Comments on: Voting Rights on a Slippery Slope

By: Edmund Jenks (MAXINE)

Edmund Jenks (MAXINE) — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:50:46 +0000

On a “Kid Nation” bio, Guylan – Age 11 believes that voting rights should extend to kids down to the age of 9.

From the Bio:

“If you could put into place one law that pertains to kids in our country, what would it be?

If there were one law that I could put into place it would be for kids 9 and up to have the right to vote.”

Post Link:
http://maxine-log.blogspot.com/2007/08/kid-nation-why-growing-up-is-hard.html

Democracy, unlike “Kid Nation”, requires adult supervision and participation. Some would argue that our current crop of legislators are wanting to run the U.S. from this “Kid Nation” perspective given the lack of standards they wish to enforce our immigration and language application laws (see Aaron Hanscom’s post – http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/who_needs_english_in_america.php).

By: Roger Clegg

Roger Clegg — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:06:51 +0000

Thoughts for KPalicz: (1) I’m not saying 16-year-olds are “brainless little kid[s]“–but you gotta draw the line somewhere. (2) Voting is less about brain power than it is about judgment and wisdom. (3) I’m generally suspicious of arguments that because society lets someone do X at age whatever, therefore it ought to be willing to let the person do Y at age whatever: Two-year olds have to pay taxes; in most states you have to be 21 to drink but only 18 to vote; sometimes we require people to stop working at 65 but let them keep voting; etc. Each task is different. (4) As a conservative–”Unless it is necessary to change, it is necessary not to change”–I think the burden is on those to show that letting 16-year-olds vote will make things a lot better, not just that it is “reasonable.”

By: KPalicz

KPalicz — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:04:16 +0000

Roger, you made some very good points as you were recounting the reasons for greater enfranchisement, but then, I think, didn’t do such a good job refuting them.

You say, “we may be pretty confident that some people really do have poor judgment.” For 16-year-olds in particular, I think you miss the mark here. They are not children and should, in no way, be compared to the mentally incompetent or to 5-year-olds. A 16-year-old has the same cognitive and reasoning abilities as an adult, in fact their raw brain power may even be more than that of an average adult.

Society has judged them to be sufficiently competent to pay taxes, get jobs, drop out of school, and receive adult punishments for crimes. How can someone be a fully capable adult if they kill someone, but a brainless little kid if they want to vote?

Ask your average teen about politics and they know as much as your average adult (which isn’t saying much, but isn’t a reason to stop them from voting). I am by no means a Leftist or a Liberal, but I think lowering the voting age to 16 is a reasonable step that serves the moral and utilitarian interests of both the Right and the Left.

By: gnubi

gnubi — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:59:15 +0000

My favorite part of the piece is: “..all these groups (with the possible exception of the latter) are more likely to vote with them than against them,…”

Birds of a feather.

By: Roger Clegg

Roger Clegg — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:04:11 +0000

To Nevermind: For my reasons why felons should not automatically be allowed to vote just because they have served their time, and my rejoinders to the arguments commonly made on the other side, see: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/321/93/

By: Nevermind

Nevermind — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:08:34 +0000

I would be willing to entertain the notion of ex-cons, who fully served their time, and who are not on parole, being allowed to vote. I’m on the fence about this issue and would like to see arguments for and against.

Persons in prison serving a term, however, should not be allowed to vote for a number of legitimate reasons.

By: Chris Chambers

Chris Chambers — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:50:13 +0000

I understand the arguments but. um, guess what–even Mitt Romney and John McCain’s black hero, Bill Cosby (and Cosby’s moderate black adherent) STRONGLY and EXPRESSLY advocate enfranchisement for felons who’ve served their time. I mean–if rural redneck Congressmen get to count convicts for apportionate purposes, funding formulas…hey fair is fair…

By: cubanbob

cubanbob — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:27:25 +0000

Is it too much to ask that voting be limited to people who in principle are eligible to hold elected office?

Is it too much to ask that voters be limited to those sane enough to tried for crimes if indicted? Or be able to be legally bound by a contract? Or who sufficiently respect society by abiding by it’s laws?

People who can’t pass on this minimal muster only dilute the integrity of the vote and invite cynicism and corruption in the process.

By: Phillep

Phillep — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:13:38 +0000

Any of you can be disenfranchised by being convicted of a felony. Think about it a bit: Process enough people and give them a suspended 1 year prison sentence…

In any event, how many election districts filter for felons?

By: Nevermind

Nevermind — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:59:11 +0000

Seriously mentally ill people – those institutionalized long term- and children would be very easy to manipulate, and/or intimidate into voting a particular way. Do we want to further increase the likelihood of voter fraud? Why does common sense seem in such short supply these days?