Only problem is, who decides the test questions? They could be subtly biased so that kids with certain political opinions are more likely to pass than others.

Hmm. I hadn't thought much about this. However, my general thought is that adulthood should be adulthood, and childhood should be childhood.

What do I mean by that. I mean that it isn't a question (to me) about knowledge, intelligence, or anything, but of being an adult. Adults have all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Children do not.

Now, I sort of think that since people used to marry at 14, that 18 might be a bit old - especially if we're willing to had over keys to 16-year-olds. However, whatever (totally arbitrary) cutoff we use, be it age, ability, or whatever, I think that it should be firm.

That is, if you are above the cutoff, your signature is legally binding. You can get permits, licensees, etc (provided you pass those additional requirements). You can vote, serve in the military, be called to jury duty, drink alcohol, be held liable for your actions, etc. You are tried as an adult in a court of law, etc.

The biggest potential issue, in my mind, of giving children a vote (I'm not arguing against it, but just saying a potential issue) is that it erodes parental authority. Parents are legally responsible for their children. How can we say somebody needs (or has) a legal guardian but is qualified to vote? I agree that some kids are smarter and better qualified (as early as ten!) than some adults. But, sometimes we just need a cutoff. Even if it is silly that you can't drive at 15 years and 364 days, but you can once the clock strikes midnight (even if you weren't born until 11 PM that day!).

Well, if you are the candidate who runs on free ice cream for everyone, I can understand why you would want the kids to vote.
Age is a very imperfect discriminator, but until we have a constitutional amendment that narrows the franchise, it is one of the only ones we have.
People should have some skin in the game in order to be able to vote. Heinlein recognized this problem, and discussed it somewhat in Starship Troopers.

Most adults these days cannot make the distinction between being an educated voter and being a cheerleader. I don't know that kids would be any better. Impressionable minds these days are far too subject to the free stuff style of politics.

Well, you do have to draw the line somewhere.

No matter where (or how) we draw that line someone is going to cry foul.

Ah, a "knowledge test" in order to determine who gets to vote.

Hard to see anything going wrong in THAT scenario.

If you can't drink, you can't vote, because no one should vote sober.

After a couple of drinks we relax and let our emotions take over. Then, and only then, should we vote.

So unless we're lowering the tequila age to 14, then no, they shouldn't vote.

In theory it sounds good, but in practice, who would get to decide which kids get to vote?

I also worry about the psychological impact it could have if a kid votes one way, and it passes, and there end up being a lot of bad unforseen consequences. Would the kids then blame themselves if something went wrong?

Isn't that one of the reasons they don't let kids become doctors, even if they are geniuses?

NicoleK,

Are you implying that Doogie Howser, M.D. wasn't entirely real?

What responsibilities would this place on parents? If kids can vote but they can't drive, are parents responsible for getting them to the voting booth? Could they be held liable if the kid can't get there? And kids are highly dependent on their parents for resources, both physical and emotional. What happens when a parent promises a kid a new bike if he votes for Romney? Or threatens to take away his Wii if he votes for Obama?

A point others didn't touch on: I know I didn't have any kind of real id before drivers liscense which due to financial/insurance problems I didn't get till almost 18.

Other voting ideas, howabout voting on the back of your 1040. Only those who pay taxes get to say what direction those get used for.

OK, I didn't read the linked Somin article, but the gist of the extracts seems to be, "Sure, children may be irresponsible, ill-informed, and immature, but by and large, no more than adults are." It sounds to me like a teenager arguing for extra privileges without accounting for the corresponding responsibilities.

Ilya Somin should know better than that.

@isab
Some of Tom Kratman's stuff revisits hoplocracy. Nobody's got more skin in the game than someone who's literally bet his life..

Christ, I hate arguments like this. By which I mean I love them very much. It's fun to be so right about things with others are so wrong.

> "if they are more knowledgeable than the average
> adult voter"

Who says being "knowledgeable" is what makes someone a good voter?

> The main objection to giving children the vote
> is that they lack the knowledge to make informed
> choices.

Says who? Maybe they lack courage, discipline, foresight, etc.

Also, what Gog said.

Other voting ideas, howabout voting on the back of your 1040. Only those who pay taxes get to say what direction those get used for.

Well, I like THIS idea!

Seems fair to me, anyway.

(I had a glass of wine before I voted. Made it a little less painful. Ssshhhhhhh, don't tell!)

o.O

Shannon: Well said. (Also: What Old RPM Daddy said.)

I don't understand why so many ADULTS, especially, think giving kids more and more privileges without responsibilities is going to be good for them or even make them happier in the long run. Since when do kids, at dinner, want to eat vegetables - or even the meat, maybe - if they were allowed to eat the ice cream first?

I.e., why should they be eager to grow up at all and take on adult responsibilities when there are no rights left that they had to WAIT for?

Here's an example of a flaky adult who has the gall to call it "apartheid" when small kids get newly barred from places they never USED to be allowed in, fifty years ago:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9631259/Baby-apartheid-why-are-our-cities-becoming-kid-free-zones.html

There are 13 comments. Thankfully, none is sympathetic. Here's one:

Mick Chaney
Yesterday 08:00 PM
Oh god, not another whinger about kids not being welcome everywhere and everywhen. My kids aren't welcome in a lot of places, and I'm glad they're not. I need a break every now and then, and I don't want to deal with your kids while I'm trying to have a carefree adult evening out. Please do move to Dubai, my dear. Heaven forbid you might have to change your own life instead of expecting everyone else to cater to your parental whims.

And:

themightysquirrel
Today 06:54 AM
......(Also, loving the very sensible comments from parents here. I think what we're seeing is that this is not an issue among parents, it is merely an issue among people with an overly-inflated sense of entitlement)

Who says being "knowledgeable" is what makes someone a good voter? -- crid

Right. A good voter is one who can record their vote without leaving a hanging chad.

I was just on Facebook and I see that about 80% of the people from my high school days have flipped their political leanings. That seems odd to me.

I do remember that those of us in one particular honors class were quite well informed...surely more so than most adults.

> Right. A good voter is one who can record
> their vote without leaving a hanging chad.

Not sure what you mean.

I think that people who offer some standard of intelligence or citizenship or anything else for voters are not to be trusted. And specifically, there ARE things that are more important than being smart.

I nonetheless reject that there's some vein of civic genius in children that we ought to tap. If children are so politically bright, then they can sit on their hands a quietly refine their insight until they're 18 or 21, at which point they'll be just brilliant. We can wait.

Crid, I think the hanging chad comment was a joke - meaning if they did a good job, there'd be no hanging chad (which is, obviously, not what we mean by good voter, but a rather literal use of the word).

OK. I can be tone-deaf.

This is my favorite 'hanging chad' photo. It's so intense... So ceremonial... And so stupid.

It's looking like a bad night. Let's remember Kinsley: "Democracy is approximate."

By that I mean these bad forces were always very much with us... They are not new, or much refreshed by this election.

Regarding the baby "apartheid" link...

We take our 2 kids out (ages 3 and 6) on occasion. We don't go any place that would be described as "fancy," but we do take them to more grown-up places, including a local Italian one.

At the more adult places, I bring (quiet) toys (like paper & crayons) and if they get restless they have to go outside & walk w/one of us. Actually, that's true in the kid places too, but we don't make them talk quite as softly there.

We went out not that long ago to a family place. Another family had their kid going up & down the aisle talking to just about everyone there. Frankly, we wanted to have a nice family dinner. Being interrupted every 5 minutes by a pint-sized pretend member of the wait-staff was highly annoying. Think we're going to have to go up a notch because it sets a bad example for my mini-people.

That said, my youngest has reflux. We were out at the nicest place we take them & she threw up before the food came (not sick, mind you, but medical GI issues). So, it's still not hazard-free...

My meandering point is that, maybe if parents, you know, parented a bit more, kids would be welcome more places.

If you are under 18 and get the right to vote, then you are now also responsible for your upkeep. You are no longer legally allowed to depend on your parents.

You also lose your right to default on a contract.

Many 18-year-olds still depend on their parents.

Many 18-year-olds still depend on their parents. -- NicoleK at November 7, 2012 12:08 AM

And if they are old enough to vote, they are legally responsible for themselves. Or do you disagree with the Twenty-sixth Amendment?

If so then you disagree with the Selective Service/Draft age?

Does anyone remember "Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote!"

You have a choice -- they can be considered old enough to be responsible for themselves. Or they are not before 18.

If you argue that prior to 18 they can vote, that means they are adult enough to not be covered by the parents insurance. Any crime is no longer can be adjudicated by Juvenile Justice sytem and their health insurance is their responsibility.

Please tell me where I'm wrong.

This one raises a whole bunch of pickles.

Yes, I have met teenagers who have shown maturity and grace that impressed me. Have met more that have not impressed me. Now sometimes limits based on age may not prove logical or fair. Take for example the US drinking limit of 21. What about driving, the country I am in says 19. Yet many Canadian and Americans kids drive much earlier and safely.

If allowing teens/young adults to vote with a caveat of
1) They passed a test
2) IQ and/or Emotional IQ is high.
3) Enrolled in the military or Emancipated
OR whatever, will change legally and practically, the definition of voting rights.

This allowing the young to vote I see as a sideways move to restrict or engorge voting. The maturity/intellectually could swing the other way,too. So if an under 18 has to pass a test, why not adults? This could turn into an society based on intelligence. Only the smart people get to vote. Certain demographics could easily find themselves being shut out. Remember laws and regulations become screwy things once they are down on paper.

The confusing part, is who and what classifies an under 18 as qualified to vote. Is it ability? responsibility? Earnings? Emancipation? Who will come up with this classification. Do you trust government to be the ones to decide? A committee of people given said position based upon party or relationships? Do you want your congressman (many who could not be fucked to read the Obamacare bill or other bills). Any basic under 18 vote will not be a simple test. I see it turning into a rat's nest of politics, corruption and nitpicking. You thought gerrymandering and district bordering was confusing and strange. Wait till the government gets it's hands on what classifies as a "RESPONSIBLE" voter.

This actually reminds me of a strange sci-fi story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pre-persons
In short a person was not a person unless the could solve a certain level of math. So no ability, parents could abort. Some kids learn the math in order to survive.

To me sometimes, the best way is to fulfill a requirment is well the KISS Rule. Keep it Simple Stupid. It might not be fair or even the most logical. It is much better then a system of complexity, rules, and regulations. Which will NOT be based upon science or logic, still which you may not want (Bell Curve anybody). It will include laws (good and bad) and worst of all politics. Maybe even religion. Because Aarron Goldstein had his Bar Mitzpah, he is technically a man.

The best is what it is right now.
Citizen of said country,
Over a certain age,
(I might of missed some stuff)

It took long enough for many countries to see women, black people, and non land owners as citizens with the right to vote. This age thing to me seems a way not to enfranchise somebody, but a something that will disenfranchise certain voters.

Yet, this discussion is moot. If the government can not enforce the simple test of ID, why the heck you could trust it to judge the ability to implement a rational and fair system.

One sign of adult status is responsibility. When the 26th amendment lowered the voting age to 18, one consequence was the general acceptance of 18 as the effective age of majority. That means that 18 year old citizens can sign contracts, seek adult employment (good luck in this economy)marry, vote, hold public office, enlist in the military etc. If you wish to grant personal responsibility to those who are younger, accept all the consequences.

At one point in our history symphonies were being composed by 2 yr olds, 75 yrs ago all of our grand/great-grandparents would have been considered pedophiles, to day a 12 yr old is considered an adult for a muder charge, but 26yr old are still considered children for insurance purposes.

And some biological reaserch suggests in some individuals puberty doesnt end until the mid twenties, and for some it starts as early as 10.

Make 16 the legal age for everything

the gist of the extracts seems to be, "Sure, children may be irresponsible, ill-informed, and immature, but by and large, no more than adults are." It sounds to me like a teenager arguing for extra privileges without accounting for the corresponding responsibilities.

Posted by: Old RPM Daddy at November 6, 2012 12:40 PM
_________________________

I would add that I've heard people complain that they know some pre-schoolers who had more maturity and restraint than most high-schoolers they know. Does that mean those pre-schoolers should have the same LEGAL rights that most people can't get until they're at least 13 - such as the right to work at certain jobs? Of course not.

I think debates like this are often just another example of Americans demanding the "right" to instant gratification of one kind or another. Heaven forbid young people should have to focus on their CURRENT rights and responsibilities instead of whining that they have to wait for "everything." No, they don't. They have plenty of rights already that they take for granted.

(I realize, of course, that the trouble with telling kids to count their blessings is that to a kid, it's only logical to think that the only blessings WORTH counting are the ones that the other kids in the immediate neighborhood - or their classmates - DON'T have. Which is why I would recommend regular charity work as a family activity - not just something only the kid has to do!)

And, from 1991:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-09-21/entertainment/9103110767_1_young-adults-motel-room-dear-ann-landers

This letter is the first of three on the same subject:

Dear Ann Landers: That letter from the Montana reader who complained that a motel keeper wouldn`t rent a room to a teenager because he wasn`t ``of age`` burned me up. Here`s how it looks from my side of the registration desk.

I worked in a hotel in North Carolina for several months. Our age requirement for guests went from 18 to 21 to 27, after several ``young adults`` trashed their rooms. When I say trashed, I don`t mean wet towels on the carpets and a broken lamp or two. I mean they knocked holes in the wall trying to remove the fixtures, ripped out the telephones, tore up the carpeting and sneaked out in the dead of night without paying their bill.

Another group of young people were selling drugs out of our place. It didn't help business any when the police showed up to make arrests. We suspected something was odd when carloads of friends came to ``visit`` at all hours of the night. We finally told them to leave after several guests phoned the desk to complain about the noise.

``Montana`` said it was unfair to allow a few bad apples to spoil the barrel. I agree. But when the majority of problems are caused by people under 25, the hotel must take whatever steps are necessary to save its reputation, not to mention the business itself. This means we have to keep the troublemakers out. The only way to do it was to raise the age limit, which we did. By the way, we noticed that the people who got upset about the age limit being raised were the very ones who caused the trouble to begin with. We know because we kept a list.

K.A.M., West Hempstead, N.Y.

Many 18-year-olds still depend on their parents. -- NicoleK at November 7, 2012 12:08 AM

And if they are old enough to vote, they are legally responsible for themselves. Or do you disagree with the Twenty-sixth Amendment?

If so then you disagree with the Selective Service/Draft age?

Does anyone remember "Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote!"

You have a choice -- they can be considered old enough to be responsible for themselves. Or they are not before 18.

****

Erm, being responsible for legal documents isn't the same as being responsible for your upkeep. 18-year-olds who are financially on their own is very, very rare. Why would you make it different for under 18s?

And yes, I do disagree with the draft.

are, not is.. argh, I wish you had an edit button!