Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Meh, I think its okay. If someone who is 90 years old who has a life expectancy of 2.3 years is able to vote, then a 17 year old with a 62.6 year life expectancy should be able to vote too as their future depends on the votes.
..
I actually don't have an issue with the basic idea a 16 or 17 year old voting. There are currently over 150 million registered voters in the U.S. Even if every 16 or 17 year old registered, they'd still account for a relatively small chunk of registered voters (around 8 million). On top of that, in many states, 16 and 17 year olds are allowed to drive, consent to sex, own a rifle or shotgun, work, get an abortion, and get married. If they're old or mature enough to do those things in the eyes of the law, voting doesn't seem like much of a reach. Lack of real-world experience is an understandable concern, but I'm not a fan using qualifying criteria like that for voting. With over 150 million registered voters, experience, education, and exposure to the rest of the country/world will vary wildly. In addition, tens of millions of Americans have serious mental illnesses, dementia, TBI, cognitive disabilities, etc. All of them have the right to vote (as they absolutely should), even if those conditions may prohibit them from doing some things (driving, gun ownership, etc.) that a 16 year old can. Many states even protect the right to vote for adults under guardianship (people who are legally "incompetent" in terms of handling aspects of their life). The threshold for being able to vote is intentionally and understandably low. I don't think including 16 and 17 year olds is all that big of a reach.
That said, I think the ulterior motives behind this push (and similar ones elsewhere) are quite transparent and distasteful. Younger voters skew heavily towards democrats which is why these pushes are happening in heavily democratic areas and not in, say, deep-red, freedom-loving rural Montana where a 16 year old can already do quite a bit of "adult" stuff. It's an attempt to tip the scales in one party's favor and that understandably pisses people off. For that reason, I don't think I'd support this measure. If there was a swell of 16 and 17 year olds across the nation visibly advocating for their right to vote, I might feel differently. But this effort does not seem to be coming from that group in spite of all of the "empowerment" PR speak from the people trying to push it forward.
nally and understandably low. I don't think including 16 and 17 year olds is all that big of a reach.
That said, I think the ulterior motives behind this push (and similar ones elsewhere) are quite transparent and distasteful. Younger voters skew heavily towards democrats which is why these pushes are happening in heavily democratic areas and not in, say, deep-red, freedom-loving rural Montana where a 16 year old can already do quite a bit of "adult" stuff. It's an attempt to tip the scales in one party's favor and that understandably pisses people off. For that reason, I don't think I'd support this measure. If there was a swell of 16 and 17 year olds across the nation visibly advocating for their right to vote, I might feel differently. But this effort does not seem to be coming from that group in spite of all of the "empowerment" PR speak from the people trying to push it forward.
What??
Why does Boston need more Democrats to vote? Is it under threat of losing Democratic control. Virtually every single politician in Boston for 60 years has been a Democrat. You al have a very deep distrust of the City Council.
Do you think Kenzie Bok needs the 800 16/17-year-old in Allston/Brighton? This doesn't make sense as an "ulterior" motive like you're in some rust belt town in Michigan or Ohio where party rule hangs in the balance. We just had the bluest mid-term ever...
People have been talking about this as a way to develop healthy voting habits for a decade or more. Way before Trump and the Trumpers infected American political discourse.
But why ? Why do 17 year olds need to vote. Why can't they just wait until they're 18?
I'm beginning not to care if this even happens. I sometimes wonder what's the point of a 90 year old voting. They have every right and they earned it but they aren't going to be around for the outcome of it.
Because at 18 they're on their own and oftentimes disconnected from anything academic/political or any type of structure. Many immediately develop bad habits civically but also personally once they leave the purview of home and school. Arrests peak at age 19.
If you engage them earlier it could have a profound impact on how they view themselves in relation to their city.
I personally think 16 and surely 17 is old enough to vote in Municipal elections. Not state and federal as you don't have enough exposure and experience with the state or other states at that age.
Many kids today don't have a reason to grow up. They are babied by parents. People have less kids today so the ones they have are heavily doted on.
It might be a different story with inner city/trailer park kids...but the world/country doesn't revolve around inner city/trailer park kids.
Good thing Boston is populated by inner-city kids then.
In general inner-city kids don't car about politics. But the ones that do ar typically super/hyper-engaged. In my experience then and now.
I also definitely wouldn't say kids in Boston are babied. Walpole? Yea. Weston for sure? Boston? No. Thees are the same kids working a job or two and taking the bus and train to school for an hour, hour and a half every day, and other things.
I think perhaps a civic literacy test if you want to vote at 16/17 would be a happy medium. Demonstrate a very basic understanding of local politics and maybe 2 questions relating to legislation/developments of the past 3-4 years and you should be good to go. Never have to take the test again.
Good thing Boston is populated by inner-city kids then.
In general inner-city kids don't car about politics. But the ones that do ar typically super/hyper-engaged. In my experience then and now.
I also definitely wouldn't say kids in Boston are babied. Walpole? Yea. Weston for sure? Boston? No. Thees are the same kids working a job or two and taking the bus and train to school for an hour, hour and a half every day, and other things.
I think perhaps a civic literacy test if you want to vote at 16/17 would be a happy medium. Demonstrate a very basic understanding of local politics and maybe 2 questions relating to legislation/developments of the past 3-4 years and you should be good to go. Never have to take the test again.
You don't think there are kids from Boston that are babied by parents? You think a family in Beacon Hill has their kids working?
There aren't many poor people left in Boston who have their kids working jobs. There's a small portion of the city where this happens.
You don't think there are kids from Boston that are babied by parents? You think a family in Beacon Hill has their kids working?
There aren't many poor people left in Boston who have their kids working jobs. There's a small portion of the city where this happens.
There are literally maybe 50 16/17-year-olds in Beacon Hill. I mean I could go grab those numbers but its tiny. The majority of kids in Boston live in just 5 neighborhoods. Roxbury Dorchester Mattapan Hyde Park and Roslindale.
There are 730 people under 18 in Beacon Hill. There are 27,000 in Dorchester.
70% of BPS kids are economically disadvantaged. There's no shortage of poor people with kids working jobs in Boston. And if there is then why would extending them the vote be detrimental?
Why does Boston need more Democrats to vote? Is it under threat of losing Democratic control. Virtually every single politician in Boston for 60 years has been a Democrat. You al have a very deep distrust of the City Council.
Do you think Kenzie Bok needs the 800 16/17-year-old in Allston/Brighton? This doesn't make sense as an "ulterior" motive like you're in some rust belt town in Michigan or Ohio where party rule hangs in the balance. We just had the bluest mid-term ever...
People have been talking about this as a way to develop healthy voting habits for a decade or more. Way before Trump and the Trumpers infected American political discourse.
I'm not talking about Boston or the Boston city council. Obviously it would have a negligible impact on elections in Boston. In fact, it could be a positive if adding younger voters would help generate a little more turnover at the city level. Like I said before, I don't have an issue with the idea of a 16 or 17 year old voting in an election. I don't think that they're any less capable of making an informed or educated choice than tens of millions of other registered voters who happen to be over 18.
My concern is with the motive behind these efforts on a larger level. It's not "Trump infected discourse" to acknowledge the extremely obvious - young voters vote disproportionately vote for Democrats. That's just facts, unlike the "it was stolen!" nonsense we've had to listen to for 2+ years. Considering that these efforts are happening in strongly democratic locations and, from what I can tell, being pushed by people other than the 16-17 years olds for whom they're trying to help "develop healthy voting habits," it's hard not to view it as an effort to generate momentum to change voting practices in a way that disproportionately helps one party. That's not OK, even if it's the party I generally side with on most issues.
If you had 16 and 17 year old kids who were actively advocating for the ability to vote on a large scale, I would feel differently. But nothing I've seen so far seems to indicate that it's the kids who are the driving force behind the effort.
I'm not talking about Boston or the Boston city council. Obviously it would have a negligible impact on elections in Boston. In fact, it could be a positive if adding younger voters would help generate a little more turnover at the city level. Like I said before, I don't have an issue with the idea of a 16 or 17 year old voting in an election. I don't think that they're any less capable of making an informed or educated choice than tens of millions of other registered voters who happen to be over 18.
My concern is with the motive behind these efforts on a larger level. It's not "Trump infected discourse" to acknowledge the extremely obvious - young voters vote disproportionately vote for Democrats. That's just facts, unlike the "it was stolen!" nonsense we've had to listen to for 2+ years. Considering that these efforts are happening in strongly democratic locations and, from what I can tell, being pushed by people other than the 16-17 years olds for whom they're trying to help "develop healthy voting habits," it's hard not to view it as an effort to generate momentum to change voting practices in a way that disproportionately helps one party. That's not OK, even if it's the party I generally side with on most issues.
If you had 16 and 17 year old kids who were actively advocating for the ability to vote on a large scale, I would feel differently. But nothing I've seen so far seems to indicate that it's the kids who are the driving force behind the effort.
So I'd be no because of what implication it could have nationally and because its not from the teens themselves (primarily?)
But I have an article from as far back as 2006 about teens asking for the right to vote..in Cambridge.
Their readiness is just one of many reasons to adjust the electoral equation: Voting, not surprisingly, is habitual — start young and you’re more likely to keep doing it. Don’t vote young, and you’re less likely to vote as you get older. Research from Denmark suggests enfranchising the young is a twofer: Parents are more likely to go to the polls if their teens who live at home do.
There are arguments against giving 16-year-olds the vote, or more precisely one tired, old argument: They lack the experience and maturity of older voters. Really? You mean the same adults who have voted for deficit-exploding, inequity-expanding, discrimination-tolerating politicians? Accepted inaction on guns, a retreat on health care, and lower nutrition for the poor? Practiced puerile partisanship that would embarrass a teenager? Could young voters do any worse?
Unlike far too many adults, today’s high schoolers will turn out at the polls. They do in countries like Argentina, Austria, and Brazil, which allow 16-year-olds to vote. Participation in those places among younger voters is generally higher, sometimes significantly so, than among their 18 to 21-year-old compatriots. In an independence referendum in Scotland in 2014, where 16- and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote, 75 percent exercised their right. On this side of the Atlantic, turnout for midterm elections just two months later by those 18 and older was 36 percent, the lowest in 70 years. Did I ask, could kid voters do any worse?
I’ve never been accused of being ahead of any curve, but as a Cambridge city councilor in 2000, I proposed lowering the voting age to 16 in school committee elections. Like most of what I championed in my one term, it went nowhere. But after I was out of office, a proposal to let 17-year-olds vote passed 8 to 1, thanks to the advocacy of students at Cambridge Rindge and Latin. The home rule petition died on Beacon Hill.
So I'd be no because of what implication it could have nationally and because its not from the teens themselves (primarily?)
But I have an article from as far back as 2006 about teens asking for the right to vote..in Cambridge
Yeah, I think the fact that it's not a large, concerted effort among the teens themselves matters quite a bit. There is no way that an adult, Democrat-driven effort to literally move the goalposts on the voting age in a way that would clearly give a much greater advantage to their party goes over well with about 50% of the country. It's exactly the type of move that fuels rhetoric about "cheating" and "stealing," and we've seen that that same rhetoric is pretty effective.
It's drastically easier to justify a push to lower the the voting age if you have a large, unified, and vocal contingent of 16 and 17 year-olds across the country demanding it. And while I appreciate the article from 2006 where 80 kids cheered for one kid making an effort, that's hardly what I call large, unified, or even really vocal. From your article:
Such things might not matter to most teenagers. The 26th Ammendment says they can't vote until they are 18. And few bother to fight it. Voter apathy, it seems, starts young.
That said, I think the ulterior motives behind this push (and similar ones elsewhere) are quite transparent and distasteful. Younger voters skew heavily towards democrats which is why these pushes are happening in heavily democratic areas and not in, say, deep-red, freedom-loving rural Montana where a 16 year old can already do quite a bit of "adult" stuff. It's an attempt to tip the scales in one party's favor and that understandably pisses people off. For that reason, I don't think I'd support this measure. If there was a swell of 16 and 17 year olds across the nation visibly advocating for their right to vote, I might feel differently. But this effort does not seem to be coming from that group in spite of all of the "empowerment" PR speak from the people trying to push it forward.
That was kinda my initial thought behind reading this news.
My earlier point was to stress that as a teenager, i was very much removed from politics and had no real understanding beyond a basic top level look at someone or an issue. I would really need to see proof that a large scale population of teens are interested in voting rights and can make informed decisions. Right now, i'm not seeing that and the push doesn't seem to be coming from that demographic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
re
