March 9, 2004

LOWER IT? THEY OUGHTTA RAISE IT (via John Resnick):

California lawmakers propose lowering voting age to 14 for state elections (JIM WASSERMAN, March 8, 2004 , Associated Press)

A proposed amendment to California's constitution would give 16-year-olds a half-vote and 14-year-olds a quarter-vote in state elections.

State Sen. John Vasconcellos, among four lawmakers to propose the idea on Monday, said the Internet, cellular phones, multichannel television and a diverse society makes today's teens better informed than their predecessors.

The idea requires two-thirds approval by the Legislature to appear on the November ballot.

"When we gave the vote to those who didn't own property, then to women, then to persons of all colors, we added to the richness of our democratic dialogue and our own nation's integrity and its model for the world," Vasconcellos said, calling it time to further extend the vote.


Why compound past errors? At the very least there should be a modern version of a property test--a minimal level of taxes that someone has to pay, after subtracting monies received from the government, before they can vote.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 9, 2004 8:39 PM
Comments

1/4 vote for a 14 year old? Er, isn't this an equal protection violation?

Not to mention less than half-baked.

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at March 9, 2004 9:00 PM

Bruce:

I bet the dude was fully baked when he thought of it...

Posted by: oj at March 9, 2004 9:08 PM

If the voting age is going to be lowered to 16, maybe the voting system should mimic getting a driver's license.

Your first time voting is strictly probationary.

You must pass a test demonstrating basic voting competency (including a test of "parallel balloting," i.e. discriminating between names on a Florida-style ballot).

You must carry voter's insurance, so that if you vote for something really stupid, the state will have enough money to bail itself out of trouble.

Posted by: R.W. at March 9, 2004 9:28 PM

How many fourteen year olds would actually vote ?
They can't even drive to the polling location.

Now multiply by a quarter, and statewide, you get... What ?
1,000 votes ?

This might decide close elections in really, really tiny local elections, where an extra ten votes actually counts, but otherwise, it's strictly feelgood.

Except, of course, for the administrative costs.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 9, 2004 9:38 PM

It's time to recover the original intent of the Second Amendment, and make sure everyone with the right to vote can bear arms. After California teachers experience a classroom of 14-year-olds with .38s, they'll get the voting age increased.

Posted by: pj at March 9, 2004 10:08 PM

1. A net worth of $1 should be the minimum requirement. You start adulthood worth $0, so it should only take 10 minutes to qualify. Better make sure you make a down payment on the car, and don't finance college on a loan, though.

2. There should be one single age of majority. Sex, marriage, debt, contracts, firearms purchases, military enlistment, alcohol, voting - one single age for all of them. We can argue abouth whether it should be 18, 21, or somewhere in between. I don't think over 5% would put it at 14.

Posted by: Keith at March 9, 2004 11:18 PM

"after subtracting monies received from the government", including wages, one would hope. This scheme would prevent abuse of the political system by government employes.

Posted by: Uncle Bill at March 10, 2004 9:09 AM

Unc:

Precisely.

Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 9:15 AM

Anybody remember the movie Wild in the Streets?

FOURTEEN OR FIGHT!

Posted by: Ken at March 10, 2004 12:33 PM

Raise voting and majority to 21, driving to 18, lower beer and wine to 14 other liquor to 16.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 10, 2004 2:33 PM

And the age of consensual sex to...?

Posted by: Peter B at March 10, 2004 2:36 PM

Peter B:

10

Robert:

There's a very good reason that the drinking age was raised to 21: Research shows that 18 year olds do far more crazy and risky stuff while drinking than 21 year olds do.

Considering how stupid college kids get while drinking, maybe we should raise the age for liquor to 25.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 10, 2004 6:28 PM

Michael:

The driving age should be raised, not the drinking age.

Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 11:00 PM

"State Sen. John Vasconcellos, among four lawmakers to propose the idea on Monday, said the Internet, cellular phones, multichannel television and a diverse society makes today's teens better informed than their predecessors."

Better informed? Yea, about who's dating Britney Spears maybe. What a crock! Teens don't use these things to inform themselves, they are toys. The average teen today couldn't locate his ass on a map of his ass.

""When we gave the vote to those who didn't own property, then to women, then to persons of all colors, we added to the richness of our democratic dialogue and our own nation's integrity and its model for the world" Vasconcellos said, calling it time to further extend the vote."

No, the vote went to persons of all colors, and then to women. He doesn't even know his history.

Beware of any justification using weasel words like "richness" and "dialogue".

Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 12, 2004 11:10 AM
« THE RECORDING INDUSTRY: | Main | IS OUR PUNDITS LEARNING?: »