vote are the groups who decide elections. Can we trust parents to vote in their kids’ interest and not their own? In my experience, it’s pretty obvious the answer is no.
Take issues such as pensioners or the public debt (all democracies have them). For the first time in Germany’s history, in the country’s next election the majority of voters will be over 50. No doubt with this fact in mind, the normally responsible Angela Merkel has thrown overboard her country’s impressive and long-standing pensions reform effort to give pensioners an unjustified handout.
In most democracies, old people enjoy an enormous amount of government attention and support. They get to retire very early and they suck up an ever growing share of healthcare spending. We should support the weak and the elderly, of course, but the reason why old people have such advantages in contemporary societies is not because we as a civilization respect our elders (ha!) but simply because politicians fear old people, who represent a disproportionate share of voters.
Public debt is the same thing. Unless the government is borrowing to invest, structural spending deficits, such as they exist in most Western countries, basically mean that today’s adults are giving themselves a tax cut at their children’s expense. In the West and Japan, the boomers, riding the wave of demography-boosted growth and heady with a belief of their own importance, gave themselves the most generous system of government cajoling in history, sticking their grandchildren with the tab but still ensuring that their pensions will be paid as they ride into the sunset thanks to their enduring chokehold on the voting system. This is as blatantly unsustainable as it is hushed by the political narrative, and this is because our voting population is skewed against the future. We allow citizens to decide things whose consequences they won’t have to face while those who will face the consequences have no say.
In developing countries, there is an equally compelling case for giving children the vote, given that in most of these countries young people are a majority or a near-majority — and yet, in most are run as gerontocracies. The political culture of most developing countries is marked by inertia and frilosity while most young people I know from developing countries are entrepreneurial and forward-looking.
I could go on. The fact is that the way issues are debated in our national political debates very rarely actually takes the future into account. What’s better, to protect teachers’ jobs or to give kids a good education? What’s better, to avoid a recession today or to avoid inflation tomorrow? We seem to prefer instant to delayed gratification – how, well, childish, ain’t it? This situation exists largely because those who have the biggest stake in the future have no say.
Now that we agree on principle (don’t we?), let’s think through the practical consequences.
First of all, crazy as I may seem by now, I do understand that some children are too young to read the ballot or to perform the actual physical act of voting, and that those kids shouldn’t vote directly. I believe that for very small children, their parents should vote in their stead. However, as soon as they can vote, kids should be able to. What age? 16? 15? 14? 7? Actually, I think another age barrier would be just as senseless as the one we have now. Kids should be able to get the vote when they decide they want the vote. A child who is old enough to vote (and who is a better judge of that than himself?) should be able to walk into his friendly neighborhood voting registration office and register for himself.
(There is also the matter of which parent gets the vote. This is a false debate: each country’s law has rules to decide who has parental authority in cases of divorce, etc. Whoever has parental authority should vote for the kids.)
In practice, this would strengthen the influence of families with lots of children. This would probably skew politics to the right a little, because conservative voters tend to have more kids than liberals. As a conservative, obviously, I tend to think this is a feature and not a bug. But more profoundly, everyday politics aside, is there a better metric of somebody’s trust in the future than how many kids they have? To decide to have a large family is to take a big stake in your country, to make a bet on its future.
Besides, each electoral system is skewed a certain way. Britain’s first past the post system under-represents many groups, and of course much has been said about the American Electoral College (note that I support both first past the post and the Electoral College); proportional party list voting, supposed to be most representative, gives disproportionate influence to small, niche parties (Israel, anyone?). Today’s system essentially amounts to a vote subsidy (which then turns into a cash subsidy) to the old. Giving kids the vote would correct skewed voting, not introduce it.
With all these practicalities also taken into account, the final (and best) argument I can think of for giving kids the vote is simply one person one vote. It’s as simple as that. In a democracy, each person should have a vote. Children are persons. They should get the vote. The principle is straightforward enough, and I see no way to escape it.
That said, I’m aware that my proposal is far outside the mainstream (mostly because most people don’t think about the issue until you bring it up, and because we adults like to treat children with more than a little condescension), and this post isn’t a “modest proposal” type tongue-in-cheek thing: I genuinely believe in giving kids the vote. I believe it would focus our politics a little bit more on the future and a little bit less on the past, I believe it would reinvigorate our democracy, I believe it would teach kids citizenship better than any civics class, and finally I just believe it would be just. I honestly don’t see a valid reason why we should deprive kids of the vote, any more than we should women or minorities. Children are citizens, and if democracy is giving each citizen a say in government, then children should have the vote.
Clearly, my limpid arguments (ahem) should have produced unanimous agreement (ahem-ahem). If not, I’m looking forward to your responses. Even if you’re over 18.
PEG, something I’ve noted over the years is the tendency of children (even many adolescents) to parrot the political views of their parents — indeed, to speak as though no sane person could possibly have any other political views. If that observation has any general relevance, then your proposal would significantly increase the voting power of large families — which would, I take it, be a large net victory for social conservatives.
— Alan Jacobs · May 10, 05:34 PM · #
I for one can’t wait for the debates about whether to extend the franchise to the “unborn.”
— Zack · May 10, 08:37 PM · #
When my daughter was two years old, she briefly became obsessed with “John Kelly” and “Joe Bush.” Now at the ripe old age of six, she favors Hillary because she is “a big lady” and Obama “kinda looks like Voldemort.”
I maintain she is as qualified to vote as any current member of the electorate.
— Jaldhar · May 10, 09:21 PM · #
When my daughter was two years old, she briefly became obsessed with “John Kelly” and “Joe Bush.” Now at the ripe old age of six, she favors Hillary because she is “a big lady” and Obama “kinda looks like Voldemort.”
I maintain she is as qualified to vote as any current member of the electorate.
— Jaldhar · May 10, 09:21 PM · #
I found your page through Matthew Yglesias.
While I like the idea, I think there should be a minimum. But, maybe 5. I really dislike the idea of giving parents of infants a second vote. Why should someone’s reproductive choices give them a larger voice than I have? I mean, the problem of teachers trying to influence their students can be dealt with, however difficult it may be, but giving parents a second vote for their infants? No. Unseemly.
— brenna · May 10, 11:03 PM · #
Anything that would give disproportionate political power to “Quiverfull” families is not going to lead to enlightened public policy.
— James hare · May 10, 11:05 PM · #
Okay, this is fun to think about, at least as a thought experiment. What if we pushed as early as possible the age at which kids would vote all by themselves, as opposed to having parents act as proxies? That would mean, certainly, cynical and manipulative political ads directed at kids. But that would mean, surely, increased emphasis on educating kids in our political order and in their civic responsibilities. Could be a net win.
— Alan Jacobs · May 10, 11:06 PM · #
I too found your page through Mr. Yglesias’ blog.
If the problem is that the old have too much influence in the political process, then I would propose limiting their access to the ballot. Say, at 60. Perhaps less?
An interesting thought overall, but in general, I disagree with you.
— Jim · May 11, 12:22 AM · #
To be quite frank, the judgment centers of the brain in children do not develop fully until their early twenties. Just because some people do not fully avail themselves of their faculties, doesn’t mean that we should give the vote to those who are functionally immature in their judgment owing to their youth.
— Stephen Daugherty · May 11, 01:33 AM · #
Stephen, if functional maturity is the qualification you use to determine voter eligibility, why not restrict mentally handicapped citizens from voting? Why not require a competency exam in order to get a voter registration card? Its a short distance from there back to Jim Crow.
— Alex · May 11, 02:19 AM · #
Nothing wrong with an appropriately worded competency exam. Why let people vote who don’t even know the absolute basics about each candidate’s positions? If kids can pass this, let them vote.
— Jamie Carroll · May 11, 02:52 AM · #
But more profoundly, everyday politics aside, is there a better metric of somebody’s trust in the future than how many kids they have? To decide to have a large family is to take a big stake in your country, to make a bet on its future.
Ugh. Or, people may decide not to have a large family because they think overpopulation is a moral problem.
— mk · May 11, 04:03 AM · #
No
idiot
— John · May 11, 04:27 AM · #
I can already hear the talk radio people replacing their complaints about stereotyped “welfare queens” with “vote-stuffing queens.”
But seriously, given that children would tend to vote with their parents anyway, I’m not convinced that this would actually create a more forward-looking system of governance. How many of the children, who in real life largely aren’t as precocious as that West Wing kid, will actually be thinking that far into the future? I was quite a smart and reflective (and politically aware) kid, and I often had a hard time thinking beyond what school was going to be like next year, much less what macroeconomic conditions our government was shaping for fifty years into the future.
As for the political balance, I think it’d be close to a wash. After all, how many people don’t vote already? Kids would probably vote at an even lower rate. And yes, conservatives have more kids, but younger voters, when they vote, tend to be more liberal; get them voting at age ten, then they’ll probably be voting in greater numbers than they currently do by the time they get to college, so the increased voting of the more liberal 18-30 range might just balance out an increased voting of the likely more conservative 0-18 range.
— John · May 11, 05:03 AM · #
I am intrigued by the idea of children voting. I am horrified by the idea of political campaigns aimed at children.
— solarjetman · May 11, 06:46 AM · #
First of all, I want to thank everyone for their comments. I really appreciate that this is taken seriously and not as some kind of drunken rambling. (Well, by some of you anyway.)
@ayjay Yes, the tendency of children to parrot their parents’ views certainly exists. Up until around age 7, I was certainly a victim of that. However, I’m sure you’ve also noticed the tendency of other children — say, from the age of 13 — to oppose their parents’ political views, indeed to speak as though no sane person could possibly share their parents’ ideas. Maybe those two tendencies would even out. In any case, this argument has been used against giving women the vote: surely men would hold too strong an influence over their wives and it would double their vote.
Moreover, I believe a main reason why children parrot their parents’ views is because they are not considered as full citizens; since they play no real part in the political process (except as props for photo ops), they don’t have any incentive to get really interested and think independently. I think this would change if they had the vote.
But yes, I point out in the post that this would increase the voting power of large families and that I think this would, by and large, be a good thing. But I don’t think it would increase their power by that much, because I don’t think they would vote as a block, at least not after a while, much like many wives now vote differently than their husbands and don’t get the knut.
I think the real effect would be to teach young children individual responsibility and make them more responsible adults, because society has treated as responsible citizens from the moment they could speak. To me this is the real prize of doing this.
— PEG · May 11, 09:02 AM · #
brenna: Actually, I half agree with you. The idea of giving families an extra vote is the “extreme” version of this idea. I would be very happy and satisfied if the voting age was lowered to, say, 7.
However, there is the tricky matter of one person one vote. Once you agree that age shouldn’t be a barrier to voting, you should push the logic to its conclusion. We already allow proxy voting for the elderly and the sick. This is not a dramatic extension of that (once you agree with the logic that kids should have the vote).
More importantly, I think that in the bizarro world where my idea would be enacted, kids would start getting interested in politics, because they wouldn’t have their parents’ preconceptions that politics doesn’t matter and is rotten. They would start debates, among each other and within their families, and learn responsible citizenship in a way and at an age where it will make it as natural to them as adults as reading or multiplying.
In this context, you wouldn’t give parents an extra vote for too long. Remember that under my scheme, any child, no matter how old, can walk into a voter registration office and ask to be registered under his own name rather than his parent’s. I believe most children would exercise that liberty, and I believe a lot parents would actually encourage it.
— PEG · May 11, 09:12 AM · #
First of all, I want to thank everyone for their comments. I really appreciate that my proposal is taken seriously and not as some kind of drunken rambling. (Well, by some of you anyway.)
@ayjay Yes, the tendency of children to parrot their parents’ views certainly exists. Up until around age 7, I was certainly a victim of that. However, I’m sure you’ve also noticed the tendency of plenty of older children — say, from the age of 13 — to oppose their parents’ political views, indeed to speak as though no sane person could possibly share their parents’ ideas. Maybe those two tendencies would even out. In any case, this argument has been used against giving women the vote: surely men would hold too much sway over their wives and they could not vote meaningfully.
Moreover, I believe a main reason why children parrot their parents’ views is because they are not considered as full citizens; since they play no real part in the political process (except as props for photo ops), they don’t have any incentive to get really interested and think independently. I think this would change if they had the vote.
But yes, I point out in the post that this would increase the voting power of large families and that I think this would, by and large, be a good thing. But I don’t think it would increase their power by that much, because I don’t think they would vote as a block, at least not after a while, much like many wives now vote differently than their husbands and don’t get the knut.
I think the real effect would be to teach young children individual responsibility and make them more responsible adults, because society has treated them as responsible citizens from the moment they could speak. To me this is the real prize of doing giving kids the vote.
— PEG · May 11, 11:36 AM · #
Jim: The problem is not that the old have too much influence in the political process. The problem is that a very important subset of our population are treated as second-class citizens. I point to old people’s disproportionate influence as one of the many unfortunate consequences of this situation, not as the core problem. Taking the vote away from old people would no more solve the problem than taking the vote away from whites would have ended Jim Crow (not that I believe that children live under a regime comparable to Segregation, of course).
mk: I would wager that people who “decide not to have a large family because they think overpopulation is a moral problem” are badly misinformed about the state of the world. I stand by my contention that to have more children is to take a bigger stake in the future.
John: If my idea is so unlikely to change anything, then why not enact it? If it will have so little impact, we have nothing to lose.
solarjetman: This is an excellent point, and quite a scary one, I agree. I’m not sure I have an answer for it. The best one I could come up with is that politicians would probably choose to pander to kids by talking down to them, and there is nothing children hate more than being condescended to. Therefore, I would tend to think that pandering would work less on kids than on other groups. But you’re right, this is a very real potential pitfall with my idea.
In conlcusion, I should probably point out that I am a great supporter of Sudbury Schools and government by referenda and popular initiatives. (I should also apologize for double posting a comment.)
— PEG · May 11, 12:28 PM · #
Firstly, children already vote in school. Right? Secondly, the whole argument that you are making is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of political economics shared by the average voter today. To wit: the idea that there is just so much “stuff” to be gotten in this life which must be apportioned out by this or that constituency. This sort of “lifeboat ethics” is what has lead to the horrors in the extreme case of Nazi Germany. It was the philosophical justification for the policy of “Lebensraum.” The alternative to such a debased Hobbesian conception of an interminable war of “each against all” is a society founded upon continuous increases in the standard of living through the application of scientific progress. Please read Alexander Hamilton’s Report to the Congress on the Subject of Manufacturing. Just Google it. Read it and perhaps you might mature a little wee bit. Thank you.
— Bob · May 11, 12:28 PM · #
I can get behind the idea of eliminating the age barrier, but not of having one person (even a parent) exercise the franchise on behalf of another.
A vote is an expression of the desire or intention to influence the world. The minimum “requirement” to vote should be (at least) the ability to express that intention. So voters need to be able to go into a voting booth and enact their desires independently of their parents’ supervision. Eliminating the age requirement makes it possible for more people to participate because people become willing and able to express that intention at a variety of ages—some much younger than 18.
Yes, I know that many differently-abled adults require assistance to vote, and it would be appropriate to offer such assistance to child voters, as well. However, such assistance should be supplied by neutral aides (e.g., poll workers)—just as it is for, say, blind voters—rather than interested parties.
One could argue that nobody’s opinion is genuinely “independent,” since we are all products of our social and ideological contexts. However, voting is a performative act; when you vote, you are saying “this is what I want.” If you can’t perform that act, you’re not ready to vote.
— FearItself · May 11, 12:29 PM · #
Jim: The problem is not that the old have too much influence in the political process. The problem is that a very important subset of our population are treated as second-class citizens. I point to old people’s disproportionate influence as one of the many unfortunate consequences of this situation, not as the core problem. Taking the vote away from old people would no more solve the problem than taking the vote away from whites would have ended Jim Crow (not that I believe that children live under a regime comparable to Segregation, of course).
mk: I would wager that people who “decide not to have a large family because they think overpopulation is a moral problem” are badly misinformed about the state of the world. I stand by my contention that to have more children is to take a bigger stake in the future.
John: If my idea is so unlikely to change anything, then why not enact it? If it will have so little impact, we have nothing to lose.
solarjetman: This is an excellent point, and quite a scary one, I agree. I’m not sure I have an answer for it. The best one I could come up with is that politicians would probably choose to pander to kids by talking down to them, and there is nothing children hate more than being condescended to. Therefore, I would tend to think that pandering would work less on kids than on other groups. But you’re right, this is a very real potential pitfall with my idea.
In conlcusion, I should probably point out that I am a great supporter of Sudbury Schools and government by referenda and popular initiatives. (And apologize for double posting a comment.)
— PEG · May 11, 12:48 PM · #
As a seven year old i think only seven year olds should get to vote. And our cannadates could always raze the voting age by one yeer every yeer so we can vote evry year.
PS – My daddy can beat your daddy —Neener!
— Bobby · May 11, 12:53 PM · #
FearItself: As I said before, I don’t disagree with you. Giving parents proxy votes for infants is one step further from giving older kids the vote, and I understand not wanting to take that extra step. In fact, I’m not fully sure I would take it.
But, again, if you believe in the irrelevancy of voting age laws, as I do, then it follows that you have to give every child the vote, and that every child means every child.
(Let’s see if I can post this one just once, this time… Surely it can’t be rocket science…)
— PEG · May 11, 05:09 PM · #
Because false distinctions were made in the past doesn’t mean we should never make distinctions. Saying that people were wrong in the past to oppose votes for women or blacks does not suggest that we are wrong to not allow 2-year olds to vote. A terribly insulting inference could be made there: If you’d let a woman vote, then you might as well let a 2-year old vote. Instead, we should recognize that young children really are different from adults.
Proxy voting for young children doesn’t give children a voice at all. It is not comparable to proxy voting for sick people. Those people, presumably, delegated that responsibility to a person of their choosing. I would not want my parents voting on my behalf.
People start to be really separate from their parents around 12 or 13. Maybe puberty should be the dividing line.
That said, I agree on setting the bar low. There should be minimal filters (such as competency tests) because how would we agree on what the filter should be? But children’s brains are fundamentally different from adult brains or even adolescent brains.
— Eric · May 11, 05:35 PM · #
When I was in elementary school my two biggest issues were 1. Who will reduce the national debt? and 2. Who will protect the enviroment? Spending money on education was good, too. Basically I wanted very long-term investments. I didn’t really realize this at the time, but I think that’s a perfectly rational, self interested view for an 8 year old to have.
I completely support giving the vote to 12 year olds. Anyone who worries that middle schoolers will simply mimick their parents apparently doesn’t remember middle school very well. I’d like to give it out earlier, but I feel like I want kids to have a couple of years of reading under their belt before they start voting.
— Kyle · May 11, 05:45 PM · #
But, again, if you believe in the irrelevancy of voting age laws, as I do, then it follows that you have to give every child the vote, and that every child means every child.
I disagree with your logic; it doesn’t follow that every child must get the vote. Or, maybe one can believe in the irrelevancy of voting laws, but not “as [you] do.”
In principle, every citizen should have a vote. The question is, who counts as a “citizen?” Barriers to membership in the class of citizens in this country have been drastically reduced over the last two centuries; one used to have to be white, male, property-owning, and literate in addition to being born or naturalized in the U.S. Now only the last of those requirements applies. But those barriers fell piecemeal, not all at once.
Let’s stipulate that age should not longer be a barrier. The consequence need not be that every human with a heartbeat gets a vote. Instead, you can say that the franchise belongs to every native-born or naturalized person who can request it. The act of asking to vote would be enough evidence that one should be allowed to vote. That sets the barrier fairly low, but it does set a barrier.
Is it wrong to set a barrier at all? No. We would still, for example, be forbidding non-U.S. citizens from voting, even though the lives of such people may be significantly affected by the policies of a U.S. government they have no voice in choosing.
The principle of “one person, one vote” can be interpreted a variety of ways, as illustrated most obviously be the fact that it began “one man, one vote.” You seem to suggest that every human organism deserves a vote. I would argue that every human intelligence that is aware of its participation in a democracy deserves a vote. The latter standard sounds more complicated, but would (as I have sketched it out) be in practice easier to implement, and would also in my view be far truer to the spirit of “one person, one vote” than the scheme you proposed.
— FearItself · May 11, 05:52 PM · #
PEG, I’d be interested to see what you thought of this (.pdf study): Maturation of Cognitive Processes From Late Childhood to Adulthood
To characterize cognitive maturation through adolescence, processing speed, voluntary response suppression, and spatial working memory were measured in 8- to 30-year-old (N5245) healthy participants using oculomotor tasks. Development progressed with a steep initial improvement in performance followed by stabilization in adolescence. Adult-level mature performance began at approximately 15, 14, and 19 years of age for processing speed, response inhibition, and working memory, respectively. Although processes developed independently, processing speed influenced the development of working memory whereas the development of response suppression and working memory were interdependent. These results indicate that processing speed, voluntary response suppression, and working memory mature through late childhood and into adolescence. How brain maturation specific to adolescence may support cognitive maturation is discussed.
While there may not be a large difference in Policy and Candidate Knowledge, there is certainly a significant difference in cognitive performance and capacity between children and adults.
— JA · May 11, 05:54 PM · #
A better question would be, “From whom should we remove the franchise?”
JS Mill argued that only those who could read could participate in political discourse, and only those who could do math could understand the national economy, so that a voter would need to pass tests in both. Someone (John Derbyshire perhaps) argued that the vote should be removed from people receiving public funds, since they would inevitably press for an enlarged state. The French revolutionaries argued that all men had a right to vote, providing they paid their taxes.
Personally, I’ve always been partial to property restrictions, on the basis that people who do not already have a major economic stake in a polity should not be making rules for those who do. If Johnny Sunny D owns his own home, then by all means let him vote.
— M. Grégoire · May 11, 06:16 PM · #
Drivel.
— Rone Lewis · May 11, 06:39 PM · #
Restrict the vote. Originally, the vote was limited to property owning males in this country. Enfranchising women was the correct course to take; expanding the electorate to all over 18 was not. While real property ownership is not the correct metric, I propose that nobody who is a dependent, of their parents or of the state, or dependent on charity, should have the vote. Harsh? Yes, but those that have to foot the bill are currently over-run by handout seeking, ill educated, unappreciative, fools.
As to the elderly, I would ban all social security recipients from voting (including myself in the not too distant future, unless my retirement savings grow exponentially). This should limit entitlement motivated voting. I would allow stay at home spouses to vote – they generally contribute greatly to the success of their families, and add needed compassion.
But I’m not going to hold my breath. My proposal makes too much sense, and more than half the electorate already gets more out of the public trough than they contribute to it. Though ill educated and none too bright, these quasi-dependents can count their money well enough and know where it comes from.
Out of guilt, this country has already gone way too far in the extension of enfranchisement. The rights of racial, religious and other non volitional (including the disabled, whom I trust will be provided for out of unforced compassion) can be adequately protectd through means other than extending the vote to every breathing human being.
[Anecdote: I work in a law practice that represents personal injury plaintiffs, among others. We have a great client who, through no fault of her own, is permanently disabled due to removal years ago of a tumor from her brain. As a result, she has certain off-putting personality traits, though she is as sweet as can be once the traits are understood, and they are neither offensive nor aggressive in nature (she walks around in only a long T-shirt and has an unreasonable fear of germs such that she won’t touch anything touched by anybody else). This lady cannot work, yet she gets no support from the county, can’t get subsidized housing, and she now lives in her car.] This is exactly the type of person I envision my tax money protecting, but it doesn’t. Instead, my money goes to those who have become adept at gaming the system, both rich and poor.
I await the ad hominem attacks.
— GCA · May 11, 06:58 PM · #
Oh come on….Suffrage wasn’t available to women in the early years of democracy because they weren’t deemed to be stakeholders in the economy as they generally didn’t work (for pay). That was just a fact of life and not an anti-women issue. This was rightly overturned in the early years of the 20th century when womens role in society was finally recognised. The same logic applies to kids if they want a vote. If they aren’t contributing to the running of the State they have no business having a say in how its run. Its really that simple.
— Tony · May 11, 07:00 PM · #
PEG,
I think you missed my point by supposing that I opposed the idea. I actually don’t have a problem with lowering the voting age to, say 14 or so. In Illinois (at least back in 1993), we had to take a Constitution test in order to pass eighth grade, which probably left us with more knowledge about the political system than at least 30% of the current electorate, so why not give them the vote? Maybe those classes will stick more if there isn’t a 4-7 year lag between that test and the person’s first voting experience.
My argument that it’s a wash politically is an argument from a practical perspective, with the implication that one of your goals (to get government to think about the future more) would probably not be achieved to a significant degree by these measures. This alone isn’t reason not to do it, but let’s not kid ourselves in thinking that this will necessarily revolutionize politics.
I do have a couple of major problems, however, with parents voting for their infants. (1) It effectively gives extra power to people who don’t necessarily have a higher stake in the country’s future. Parents would have control over their children’s votes for ~ten years; why should only parents of 0-10 year olds have more power over or interest in the future than those who have only children in high school (or older) or those who may have children in the future, or even those who have no children of their own children but want to see the human race have a good future? This notion that people who will likely live longer or have families have a higher stake in the future of our country/planet is one of your primary premises, but it is certainly not obvious and could well be highly questionable (and a practical note: people don’t really vote all that much on issues that impact us fifty years from now anyway, which is why there really has been little effort by politicians to deal with environmental issues until now, when we’re starting to see major and likely irreversible effects).
(2) It in practice may lead some people to have children to have an extra vote (“Honey, we’ve gotta conceive by mid-January to make sure the kid can vote in November”), which constitutes what I see as a problematic governmental plan of indirectly instituting a policy on the creation and structuring of families. Aren’t conservatives the ones who are saying the government should stay away from our families? This would effectively be a government policy to promote having children for direct political benefit. Giving people tax breaks or other concessions might be a prudent plan for government assistance/support for families, but actually giving families more actual voting power would go way beyond that, and I think it would be an intrusion of government to set policy that would pressure people to have kids.
(3) This is a policy that would encourage people to have more kids. This is problematic because it directly contradicts a primary purpose of yours, to look out for the future. Eventually, at our current rate of population growth, we will exhaust our resources, leading to all sorts of catastrophic problems for the human race. It isn’t clear when it will happen, but a continued increase in humans leads toward this path. This voting system, by encouraging people to have more children, will exacerbate these problems, not help us find a solution to them.
— John · May 11, 07:26 PM · #
Unrestricted voting will also have all of the non-citizen immigrants voting. Anyone who believes that teachers do not have a huge influence on the political thinking of students, regardless of age, haven’t seen the U.S. education system in action recently. Do you really think that the NEA would encourage any student to truly think for him/herself and vote for a non-Democrat? Not bloody likely. Let’s not let anyone in any school vote. They are still dependent on either the state or parents, and in the gnarly clutches of the professoriate. They have not yet had the life experience to think for themselves, or decide how the economy might best work for them. Teachers should also be banned from voting since they only want more money from the taxpayers; they also influence the voting students.
— Spinoneone · May 11, 08:39 PM · #
Aside from the incredible stupidity of this entire discussion, I am wondering how the principle of ‘one person one vote’ is served by providing proxy votes for all these parents. For very good reasons, society has decided children aren’t capable of making decisions like this (i.e. drinking ages, driving ages, emancipation, etc) intelligently. The fact that some adults aren’t either is no reason to extend the vote to children too.
— round guy · May 11, 10:58 PM · #
This is a wonderful article! I am an advocate for a lower voting age as well and when I talk to people about it I am surprised and horribly disappointed that the people who claim to be free and freedom loving can so easily deny people the basic right of citizenship. If anyone on here agrees with a lower voting age or youth rights in general then I encourage you to visit the National Youth Rights Association’s website, www.youthrights.org.
— Alexa · May 12, 01:17 AM · #
Sure, kids have excellent judgement about all sorts of things. Which is why we let them drive cars, drink alcohol, have sex with adults, and… oh, wait, we don’t let them do any of those things, do we?
Nevermind, maybe we shouldn’t let them help run the country then. My bad.
— jvon · May 12, 04:10 AM · #
FearItself:
Let’s stipulate that age should not longer be a barrier. The consequence need not be that every human with a heartbeat gets a vote. Instead, you can say that the franchise belongs to every native-born or naturalized person who can request it. The act of asking to vote would be enough evidence that one should be allowed to vote. That sets the barrier fairly low, but it does set a barrier.
Actually, I would fully agree with this. What I want to drive home is the idea that kids are just as qualified as adults to vote, and that allowing them to do so would be good for them, and for us. The particular ways in which you implement it are another matter and I’m fully open to other ideas.
Is it wrong to set a barrier at all? No. We would still, for example, be forbidding non-U.S. citizens from voting, even though the lives of such people may be significantly affected by the policies of a U.S. government they have no voice in choosing.
I also completely agree with this. In fact, in my original post, I make precisely this point: it is because children are citizens that they should be allowed to vote. I don’t support giving non-citizens the vote. In the EU, where I live, non-national EU citizens can vote in local elections, and it sets my teeth on edge! So don’t think I want to give the vote to everyone, every time.
But if an American child was kidnapped by rebels in some failed state, the US government would do everything to reclaim him, because he is a U.S. citizen. Kids are citizens and they should have all the rights of citizens.
You seem to suggest that every human organism deserves a vote.
If that’s what I seem to do then it’s a mistake on my part. I believe that every citizen of every country should get a vote in that country.
— PEG · May 12, 06:25 AM · #
I don’t think this is a good idea. Schools and parents already are overwhelmed with how to raise children in a consumerist society that is bombarded with GTA IV, Hannah Montana, and McDonald’s. In a sense, children do “vote” with dollars on spending for these items, and their decisions don’t seem to have a perspective on the future. So, I don’t see how giving children the vote would result in a perspective in the future.
— Jack · May 12, 06:42 AM · #
JA: I don’t think much about it. It discusses abilities like processing speed, voluntary response suppression and working memory, which don’t seem necessary to voting. Voting is not really like Jeopardy!, you don’t have to think on your feet or remember a lot of trivia. You just have to decide who to vote for and hold that name in your head all the way to the polling station (which many old people in Florida in 2000 didn’t seem able to do, yet we (rightly) give them the vote).
John:
This alone isn’t reason not to do it, but let’s not kid ourselves in thinking that this will necessarily revolutionize politics.
To be fully honest, I don’t think anything could revolutionize politics, simply because politics is a measure of human nature, and human nature is badly flawed.
However, I do think this would have a larger impact than you seem to believe. I believe it would because I think it would imbue kids with a sense of personal responsibility they don’t get otherwise. The things we are taught early on stick with us all our lives. Treating children like children isn’t just condescending, it ensures adults will behave like children (obviously a gross overgeneralization which is necessarily wrong, but I think this, by and large, is true). Children who are educated as responsible persons will grow into responsible adults. Giving kids the vote would ensure, in time, a more responsible citizenry. How much more? I don’t know. But I’m willing to give it a shot.
(2) It in practice may lead some people to have children to have an extra vote
I honestly don’t think so. There is a big difference between most people and the kind of people who post on political blogs: most people don’t give a rat’s ass about politics. Most people don’t vote, or do it without really caring. Having a child is an incredibly momentous decision. I honestly don’t think anyone will have a kid just to have an extra vote. But if it gives parents an extra incentive to have kids, I would think this would be a feature and not a bug.
I’m (by and large) a social conservative. To me, giving parents a proxy vote for young kids would also set a strong signal that society values families, and values the unique contribution to society of those who start families, and this would be a good thing. I understand if you disagree, and I agree that this is at best tangential to the question of whether to grant kids the vote.
(3) This is a policy that would encourage people to have more kids. This is problematic because it directly contradicts a primary purpose of yours, to look out for the future. Eventually, at our current rate of population growth, we will exhaust our resources, leading to all sorts of catastrophic problems for the human race.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy this. Malthusianism was flawed two hundred years ago, it is now. Most scientists agree that with today’s technologies, the Earth can easily support many more people, and the more time progresses (and the more kids we have, to make tomorrow’s future discoveries), the more our capacity to support ourselves (through things like GMOs and greentech) improves.
Besides, if the Earth does become overpopulated, it will give humanity the best incentive to expand into space, something which I definitely believe to be long overdue.
— PEG · May 12, 06:55 AM · #
jvon: Your sarcasm is duly noted. However, there’s a good argument to be made (and one I agree with) that the drinking age, which is openly flouted by practically every teenager everywhere, certainly in the U.S., simply serves, not to reduce drinking, but to foster in kids a disrespect for the law. I would add that this disrespect is only enhanced by the fact that those under 18 have no voice in deciding it.
— PEG · May 12, 06:59 AM · #
I absolutely love this idea. First time I’ve heard it. It would be really exciting to see a candidate actually propose to do this. They probably wouldn’t have the balls to advocate abolishing voter age requirement. But it would be great if they could propose lowering the age to, maybe 14. That’s when most kids enter high school. I think people would support that.
— roberto · May 12, 05:16 PM · #
Why not let kids vote. The mentality of the average American never evolves much past the 12-year-old level anyway.
— flr · May 12, 09:38 PM · #
I like the idea of being able to vote. But too many parents would try to control their children’s votes; why not let minors vote as soon as they’re able to show they understand the principle of the secret ballot? And parents who can’t teach that principle, or that of independent thought, shouldn’t get to steal their child’s vote. It’s another take on Chicago’s “Vote early and often”, anyway…
— Kathryn Dorn · May 13, 12:48 AM · #
NO FAIR KIDS SHOULD VOTE
— xoxo · May 16, 02:18 PM · #