What about the argument that children aren't fully responsible people, legally? i.e. if you're to be tried as a minor for a crime based on diminished moral responsibility, shouldn't you similarly be denied certain rights that are based, broadly speaking, on a similar principle of human rationality/responsibility/whatever? (similarly, children aren't allowed to make medical decisions, sign legal documents, excuse themselves from school, etc etc etc) I guess that's not an argument in itself, just a sense that if children could vote, they should have the right to do a whole lot of other things too...
One way or reading your objection is the slippery slope argument. The connection between voting and being granted all these other rights/privileges we think they shouldn't have is far from clear. Furthermore, if their input in the political system tips the scales in favor of additional legal rights for children in some areas, that would probably imply a solid base of support amongst the adult population, and our commitment to democracy might suggest we shouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand. If it turns out to be terrible policy, well, it wouldn't be the first time, and it could be overturned by subsequent legislation.
As to the "not full citizens yet" argument, two things: First, adults who are legal dependents are still granted the right to vote in many cases, and second, the reason children aren't full citizens has to do with their current level of development. As such, the rights denied to children should be tied to their limits given their current stage of development. It seems a stretch to connect that logic to voting.
Exclude children from the franchise? Hell, I am on record as favoring a constitutional amendment forbidding any discrimination on the basis of age. I should not even need to defend that position with argument.
"People are not property" is all I need.
What about the negative impact of marketing? On the DLC's "make parenting easier" agenda is a set of policies and regulations geared towards curtailing various marketing and/or market research techniques aimed at children, such as the "paying alpha teens" phenomenon. I'm not sure I would welcome a world where the government targeted children with sophisticated forms of campaign advertising.
(2) the fact that most children must interact with a state entity on a day-in, day-out basis, gives the government significant opportunity to promote candidates in a way most adults would not experience. One can argue employees, the closest analogous case, have some choice in their employer that children do not.
Ahem " ... one can argue that state employees ..."
Maybe Pt. 6 undermines pt. 1. In other words, a male who thinks women should be denied the suffrage, or a white who thinks that blacks should is inherently biased, which is why these intutions turned out to be bad, but an ex-child is not biased, so we have no similar reason to think adult intuitions will turn out equally bad.
Andrew's argument seems tenuous given the rush to try teenagers as adults. If the slogan used to be "If we're old enough to be drafted, aren't we old enough to vote" doesn't it make sense to say "if we're old enough to be sentenced to 20-to-life, we're old enough to vote?"
Ken Dolbeare was a great teacher.
I know this is off topic - but he was a fabulous teacher and undergraduate advisor.
My first take (without much thought, granted) is somewhat centered on your point number 7. The problem is not that children will vote as their parents do, but that parents have an amount of control over their children that is not seen between any other two groups in the population, and can influence their vote unduly. This could be by saying to the 12 year old boy "Because you love me, you'll vote this way" or saying "Vote this way or I'll beat you when we get home" or saying "Vote this way or I WON'T love you anymore" or by offering the newest video game or by any number of ways that parents control their children. Granted, at the point children get the vote, the video game example becomes clearly bribe, but the giving or taking away of love is still not regulated by any law of which I know.
At this point in history, this argument would not work for other groups that are or have been disenfranchised. I know that this argument can be somewhat countered by bringing up the example of a husband's control over his wife (in the "traditional" sense, scare quotes emphasized) but not completely. You do not choose to be someone's child. You choose when you become someone's wife, although this is said with complete awareness sometimes a marriage has little to do with the woman's choice.
That being said, I know that the age of 18 is arbitrarily picked, and that age could be lowered to 12 or 8 or raised to 25 just as arbitrarily. At what age would you have children start voting? At birth? ("Of course my 2 week old daughter wants to vote Republican...she hates liberals, big government and high taxes.") When the child is able to able to speak? To write? These make no more sense. Upon becoming a teenager? (Another arbitrary number).
Of course, there are 30 year olds whose vote could still be controlled by their parents, and 16 year olds who vote more intelligently than all of us, but you have to pick an abitrary age somewhere. Why not 18?
Children of what age? And, given that in some jurisdictions life is defined to begin at conception, on what basis would one exclude the unborn?
God, that was unwieldy and hard to understand. Sorry to crap that all over your screens.
To sum up: Parents can control their children. This is a fact, although not a reason to deny them a vote.
However, to give children a vote, you must either do it at birth or at an arbitrarily picked age (or, as Mike said, before birth). Eighteen, being an arbitrarily picked age, is therefor just about as good as any other arbitrarily picked age.
At this point in history, this argument would not work for other groups that are or have been disenfranchised. I know that this argument can be somewhat countered by bringing up the example of a husband's control over his wife (in the "traditional" sense, scare quotes emphasized) but not completely. You do not choose to be someone's child. You choose when you become someone's wife, although this is said with complete awareness sometimes a marriage has little to do with the woman's choice.
What about other dependents?
"but that parents have an amount of control over their children that is not seen between any other two groups in the population"
See my comment. Think of similar arguments against the enfranchisement of women.
If two-yr-olds threw darts, it would not change the net results. The key is allowing them independence.
Well, at the risk of sharing ideas with Trent Lott, children voting might be a (more) defensible argument for limited literacy tests: If a person wants to vote before age 18, s/he has to demonstrate that they are able to read the ballot. This of course with the caveat that the tests not be designed to be impossible to pass, or arbitrarily enforced - conditions which are large enough to drive a fleet of trucks through, obviously.
As to the "not full citizens yet" argument, two things: First, adults who are legal dependents are still granted the right to vote in many cases, and second, the reason children aren't full citizens has to do with their current level of development. As such, the rights denied to children should be tied to their limits given their current stage of development. It seems a stretch to connect that logic to voting.
The first one is a good point. But on the second one, I don't see your objection. It seems perfectly sensible to me to connect voting to a child's stage of development...
Thanks for all the comments. I'll have more time to reply later.
Pithlord, that's a real difference, I suppose, but w/r/t blacks and women, does it really matter that they were denied the franchise because of bias? Isn't it more important that they were denied the franchise?
TPaine, Andrew: Cummings makes the argument like this. Either voting is universal or aristocratic (that is, those who deserve to vote get to vote). Both are defensible in principle. However, it's indefensible to be Aristocratic with some segments of the population and not others. Ergo, no literacy tests (which many adults, much further removed from HS civics, would surely fail) unless they're for everyone. Andrew, that's what I was clumsily getting at. Some people reach the point of developmental autonomy at 14, others never do. If that's what gives us the right to vote, we can't fairly pretend that some random age is good enough. If we're going to use the age cut-off, it has to be with an awareness that it's basically arbitrary
Perhaps of some relevance, the recent campaign funding ruling overturned a ban on all minors donating money.
Voting is the exercise of a person's responsibility as a citizen; how we as a group rule ourselves. The proper exercise of that responsibility requires a level of judgement and maturity. Humans develop judgement and maturity over time. At the age of six months, for example, nobody would argue that any person can make rational decisions regarding prayer in schools, whether or not to allow topless sunbathing, or other critical issues of the day. Because judgement and maturity cannot be directly, objectively measured and because people mature at different rates, we have to make a collective judgement of a point at which most people have achieved the required level in order to have an objective standard. That is legitimately set at eighteen based on the same experience that has led us to determine that eighteen is the age at which most people have enough maturity and judgement to be held fully responsible for their own actions. There will be people who are mature enough to vote responsibly earlier than that age, but there is no means of determining who they are so a single, uniform standard is the best we can do. There will also be people who never achieve that level or, due to injury some other reason, lose that capability later. But, except in those cases where the lack or loss of capacity is so profound that we are also able to determine that the individual is not responsible for their own actions, we don't have adequate tools to determine that and must fall back on age as a standard.
Preemptive responses:
- This has nothing to do with economic dependency, it's about maturity and judgement.
- If a means could be developed to accurately and objectively measure judgement, it would be legitimate to replace age with an objective minimum level of maturity and judgement to determine who could vote... but I'm not holding my breath.
- Eighteen isn't a magic number. We could certainly determine that the appropriate level of maturity isn't normally reached until twenty-two or that sixteen is the right answer. If we do, though, the age of majority should also be changed since both are based on the same rationale.
- The fact that people used supposed lack of maturity and judgement to bar women and blacks from voting is irrelevent since it was a lie in those cases and is true in the case of a toddler.
- Children should not be tried as adults. But the fact that the justice system is sometimes illogical doesn't mean we need to change every other part of our society to match it's defects.
The problem with mojo's argument and most of the ones here is that it assumes voting is about promoting one's opinions rather than one's interests. Given the stats in the original post about how we treat seniors who vote vs. kids who can't, does it follow we've reached a good reasoned decision that it's beneficial for kids to get screwed or because the interests of those who vote trumps those who can't?
If two year olds threw darts, I'd wear much thicker pants to the polls.
Arguing that parents have control over their children--hmmm.
Ask a public school teacher what percentage of parents have control over their children.
Fourteen or fight!
What kind of wussy-ass students are you teaching that they don't embrace this proposal? Right or wrong, a smart kid presented with what is facially a trick question always embraces the "wrong" answer, if only to deny his professor the satisfaction you so patently take in forcing undergraduates to play traditionalist.
On-topic, I think there's plenty of room for separating voting behavior from other adult behaviors like signing contracts. If a toddler can pull the lever, I welcome his vote. Hell, a lot of toddlers I know have a more natural feel than their adult parents for which politicians are useful sleazebags and which ought be pure anathema.
By the way, if you do not love "Wild in the Streets" like I do, them's fighting words. Pick up the $10 WITS/Gassss two-fer DVD and die happy.
Honestly, you people.
Hm, well, let me take these bullet points one at a time:
1. The idea that justification here is one-way opens up a slippery slope for giving unlimited rights to anyone or anything. Certainly there needs to be an established reason why children should be given the vote -- some kind of evidence that letting them vote would eliminate oppression or improve their lot in life, both of which I'm skeptical of.
2. This one smacks of a categorical error. You have to buy the premise that children aren't qualitatively different than other groups who are already allowed to vote before you can point to these groups as a counter-example. But children are different. If we were talking about giving chimpanzees the right to vote, pointing to their mental and developmental deficiencies would be valid reasons to prevent them from voting. Why shouldn't they be valid reasons to prevent children from voting?
3. This one is kind of a strawman. A more important objection is that children are different legal entities. This extends to everything they do -- their ability to own property, join contracts, hold certain jobs, be held accountable for crimes, purchase certain goods, etc. If you agree that these legal distinctions are acceptable, then you acknowledge that there are good reasons for giving kids a different set of rights and priviledges than other groups. Otherwise, you favor repealing child labor laws and incarcerating 8-year-old thieves in adult prisons.
Skipping 4-6
7. It's a pretty safe bet that children under a certain age will always vote with their parents. This effectively doubles (triples, etc.) the voting power of people with young children, which violates the principle of political equality. Of course it's true that above a certain age (perhaps early teens), kids will begin to form distinct opinions, and if we were only talking about lowering the voting age a few years, then this would be a valid point. But if you accept that there is a stage below which children simply cannot be counted on to formulate independent political opinions (certainly toddlers can't), then you accept that there should be a cut-off for voting rights. And if there's going to be a cut-off, you need to give valid reasons why it should be set at a different age than 18.
There. Argument pwned.
mojo, what IT said. I have some sympathy with deliberative democratic theory, but if you think self defense and the promotion of one's interest isn't a significant part of the value of the vote, you don't know the AARP. Moreover, if we're to have a meritocratic justification for the vote can work to justify an arbitrary age distiction. Perhaps, as a matter of empirical fact, people below age X tend to not meet our meritocratic standards for voting. But what if we discover a similar failure rate for an easily identifyable group of adults--those who live in a particular community, those of a particular race, those in a certain income bracket, etc? At the end of the day, we hope for judgment and maturity, but it's simply not part of why we let people vote.
Redbeard, I think you're right--a lot of people, including parents themselves, are likely to overestimate the control they have over children, especially when the child gets to do something their parents legally have no say over.
WCW, I set my traps well and they walk right in like Homer going for floor pie.
Steve R:
Your response to point one is, with all due respect, bizzare. It's slippery slope reductio ad absurdum. Should children only have those rights that we have compelling evidence it will improve their lot in life to have? Why are they held to this unusual standard the rest of us aren't? Furthermore, what on earth would constitute evidence if children aren't allowed to vote?
(2) They shouldn't be valid reasons because it's a standard we don't apply to other citizens.
(3) All fine and good: I acknowledge giving children different sets of rights and responsibilities legally. However, I only acknowledge limiting their rights (as compared to adults) when there's a compelling reason. The reasons for limiting their ability to contract, work overtime, etc. seem a whole lot clearer than the reasons to limit their voting.
(7)Maybe, maybe not. I agree, this is a larger problem with absentee ballots, which gives a great deal more opportunity for direct parental control rather than indirect. I'm not sure this fear constitutes sufficient grounds to disenfranchise, though. Lots of people said this about women w/r/t their husbands. They turned out to be wrong, but what if they had turned out to be correct? Aren't married people overrepresented? Should something be done about that?
I guess Cal students really are different.
Seriously, check out Wild in the Streets. It's so good in so many ways, and so bad in so many others.
Nothing can change the shape of things to come.
(I hear Target is using this one for ads this year; has anyone heard same?)
"Should children only have those rights that we have compelling evidence it will improve their lot in life to have?"
That wasn't what I was arguing. My point was that the discussion should be a two-way street. I don't see why the affirmative should be autmoatically priviledged and free from having to establish itself. Something doesn't become a good idea merely because you can't think of a strong objection. (I take it that was what dwj was getting at with his reference to Burkean caution.)
"(2) They shouldn't be valid reasons because it's a standard we don't apply to other citizens.."
That just begs the quesiton of why "citizenship" is the gold standard for voting rights, and why certain groups are barred from becoming citizens. To put it another way: why shouldn't we grant chimpanzees citizenship unless developmental and mental differences constitute a valid reason for treating them differently?
"(3)...However, I only acknowledge limiting their rights (as compared to adults) when there's a compelling reason. The reasons for limiting their ability to contract, work overtime, etc. seem a whole lot clearer than the reasons to limit their voting."
I think the reason why we shouldn't let children vote is identical to why we prevent them from joining contracts, holding certain jobs, starring in porn films, etc: They lack the mental and emotional maturity to do these things competently and without being exploited.
"(7)....Lots of people said this about women w/r/t their husbands. They turned out to be wrong, but what if they had turned out to be correct?"
If they had really turned out to be correct, meaning that women were no more competent to vote than toddlers, then that would have indeed been a valid reason to barr them from voting. Of course it's not correct, and that's what matters.
"If they had really turned out to be correct, meaning that women were no more competent to vote than toddlers, then that would have indeed been a valid reason to barr them from voting. Of course it's not correct, and that's what matters."
Yeah, I'm going to have to go with Steve on this one. The purpose of the 19th amendment was (beyond the obvious) to make the state begin to recognize that women, as a group, are capable of being adults as well as full citizens, and thus deserve all the rights and responsibilities that go with that.
A 6th month old is not capable of being a full voting citizen, seeing as how most are incapable of sitting themselves up and are just starting to learn that when you drop things, they fall. Granting voting rights at birth is not workable. Neither is granting voting once they can start to walk and talk or even read or right workable. Unlike gender or race differences, there are scientifically proven ways that children are unable to process information logically under a certain age. Children are a different class of people than any other designations because the definition of that class is based (partly) on biologically determined and inescapable mental incapabilities.
The question then becomes when are people granted to the right to vote? I agree that, this will, in the end, be mostly arbitrary. The point at which children are capable of logical thought varies, and competency tests are not only too easily manipulated, they are undemocratic - citizens should not have to prove their worth in order to gain full rights. It is possible and neccessary l to take certain rights away from people (unconsious people can't be asked what they want), but it should be done with caution. Thus, an adult with the mental capacity of a fourteen-year-old may vote, but a four-teen-year-old may not. Setting an arbitrary age is the only workable conclusion.
The biggest reason I'm against lowering the voting age is because then children of that age would also be legally responsible for their actions in the way adults are, and I don't they should be held accountable in quite the same way. However, if we continue to try children as adults, I'll be the first in line to protest the fact that they can't vote. With that in mind, I might consider arguments than children should be allowed limited voting rights at an earlier age than 18; the justice system treats a five-year-old differently from a twelve-year-old or a sixteen-year-old.
I'm delighted to learn that there is a serious academic piece arguing for extending the franchise to those under the age of 18. I've argued for years in favor of eliminating any minimum voting age. The response I typically get is akin to what I'd expect if I advocated for boiling small children in broth and eating them. I concur with each of Cummings's arguments (at least as you've summarized them), and I look forward to reading his article.
What about the argument that children aren't fully responsible people, legally? i.e. if you're to be tried as a minor for a crime based on diminished moral responsibility, shouldn't you similarly be denied certain rights that are based, broadly speaking, on a similar principle of human rationality/responsibility/whatever?
This doesn't work, as the mentally retarded are not prohibited from voting.
FWIW, I think kids should have the vote.
The Chimpanzee analogies & competency testing issues beg the question: there are some relatively bright lines--below a certain age human beings aren't capable of abstract thought (yes, some adults aren't capable of abstract thought either--but there is a good argument to be made that the moral hazard created by a regime of sorting the 'wheat from the chaff' among adults, the vast majority of whom can think abstractly but might be disqualified based on the instrument used to 'prove it' is bad public policy)... but this only really helps you with regard to saying 5 years olds shouldn't vote.
If 18 year olds can vote, competency or simian metahprs are irrelevant to (say) the question of whether 18 should actually be 16, or 15...
If younger people (my stake in the ground: start at 14) can vote using a secret ballot, they will pursure their interests as they perceive them - frankly, I don't think they could make a botch of it more than voters already have, and it would remediate a decided skew we see today in favor of (a) older persons' interests and (b) pushing off expenditures so the next generation has to pay for them...
My kindergartener talks to her shoes, and they talk back. Is anyone seriously suggesting that letting her vote would result in a system that would better meet her needs? That she and her schoolmates would form an organization with the muscle displayed by the AARP?
While humans develop the capacity for abstract thinking at different ages, and some never quite get there, the more we study children the more we know that even older teens usually lack the capacity to understand the long-term ramifications of their actions. Hence the surprised 15 year old giving birth who didn't realize she was pregnant...although that is both a known consequence of sexual intercourse and an explanation for the odd digestive symptoms she's had recently. Seriously.
I think the question is, since we need an arbitrary age qualification to avoid children being abused in the process of their votes being pursued...what is that age?
Do you honestly believe that the sole purpose of voting is to promote an unrestrained feeding-frenzy of self-interest with dictatorship of the majority as the ultimate goal? I believe that the primary purpose of voting is to attempt to effect better government. Does voting by two-year olds generally result in better government? I would argue no and, in the only example you've given where extending the franchise to children might result in a positive policy outcome (corporal punishment), it was only a coincidence that the presumed position of children matched that outcome. They wouldn't oppose spanking because it would have bad results for society, they'd do it because they want to iron the cat or play with the shiny knives but don't want their bottoms to hurt. If psychologists decided that spanking was really a great thing, children would still oppose it. Yes, adults can make stupid, selfish, short-sighted decisions too. The difference is that they have the capacity to do the right thing instead and children generally don't. And if you think the AARP is powerful with 16% of the population over 65, just think what the 20% under 14 could do. Allowance could overtake Social Security in the US budget!
I think the competency test proposal was given short shrift. Say you accept that there is some age, even it is just (in an insane case) one month old, below which people should not vote. You probably accept this for some reason, for instnace that children below that age can't understand the connection between them pulling a lever and someone else making a law. For whatever age you accept that the transition generally takes place, it will have overbreadth problems. Why not use testing to solve the overbreadth?
So 18, since it was picked pretty arbitrarily and not done by technocrats trying to correlate it to specific developmental stages, is probably wrong. But it's not clear by how much it's wrong.
I hadn't read Phoenix Rising at 12:57, who says things I largely agree with.
Also, in response to this:Hell, I am on record as favoring a constitutional amendment forbidding any discrimination on the basis of age.
This would, almost certainly, lead to the facial invalidation of Social Security or any other universal government pension program. Same thing for Medicare, but that wouldn't be as bad, since it would lead to universal, hopefully single-payer, health care double quick.
"If 18 year olds can vote, competency or simian metahprs are irrelevant to (say) the question of whether 18 should actually be 16, or 15..."
True, but that is not what's at issue here. The issue is removing the voting age altogether, not merely lowering it. You therefore have to consider what happens if you allow very young children to vote, not just older teens.
If we were only talking about lowering the voting age, but still keeping a definite age, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to lowering it to 16, or possibly even 14. Lower than that, and I'd start to have serious principled objections.
But I still think we're better off leaving it at 18 for the simple reason that this is the line we've set for almost all legal distinctions between childhood and adulthood. It's best if we keep that line bright and clear. It may be too low for some things and too high for others, but at least it's consistent.
Some selected responses:
Steve, Mickle: you both seem to think that if we lower the voting age then we'll have to change everything else about the rights and responsibilities of children. As a matter of fact, law, and logic, this isn't true. We could lower the voting age to whatever we wanted right now through a constitutional admendment, and nothing else would change.
Steve/Mickle/Mojo, all who are concerned about competence and judgement and brain development and so on. The response is two-fold. First, as I said before, either voting is based on some ability or it's not. If it is, we can't use something as arbitrary or probabilistic as age to determine it. If you want to have some sort of cognitive ability test for voting, then let's try to get it right and do it. But it's empirically absurd to think that age is any kind of meaningful predictor.
Of course, you don't want to do it, because voting isn't really about cognitive ability. If it were, it wouldn't be (quasi)universal, and as BitchPhD points out, the franchise for Downs syndrome patients would at least be mildly controversial.
Mojo, I certainly don't think self-interest and self-defense are the sum total of voting. But they're a big part of why it's valuable, and it would be foolish and politically naive to pretend they're not.
Cont Op, glad to help. The Schrag article I cite in PPE gives the more cautious, nuanced argument, and IIRC calls for a lowering of the voting age to 14. Cummings takes the case to it's logical extreme and makes the case for full elimination of the voting age.
His (Cummings) response to the toddler concerns of Pheonixrising and many others is that the very young who bother to vote would simply cast meaningless votes that cancel each other out (not unlike dementia patients). I'm not entirely sure I find that sufficient.
Steve--cars (16) and alcohol (21). Sexual consent is all over the place depending on who you're sleeping with and in what state. As many have noted, criminal justice system tries juveniles as adults all the time. Lots of sealed records get unsealed. Work restrictions change considerably when you turn 16, at least in WA. I'm sure there are other examples. The line is not, as it stands now, bright and clear. And it doesn't need to be--there's no logical reason for all rights and priviledges of adulthood to happen at the same time.
Children below a certain age (varying by community) can't travel anywhere outside the home without an adult. Parents could refuse to take their kids to vote, or condition permission on promises to vote a certain way. I know this echoes arguments above, but I wanted to add in the inability to travel to the larger argument.
Logistical problem. Solvable. Not a serious reason. "Women have to stay home with the kids"
And it doesn't need to be--there's no logical reason for all rights and priviledges of adulthood to happen at the same time.
By parallel logic, the right to work is either an aristocratic right or a universal right. The right to bear arms is either an aristocratic right or a universal right. Etc., etc., ad nauseum. You would need an affirmative reason to deny each of those rights to a toddler, and the reasons for denying those rights would be analogous to those for denying the franchise (interests of the child, public good, etc.) Franchise is a part of the social contract. Children below a certain age have long been thought to be incapable of entering any contract without consent of their guardian; why should the franchise be any different?
And children below a certain age have been thought incapable to drive a car, consent to sexual relations, and drink alcohol, all at different ages. Again, why pretend we need one magic age when we clearly aren't using one now?
I think the comment above about "why 'citizenship' is the gold standard for voting rights" is the key. Why don't we allow noncitizens to vote, if they happen to be in the country on Nov 2? Hell, why don't we let people in other nations vote? Certainly the actions of our Congress and our president have an impact on the lives of people in other countries.
On some level, the whole concept of democracy and voting rests on the social compact idea: we agree to be governed by others, as long as we get to choose who it is who governs. That agreement is symbolized by citizenship: people in other nations who wish to join the pact can come the U.S. and naturalize; people who wish to have no part of it can emmigrate to other countries and renounce their citizenship.
As long as children are under 18, they have no ability to move to another country, nor to renounce their citizenship. Thus, they are not citizens making a free choice to be governed. (The fact that the laws and policies of the country have a large effect on their lives is irrelevant, unless you're going to start arguing that Iraqis ought also have the right to vote in our elections.) At 18, since they are free to leave the country and renounce their citizenship, they can vote.
Can legally emancipated minors vote? If not, I suppose this argument would support their right to vote, as once a child is emancipated they can also leave the country and renounce citizenship.
(Whatcha think? Compelling?)
Have to think about that. Not bad.
I've never invoked the all-effected principle, although it does have some appeal to me. Practically, in modern nation-states, it's pretty clearly a non-starter, for reasons you point out.
You're making the tacit consent feature of social contract theory a little less tacit by suggesting citizens choose to stay. Of course, in the real world, very few people experience this as a choice. We're embedded in our communities, cultures, etc such that the social and emotional costs of leaving are quite high. We don't live our lives like the hypothetical SC citizens do. And besides, we're *not* free to leave unless we find a country that will take us, and then we'll just be subject to another government. There is no state of nature to wander off into.
In short, I think this is a potentially compelling line of reasoning *if* the social contract idea is your sole foundation for political legitimacy. If, like me, you find social contract theory problematic as a foundation for legitimate political rule (I find a host of critics of this line of reasoning compelling; Hume and Mill, but also Burke and Marx...), this reasoning doesn't get you too far.
Dunno about emancipated minors, good question.
"Steve--cars (16) and alcohol (21). "
Yes, exceptions to the rule. And the fact that they're different than the normal age of legality is frequently used as a rationale for changing them -- people argue that the driving age should be raised to 18, or that the drinking age lowered back to 18 as it used to be. What do they base their arguments on? The fact that 18 is the standard age of adulthood.
My point here wasn't that everything must be at the same age, only that changing one thing leads people to want to change something else. Case in point: The voting age was lowered to 18 largely due to the fact that 18 year-olds could be drafted. It made sense to keep these numbers the same, since rights and responsibilities are seen as a package deal.
"First, as I said before, either voting is based on some ability or it's not. If it is, we can't use something as arbitrary or probabilistic as age to determine it."
Why not? The fact that an age limit is arbitrary is a good thing, because it keeps us from having to establish individual cognitive differences. An arbitrary limit may not be ideal, but at least it's fair and laregly impervious to abuse. Yes, it does discriminate against children as a group, but so what? We've already established that it's perfectly appropriate to discriminate against children for a variety of things.
"But it's empirically absurd to think that age is any kind of meaningful predictor."
Do you really think that it is empirically absurd to say that 5 year-olds have less cognitive ability than 18 year-olds? The fact that that age isn't an absolute predictor of cognitive abilility doesn't make it meaningless. Species isn't a an absolute predictor either. There are mentally retarded adult humans who are less intelligent than chimpanzees, but I wouldn't argue that these rare exceptions mean that we should enfranchise chimps. There are cases where the average differences are so profound as to warrant different treatment as a group. If you try to reject this completely, you logically end up where Peter Singer is with his nutty objection to "speciesism".
"Of course, you don't want to do it, because voting isn't really about cognitive ability. If it were, it wouldn't be (quasi)universal, and as BitchPhD points out, the franchise for Downs syndrome patients would at least be mildly controversial."
You're right, voting isn't based on cogntive ability, it's based on age! But age does serve as a proxy for cognitive ability. The reason why the francise for Down's syndrome patients isn't controversial is precisely because no one in her right mind would want to change the age-based system we have in order to correct a non-existent problem. Among the small percentage of Down's syndrome patients who survive into adulthood, how many actually vote? If there were millions of them, you bet it would cause controversy.
I think the most compelling argument I've seen is the lack of power used to accomplish the goals of children. Anyone who feels that minors don't need any additional power for protecting themselves and pursuing their interests should try visiting a local high school. Free speech and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure?
Further, The amount of money flowing to old people now mostly removed from contributing to America's economic status as compared to young people who are desperately fighting for some sort of education or training in order to shoulder that burden entirely is shocking.
I know the argument is a fun logic game about who is really a citizen, and why people are allowed to vote, but I think it highlights a serious issue in regards to an underrepresented group. If minors are going to be denied the vote, then there should be some alternative structure given to them or operated on their behalf (PTA groups aside), a compensation for what they could possibly be getting for themselves under other circumstances.
You're right, voting isn't based on cogntive ability, it's based on age! But age does serve as a proxy for cognitive ability. The reason why the francise for Down's syndrome patients isn't controversial is precisely because no one in her right mind would want to change the age-based system we have in order to correct a non-existent problem. Among the small percentage of Down's syndrome patients who survive into adulthood, how many actually vote? If there were millions of them, you bet it would cause controversy.
And if the voting age were abolished how many 3 year olds do you think would walk down to the polling booth and actually vote? Would civil society be brought to its knees anymore than a few isolated incidents of mentally retarded adults voting? I doubt it.
Do you really think that it is empirically absurd to say that 5 year-olds have less cognitive ability than 18 year-olds?
Do you think it is absurd to say that a 17-year-old has no more cognitive ability than a 5 year old? I should hope so. That's how the law treats the situation now.
Why not? The fact that an age limit is arbitrary is a good thing, because it keeps us from having to establish individual cognitive differences. An arbitrary limit may not be ideal, but at least it's fair and laregly impervious to abuse. Yes, it does discriminate against children as a group, but so what? We've already established that it's perfectly appropriate to discriminate against children for a variety of things.
I challenge that idea. And so does the organization I represent, the National Youth Rights Association. How is age discrimination any more morally defensable than race discrimination or sex discrimination? Young people have their own wants and needs in society as much as any group, and deserve a means to express those wants and needs through the ballot just like everyone else. To deny them that has the consequences thusfar mentioned including increased poverty.
For those of you who are interested in lowering the voting age, I encourage you to check out the organization most responsible for pushing for this issue politically in the US: http://www.youthrights.org
We are a youth-led grassroots organization with members in every state. We are currently working on several bills to lower the voting age to 16. There are also some more arguments and stats in favor of lowering the voting age at this page:
http://www.youthrights.org/
votin...votingage.shtml
I would like to applaud you for your brilliant essay on why the voting age should be lowered. I am a youth rights supporter myself, so this really resonated with me. I do not think that age should serve as a proxy for cognitive ability at all; instead, people should be judged as individuals. I see no reason to consider, say, a mentally retarded person and a child of the same mental age as being fundamentally unequal simply because of their age. As it is right now, a mentally retarded person who is above the age of 18 (and cannot use abstract reasoning) is allowed to vote, and there are intelligent youth under that age who cannot vote. Once you work all these individual factors in, it's obvious that age doesn't quite hold water as a screening-tool for irresponsible voters.
Very well said, DJW!!
Those who think you ought to just wait it out until they're 18 have obviously have either forgotten their own youth or have cast it aside as unimportant, or they assume their own youth was typical of everyone else's. They don't realize the different world kids and teenagers see that adults just don't, a world that requires political attention that adults don't believe to be worth petitioning and voting for. Just like the elderly see things differently from the middle-aged, both of whom see things differently from young adults.
There are many high school students and even those younger out there who want to vote, who know the issues and their country well, who work hard every day and are responsible people, and they should not be denied such a basic right. They should not have to be punished and ignored because society pays more attention to those their age who are ignorant, immature, and shallow. Those who want to vote will. Those who don't won't. It works that way in the adult electorate already. I hardly see the harm in allowing such for younger folks. They are ready. They are responsible. Let them vote!
I see many comments to the effect that "mentally retarded people can vote," seeming to imply that it's therefore impossible or unwise to distinguish between competency. But what are the posters meaning by this in this thread?
I think most states bar the mentally incompetent from the polls or at least provide a process for it, and that has been interpreted to include most severe mental problems. There's levels of retardation, from slight (and able to hold jobs/function in society/be executed for crimes) to severe. You could certainly grant the franchise to minors, and draw similar distinctions between minors who can "function" in society - who can, at least arguably, care for themselves in some meaningful manner - and those like my daughters, who I wouldn't trust to butter bread.
IMO, there's nothing obviously wrong w/ drawing a broad brush over the franchise and saying that votability starts at, say, 12, or 14, or 10. This right is meant to do rough justice to an unrepresented group, not make sure that every person who can meaningfully protect their interests and represent their opinions gets to vote, correct? IMO the point is to make a workable, fair system, not make sure that an incapable 14 year old can't vote, or that a capable 11 year old isn't deprived.
Just my 2 cps.
I wouldn't oppose a refutable presumption of capacity for youth that would be similar as what we have for the mentally ill. They are presumed able to vote until someone goes through the work of proving them incapable. That'd be appropriate for youth as well.
Even a refutable presumption of incapacity would be a step forward. Currently there is no flexibility at all with the standard we use. No matter how many college degrees someone has, or what their IQ is, or how mature and responsible they are, if they are 17 years and 364 days old they can't vote. Nothing they do besides waiting will change that.
I think we can find a less restrictive means.
I have a five year old. In my conversations with him, I think he sees some political and social issues surprisingly clearly. I honestly do not believe that the cognitive ability required to vote is beyond any human being with a basic grasp of language, frankly; if they get the idea that words represent things, and that words allow them to communicate with others, then they know that who they vote for can make a real person be in charge, and they understand the basics of relationships between individuals and society. Moreover, *as* children, they have a very immediate grasp of the complexity of issues involved in power, leadership, and fairness--more so than a lot of adults, who in their day-to-day life don't really have other people setting rules for them directly.
Having said all that, PK also can't read: so he wouldn't be able to read a ballot. And he relies for his understanding of political issues on his parents' explanations of current events and how the relationship between the three branches of government works, etc. But when that stuff is explained, he *does* get it. The cognitive ability thing isn't the issue; the issue is simply a version of the same issue with adults, which is that the *ability* to understand and make an informed decision doesn't necessarily mean that a given individual *will* bother to educate him- or herself, or that the sources he or she relies on for education will be reliable or accurate.
The voting age only became arbitrary when they lowered it to match the age at which one can serve in the military. 21 made a lot of sense otherwise. Most people reach emotional maturity at that age. Of course, we're signing kids up for the military at 17 now, so why not drop the voting age again? And why not 16, for that matter?
On the other hand, plenty of groups don't allow voting rights to new members. There's nothing wrong with making people hang out in a club for a while learning the ropes before they're allowed a voice in how it's run.
If taxation without representation was enough to start a war over, why is it not enough to give 14- to 17-year-olds the right to vote? I well remember how furious I was when I got my first paycheck and thought about the implications.
With regard to kids being threatened/bribed into voting like their parents -- just a reminder that however you SAY you vote, the privacy of the voting both (at least where I live) is still sacrosanct.
(Hence you still get those amusing exit polls in which husbands' percepetions of their wives' votes do not jibe with what the wives tell pollsters.) Point being: I don't doubt that plenty of people would try to pressure their children (as people do spouses, friends, co-workers, fellow churchgoers, etc. today). I don't think the state owes more (or less) to those people than the same voting-booth privacy that everybody else gets.
And as said elsewhere, I don't agree that lowering the voting age to, say, 14 would mean lowering the age of majority for everything else. We've already got a fine-grained system and I don't mind if it gets a bit more (or less). Raise or lower the driving age, drinking age, etc. based on data, not on a desire to have all adulthood happen at one magic moment.
I have liked the idea of voting young people ever since thinking about the "billions for bombers and bake sales for schools" problem.
Putting votes in the hands of school kids would no doubt shift government resources from support of those who can now vote in favor of those newly allowed to vote.
Hence, one might anticipate objections from the AARP. Also, I would expect objections from Republicans, unless one can show that new voters would be mostly Republican.
The USSCT has a line of cases from the 60's about "one person one vote" that might help support lowering the voting age.
I would probably support having parents vote as fiduciaries (trustees) for kids from birth to, say, 14. I like the economic rationale - avoid skewing government resources in favor of those with votes and away from those without votes.
Improve schools (and pre-schools) by extending voting rights into lower age brackets.
The boundary need not be either arbitrary or based on ability. It may simply be based on request. If you're old enough to care about voting, you're old enough to vote.
That said, I am in favour of an arbitrary line for most rights/duties, just not voting, because it's more fundamental. I think that line should generally be 16: If a sixteen year old is expected by his situation to behave as an adult, he will, at least as often as a 24-year old, in my experience.
But the line is arbitrary, and we must not try to hide that (precisely the arbitrariness of it is why children should be allowed to vote - to get a shot at changing it, if it's wrong).
In general, I think people should think critically about age limits. Both the 21-year limit on booze and the 16-year limit on sex (here) sends perverse signals to young people - this fine-grainedness implies that the limit is fundamental, not arbitrary, which is a lie. Also, it's a lie that you need to be something more than adult to drink, or something less to have sex.
Great blog about voting rights.
When I was 13, I and my younger sister co-wrote a resolution calling for a paper-trail and public ownership and inspection of voting software that was later adopted by the California Democratic Party and that was the basis for a similar resolution that passed the DNC. My sister and I testified before Shelley's HAVA hearing. This was when the adults in ACLU and California's section of Common Cause opposed a paper trail. Shelley listened to our calls for a paper trail. California is getting that paper trail this year. I point this out because I and others my age and younger have worked hard for voting rights for everyone. Yet, those who have the vote haven't reciprocated by helping my generation get the vote.
Now I am 17. I regularly educate adults on the candidates and what they stand for. I have been doing this for years. I have seen clear evidence that I and others younger than me know more about government than even most history teachers. What will it take for us to get the right to vote?
A little over a week ago, a teenager who tried to exercise his free speech rights was threatened with jail time by a vice principal. Rather than continue in slavery to an unfair system where uncaring adults have all the rights and our generation has none, the boy committed suicide. I would trust the vote of any of the teens and other kids marching for immigrant rights over the vote of a vice principal who is opposed to the First Amendment. The key to my generation being treated as human beings is our getting the right to vote. Without that vote, we are little more than a slave class.
have you ever considered a proxy vote by the parents, who are in fact the legal tutors of the children? it would be the same as for 'mentally retarded people' who have somebody voting for them.
In both case, I see that the tutor would consider the interests of person represented, and in the case of a smart child, also discuss them with him/her !
this would mean that the right to vote is recognised from birth, and teh parents (possibly the mother) or when divorced the parent in charge would proxy the vote until the age of 18.
best site
http://www.pokkers.org/
good site
http://www.pregnancy.net.in/
nice site
http://www.flowers-shop.org/
"7.5% of GNP was spent on the elderly, and only 2% on children."
???
Do you mean "7.5% of the GNP was spent on the elderly, and only 2% on children, BY THE GOVERNMENT?"
About a third of the households have children, and most of those spend a great deal more than 6% of their income on those children.
-dk
If parents are supposed to represent their childrens interest then surely people with children shuld get more votes in proportion to how many children they have?
1) Strange so little opinions or comments from Women Voters, whom this topic affects directly, and particularly in Single Mother Households. More so when the number of household NON-voters increases.
2) This is it right here: A comment by SUPERGGWEB, [url="http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/03/
children-and-vote.html#326034"]Proxy Vote[/url].
Strong Families Inc. is a good place to see the dilemma illustrated.
Divide a vote into 18 equal parts. Each year of age of the voter equals a percentage. A 12-year gets 12/18 o 2/3 of a vote, a 17 year old gets 17/18 of a vote. A toddler would get 2/18 of a vote. The older you get the more your vote counts.
Honestly, though, I think the voting age should be lowered to 14, but the concept could be easily adjusted whatever the age of voting would be.
I support it.
Commenting by HaloScan
