found online by Raymond
From Jonathan Bernstein:
A once-fringe idea is creeping into mainstream politics. Democracy will only benefit.
I’ve been writing about the benefits of a lower voting age for years, but I always thought it was a theoretical question. No longer. On Thursday, the House actually held a vote on reducing the minimum age for federal elections, to 16 from 18. Although it didn’t come close to winning, a slim majority of House Democrats (and a lone Republican) went on record in support of the change.
Wow.
(Additionally, 16-year-olds have to live with the consequences of elections much longer than older people.)
I’m not convinced. It’s true that many people who are allowed to vote are irresponsible and/or mentally undeveloped or deteriorating, so it’s a weak primary justification for denying voting rights to younger people. But we can say the same thing about 14-year-olds and 12-year-olds.
We need some sort of standard, even if it’s imperfect. 18 is a good fit because it usually marks the end of high school education and the beginning of adulthood or aspects of it, such as having a proper job (or preparing for one through college) or living alone. What alternatives would we use? Employment? Property ownership? An inevitably controversial competency test?
For now, at least, it’s a moot point. Even Republicans who are OK with the idea in theory wouldn’t support it because it would help Democrats.