I really can’t believe this was written. Did I miss the joke?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
14 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Well the part I agree with is that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote.
Well, here in NC, all the RW churches have Sunday school and youth group meetings at which they would spend a great deal of time “instructing” their teens on “how Jesus would vote.” We have enough uninformed voters in this state.
Top 10 Reasons to Lower Voting Age
Other info
Let me add #11:
Seniors set the culture at high schools. With a 17-year-old voting age, the large majority of seniors would be eligible to vote. As a result, interest and involvement in politics would go from being something that only a small, committed group of seniors do, to something that is part of the social mainstream among seniors. As a result, it would become something that students in other grades do as well.
Dropping the voting age just one year would completely make over the role of politics in the experience of high schoolers. It would become something normal for students to talk about with their friends, which would establish a pattern for the rest of their lives.
“When the voting age is lowered schools will most likely schedule a civics class to coincide with 16 that will introduce the issues and prepare new voters. It stands to reason that these young voters will be better prepared to vote than their elders.”
I don’t see this happening any time soon.
Currently courses are being cut, not added, to the curriculum in many schools where budgets have been cut to the bare bones.
The more likely source of information will come from tv ads specifically targeting this more pliable age group on MTV, VH 1, and Jersey Shore.
It’s Yglesias. Just be glad he’s not wanking about the socio-economic implications of the dog turd he stepped in on his morning walk.
Amen.
I think it’s sorta like saying, let the kids break all the stuff they want to, because the end is coming and we won’t need it anyhow. And, as long as all these 40-year-olds who haven’t gotten beyond seven are voting, why not the real thing?
Oh God…the Duggars would never stop having children.
This is why we can’t have nice things in the blogoshere.
The effort, organized by the United Teen Equality Center, to let 17-year-olds vote in Lowell’s local elections was actually a pretty impressive bit of activism and organizing.
UTEC itself is a pretty impressive bit of organizing and activism, when it comes right down to it. In the late 90s, they negotiated a gang truce that made the downtown – when Lowell High is located – neutral territory, outside of anyone’s turf, where violence against rival gangs would be foresworn.
Quite frankly, on average they would do about as well as their elders. In my opinion, it would be a wash.
Around here, there used to be a “Kids Vote” program, basically to give kids accompanying their parents to the polls their own ballot.
Play? Well, kinda..it was aimed at the under-10’s. It got dropped, and even if it hadn’t the move from punchcards to “fill in the oval” would have killed it.
As kid said “too much like tests in school”.
BTW, the ballot issue on Kids Vote “ice cream should be served with all meals” won a resounding victory. Too bad it wasn’t on the official ballot as well…
There’s a whole political party that believes you shouldn’t vote if you don’t have a stake in things, nothing at risk, skin in the game.
Who has more stake, risk, skin, than children?
(The average age of matriculation at Oxford in the 15th century was 14.5 years. Mere children)