quote:Millions of California's teenagers would become the nation's first to vote under a proposed constitutional amendment introduced Monday by a 71-year-old state senator.
Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, proposed the idea alongside three other lawmakers, saying the Internet, cellular phones, multichannel television and a diverse society makes today's teens better informed than generations of their predecessors.
Vasconcellos would give 16-year-olds a half vote and 14-year-olds a quarter vote in state elections beginning in 2006.
The idea, formally called "Training Wheels for Citizenship," first requires two-thirds approval by the Legislature to appear on this November's ballot.
Okay, wow. I'll be honest, I'd probably be in favor of lowering the voting age to 16. But that's not the debate here.
This guy is arguing that allowing teenagers a quarter vote, or a half vote, would make the process more democratic. I really think the opposite is true.
Personally, the first thing I thought of when I saw a report about this on CNN was the three-fifths clause that used to be in our Constitution.
I've always been a big advocate of teenage civil and political involvement, and I still am; but an arbitrary line at 18 is one thing -- at the very least, it is fair. When you do get your political voice, it's a full one, fair and square. You count as much as the next guy.
To give teenagers a half or quarter vote is like looking at them and saying, "You are less than a full person, and this is exactly how much you are worth. It is not as much as your parents, or your grandparents, or even your sister who is only a year older than you are."
I think this is ridiculous and offensive. Just because I've reached a certain birthday (say, 16) doesn't mean I suddenly have twice as much value to society.
It's one thing to take an arbitrary age and apply it to everyone. But it's quite another to assign value to a vote based on someone's age -- who's to say we couldn't do it past age 18? The older you are, the more experience and maturity you have, the more your vote is worth! Except after you reach the age of 60. Then senility kicks in and we'll reduce the power of your vote slowly until you're back at a quarter vote -- where you started when you turned 14.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Oh and "Training Wheels for Citizenship"?? Puh-leeze. Last I heard, just being born here gives you the right to ride the bike and if you fall, well, that's your own fault.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wow. Seems like being worth a half is better than being worth nothing. Maybe they should take what they can get, and if they show they can responsibly use that, then they can graduate to more responsibilty.
We're not talking about the worth of adult citizens. We're talking about amount of responsibility. I think giving a teenager half the responsibility of an adult is fair.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
*Agrees with PSI*
The discrimination is not illegal when you are discriminating base on an objective criteria, which is the inexperience and immaturity of 14 year-olds.
I actually think this is a good idea. This will force politicians to pay more attention to education.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I personally think that teenagers aren't as informed as some people seem to think they are. From what I could tell most of them just went along and voted for the people that the people they knew were voting for.
I also think that if california teenagers now have the right to vote, they should also have the possibility of being drafted.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
I'm split on the idea. I like the idea of training or helping to build civic duty/responsibility in younger people. But I disagree with the whole value idea. It just seems to be age discrimination wrapped up in a shiny package.
I think the hearts of the people involved are in the right place though. I just don't know if it is a plausible idea. I know I would feel uncomfortable letting a 14 year old vote simple because I work with forteen year old all day long and, wow... it's just a scary thought. But I also would be against there vote counting less if they were given one.
Hmm, intersting topic, hard to decide where I could stand. Probably where we are now. 18. It's arbitrary but it works.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
MEC, truth be told, that's how many adults vote too.
I'm just glad kids are voting...hopefully they can become informed voters as they go.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
But isn't giving them the ability to vote when they aren't informed voters like putting a soldier who has not even started training yet on the front lines?
Or putting a random person with only a basic knowledge of physics in front of the control panel for a nuclear power plant.
[ March 10, 2004, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: MEC ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Most adults do not actively do research on the candidates or issues they vote on. They have that information thrust upon them by interested parties who want to court their vote. If a 16 year-old were to have the vote, I would assume politicians would be just as interested in informing them as well.
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
Can you imagine the campaigns?
Whomever Britney Spears endorses would get a huge boost . I can also foresee parents dragging their kids along and forcing them to vote for who they want. Just not a good plan.
But...
I know I was informed more at that age than the average voter is now. So how do we determine which youngsters are responsible enough?
I'm thinking a test on what the canidates positions are on certain issues is not too much to ask. Voting for someone because he is the better looking of the two or such nonsense hurts the democratic process. At the very least they should have to give an informed opinion on the canidate they are voting for.
And before it is said, yes I do know that some adults make the decisions based on equally stupid reasoning. Yes I do think the same should apply to us adults too.
[ March 10, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Ghost of Xavier ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
But Justin's endorsement would cancel that out. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Whomever Britney Spears endorses would get a huge boost. I can also foresee parents dragging their kids along and forcing them to vote for who they want."
While I think the whole "quarter-vote" idea is TERRIBLE, I should point out that this argument above is exactly one of the arguments used to deny women the right to vote, back in the day.
I would support lowering the voting age to 16, but giving all 16-year-olds full votes.
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
Yes, it is one thing to give younger people the right to vote. It is a whole other thing, giving them a half vote or quarter vote. The first thing I thought of, was how much confusion this would introduce in to a voting system that should be simple but ends up being complicated somehow.
I am very paranoid about voter fraud. I dont like this. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I'm not sure it would matter. There are so many people today that don't vote because they don't think their one vote matters. I have trouble believing a 14 or 15-yr old is going to bother voting knowing it only counts for a quarter.
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
The problem there Tom is that women are now known to be fully equal in critical thinking and being able to make their own decisions.
Do you really think a 14 year old has the same capacity as an adult though? I mean, of course some of them do, but nowhere near the majority. These are freshman in high school for crying out loud. Why not lower it to 10 years old then. I would not be opposed to 16 being the voter age however, but still, I'm not sure if its a good idea.
Edit: but yeah, I'm more in favor of giving them full votes than half or quarter votes. Thats just making things more complicated and would create more problems than it fixes.
[ March 10, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Ghost of Xavier ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I'm just glad kids are voting...hopefully they can become informed voters as they go.
Just haiving people vote is not necessarily a good thing. In Brazil, it is against the law to not vote. As a result, those elections were a joke. People that cared nothing about the election and knew nothing beyond the flyers that plastered every vertical surface were casting their ballots randomly for some joker.
quote: So how do we determine which youngsters are responsible enough?
Those that agree to vote correctly. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Porteiro, we're cool. I actually argued all about voter responsibility in another thread, and pointed out that "just voting" is not enough.
The point is that the votes count for so little, and it's just the kind of practice they may need to BECOME responsible voters.
Of course, there's always a chance they're trying to sneak in votes from kids who'll probably all vote liberal anyway.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
There are plenty of other ways to get students and teenagers involved in civil life than to give them a half or quarter vote.
We've had the maturity/responsibility discussion many times, and that's the discussion they were having on CNN today. But I don't think that's what's crucial to *this* discussion.
Like I said, I'd support lowering the voting age to 16. But I think this system is age-based discrimination -- it quantifies some people as being worth *less* than other people! That violates the very founding principle of our democracy. (In practice, of course, our democracy hasn't always adhered to this princple -- women, African-Americans voting, etc. But it seems to me we ought to strive not to make that mistake again.)
Honestly, say that a half-vote is "better than nothing" is exactly the argument people used in favor of segregation -- "separate but equal" was better than they had before, right?
No! It might be better, but it isn't good enough. Blacks didn't accept "separate but equal," and neither did society, ultimately. And I don't think we should in this case, either.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
There is no good reason to treat Blacks as less than full citizens. Teenagers, on the other hand, are a different matter. Why would a 16 year-old rather have no vote than half a vote?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
The cynical side of me is unsurprised that this was put forth by a democrat, because the 14-18 year segment is likely to be made up of people with not much money, and have a higher percentage of people who are more likely either to be idealists or to be more concerned with personal freedoms they don't feel they yet have. Thus, from both economic and social standpoints, it's reasonably likely that more of them would register as democrats.
Is the number of representatives in the house based on the population of the state, or the voting population? If the latter, would this increase the number of congressors that California gets?
Also, considering how much difficulty some states had counting whole numbers, are we sure we want to attempt fractions? *smile*
--Pop
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Oh yeah -- until high school elections are something other than popularity contests (every one I knew of was, at least), I have no problem with leaving the voting age at 18.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pop, I think most school elections are popularity contests precisely because teenagers can't actually vote for any of the positions with POWER to change things. Consequently, school presidents are useless figureheads that trade on their image -- much like the British monarchy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm a big fan of the idea that rights come with responsibility. If the voting age were lowered to 16, I would want 16-year-olds to be full-fledged adult citizens. That would include drafting them, having parents no longer responsible for them in ways such as chid support, etc..
While we're at it, they should be able to smoke and drink. If they are responsible enough to vote, they are responsible enough to injest legal poisons.
But I doubt many would want to see any of those things happen. Neither would I.
It really seems unfair that 18 and 19-year-olds are old enough to vote, go to Afganistan and die, but are too young to have a beer. It only makes sense to me that either the drinking age should be lowered, or the legal adult age shoule be raised to 21. Or of course, it could be done at the age 16.
Edit:
I also think the same thing applies to being tried as an adult and getting married. I find it bogus that you can be convicted and sentenced to die by a government that you have no say in.
And with marriage, I think that's a bigger deal than being able to vote. If you can get married, you surely should be able to vote.
[ March 10, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I don't think it is a good idea to have a half vote or full vote for 16 year olds. Granted, 18 in an arbitrary age, however, parents are legally responsible for their children until they turn 18. I think the laws should be more synchronized, not less.
Otherwise, parents could use kids to get more influence--and I am going to completely ignore the MTV/Sprite factor, because adult voting is mostly just a product of the media too.
It makes more sense to me to let anyone who is emancipated have a full vote. As long as a minor is a minor, then they are a minor.
The big travesty for me, is if 18 is the legal age to vote and be able to get drafted, then it shoul dbe the legal age for drinking. If someone is emancipated through the courts or marriage, then I think they should also be able to vote and drink and be drafted.
Just my two cents....
** if students want to get involved in the democratic process, well, there is volunteer work, possible school projects, or even cities could sponser community events or changes that are open to public imput through voting of all ages.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I'd prefer to see the drinking age lowered and the driving age raised. I wouldn't mind kids having a couple years to learn that getting drunk is stupid before they ever get behind a wheel.
Much as I'd like to see cigarettes gone from society entirely, I don't think it should be legislated. I'm willing to give up my rights to something I don't want, but can't expect others necessarily to do the same. I'm for no-smoking laws indoors, though.
When I turned 18, I was pretty excited to go the polls the first time. However, when I got there, I realized I didn't know much other than what I'd seen on TV -- mainly smear ads. I left most of the ballot unmarked, and didn't vote the next couple of elections. Now I actually pay attention to things on the ballot, read the measures and propositions, go to the candidates' websites and their opponents' websites, sometimes look at voting records if there are any, etc. Some people are smart enough to do that at a younger age -- more power to them. I think 18 is as good an arbitrary number as anything else for a voting age, though.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Mr Porteiro, your post made me think of the beginning of Doogie Howser, MD.
"Can't buy beer, can prescribe medicine."
Or something like that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm sorry. I'm pretty sure it's a sin to make others think of Doogie Howser. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm just sad that Doogie apparently grew up and stopped typing that diary just before blogging became the national pastime of geeks.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hey! No dissin' the Doogie!
Interestingly, most of the "teenager on the street" bits that many local radio/TV stations have done in the past day or so indicate two things to me: many teenagers (most of those who were put on the air) are intelligent and articulate; they think this is a bad idea, because they KNOW their peers.
I think it's a bad law. I might be in favor of lowering the voting age, although my first inclination is that 18 is perfectly reasonable. But fractional votes is nuts -- for the reason Pop gave, as well as Kasie's.
quote: So how do we determine which youngsters are responsible enough?
I'm thinking a test on what the candidates positions are on certain issues is not too much to ask. Voting for someone because he is the better looking of the two or such nonsense hurts the democratic process. At the very least they should have to give an informed opinion on the candidate they are voting for.
Xavier, it's a great idea in theory, but I think rather impractical. Would this test be multiple guess? Short answer? Essay? What would be a minimum passing score? Where would the manpower and MONEY for all this come from? How quickly would it be corrupted to look more like port's (joking) criteria? And surely it's unconstitutional.
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
Yeah, I know, its just something I've thought about a few times before. The actual implementation of the testing I agree is not a good idea.
Its just one of the inherent flaws of democracy I guess. The thing is that 16 would also be just as arbitrary. The only way to stop this would be if there were some standard for having voting rights (which I agree is perhaps impossible to make a good system for), or to let every human being vote no matter what age they are, with toddlers and infants having voting rights too.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
This raises an interesting question. Are 17 year-old teenagers today more or less eligible to become full citizens than their 19th century counterparts?
On one hand, today's teenagers are probably better educated and loaded (or overloaded) with information from the internet. On the other hand, teenagers in the 19th century are considered adults at a much earlier age. Who is more mature and worthy of the full trappings of citizenship?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
At first, I was nodding my head, saying "half a vote is better than no vote . . . " Then I read Ghost of Xavier's post and reconsidered. He, along with Alexa and porter have made some excellent points. After considering this, I don't think anybody should be able to vote before reaching the age of emancipation. Currently we set that to eighteen (in most cases), and though that may be an arbitrary number, that's good enough for me.
I personally agree with those who say that the drinking age should match the voting age . . . move one up or move the other down.
Now an interesting question is this . . . should an emancipated minor have the full set of adult rights, or have to wait until turning 18? I lean toward thinking that when the country regards you as an adult, you should have all adult rights . . . but it occurs to me that such a policy could have unforeseen consequences.
BTW - I typed this a good hour or so ago and got distracted by pesky work, so I apologize if I'm rehashing things that have already been said.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Icarus
A good rule of thumb I think is, as soon as a person is legally responsible for their own decision, they should have all the same legal privileges.
I am not sure what the "consequences" would be, but if they are negative to the individual, then that will a natural discouragement from minors seeking emancipation.
I am thinking of a scenario where there is a rush of minors to get emancipated, get drunk, get in a car accident, and get charged as an adult in involuntary manslaughter. --of course, poor innocent who got killed by a drunk 16 year old.
**ooooh! wonder what that would do to statutory laws with an emancipated 16 year old.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How come I picture busloads of church youth groups pulling into the voting parking lot as the youth minister keeps reminding them to "Vote Christian"
WIth that plan in mind, I could see several big churches getting behind this idea.
I don't know if it would play out that way, but I could see them planning on it doing so.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
A story idea I was thinking of involved a colony where the administrators wanted to get birthrates up. The solution the leader (ie. me) came up with was to give all children votes and allow their parents to vote for them until such time as the children wanted their vote. At that point the child would go the Voting Bureau, pass a simple test, and be allowed to vote. Parents accused of abusing their children, keeping their children from voting, or mistreating their children in any way would lose all votes.
I thought it was interesting and would create interesting societal and family dynamics.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
If the California legislature passes this, will Governor Arnold support it? Should it be put to a vote of the people?
My view. If teens will be allowed to vote, it should be a full vote.
I think the people of California should decide the issue, not the legislature.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Derrell, actually, if enough (2/3) of the Legislature supports it, it will be put on the ballot, to be decided by the people of California. Then it would take 2/3 of the vote to make this change to the California constitution.
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
quote:Then I read Ghost of Xavier's post and reconsidered.
Thanks Icky . I am just Xavier avoiding a landmark until I decide whether I want to do one though.
quote:I personally agree with those who say that the drinking age should match the voting age . . . move one up or move the other down.
Yes, this is absolutely counter-intuitive. I was a senior in college when I could first legally drink .
quote: think the people of California should decide the issue, not the legislature.
The question then is, would the 14-18 year olds get a chance to vote on the referendum?
[ March 10, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Ghost of Xavier ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I am just Xavier avoiding a landmark until I decide whether I want to do one though.
Ah! I wondered who'd killed ya. Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
Actually it was the mafia on like day 3 of what was I believe the second hatrack mafia game ever (or maybe the 3rd).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I meant this time. Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
rivka, thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Jill (Member # 3376) on :
One thing I don't think is fair is that many working teenagers pay income tax, yet they can't vote. Sounds like taxation without representation to me.
That said, I don't think teenagers should vote. I just think that they shouldn't be taxed until they are eighteen.
We talked about this issue in class today, and most people agreed that teenagers shouldn't vote. There are many mature, responsible teenagers out there. But few teenagers have enough life experience to vote. And many teenagers just spit out what their parents tell them.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Very few working teens pay taxes; they just don't make enough money to have to. And those that do, their parents usually claim exemptions for them on their taxes.
My opinion on this one: it's not taxation without representation. As a parent, I can decide whether or not my teen is allowed to work. I get to claim an exemption for that child until s/he's 18, regardless of how much money that child makes working. I can claim the exemption until s/he's 24 if the child's not married and is either a student or makes less than $3050 (this year). I decide how much of that teen's income must go toward the family expenses.
I vote. The child is, therefore, represented.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Does anyone have the percentage of 18-25 year olds who voted this past election?
The fact that kids barely vote to begin with is my number one reason for not lowering the age. Why give it to them if they're not going to use it? Because they "deserve" it? For what, existing?
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
And all this right after the news about how many kids get news from the daily show.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. I can also foresee parents dragging their kids along and forcing them to vote for who they want. Just not a good plan.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. I am just Xavier avoiding a landmark until I decide whether I want to do one though.![[Wink]](wink.gif)