top of page
Search

A response to Forbes article "No, We Shouldn't Lower the Voting Age to 16"

  • Matilda
  • Sep 6, 2020
  • 8 min read

Updated: May 22, 2021

In this post, I've decided to do something slightly different than a usual blog post and analyze a Forbes article by David Davenport that I don't agree with, on the proposed suffrage of 16-and-17-year-olds. I'll quote the entire article, periodically commenting and pointing out some holes in his arguments. Please leave a comment if you see any in mine.

Here we go:


"Ever on the bleeding edge of change,"


We see here an implicit allusion to the phrase "bleeding heart liberals," used to refer to people the much of the political right believes are over-sympathetic towards the exploited.


"San Francisco is placing a measure on the November ballot to allow 16-year-olds to vote. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi can barely contain her enthusiasm, 'because when kids are in school, they're so interested, they're so engaged'. Tell that to teachers whose students, according to surveys, don't know their U.S. senator or how to amend the Constitution."


If students don't know these things, perhaps it would be best to educate them rather than silence them.


"Pelosi's real enthusiasm is more partisan, of course, since young people are frequently liberal until they start paying taxes and really have to deal with the government, which does not happen at 16."


People vote for many policies and politicians because they are not involved with the other side of the argument. Affluent white men, for example, might vote for laws that unfairly discriminate against lower-class people of colour, but that doesn't mean their voting rights should be taken away; they are citizens of the United States, too. It means they should learn about about the struggles and lives of the people their votes impact, as well as considering their own political standpoint. Since students and people under the age of 18 are significantly affected by the federal laws that are put into effect, it makes sense for them to vote for the politicians who can make them.


"I'm sorry but if having 16-year-olds in the voting booth is the answer to some civic problem we have, I guess I don't know what the question is."


Firstly, we can see that Davenport missed a comma. And to reply to his statement: there are many teenagers (and adults) who do believe our lack of suffrage is a problem, and since countries who allow people to vote are inherently democratic, it makes sense for society and the government to consider their opinions. So, although the man who wrote this article doesn't know what the problem is, I'd bet many teenagers would be happy to tell him that the governmental model on which America is based actually includes us, too.


"People point to voter turnout, but is simply adding more eligible voters the answer to civic malaise? One organization that supports this nationally, FairVote, says it will have a 'trickle-up effect,' getting parents more engaged. I suppose when my teenagers wanted to support Ralph Nader for president, it mildly engaged my ridicule instincts."


Okay, I've got a few things to say about this paragraph. Firstly, Davenport never actually addressed the counter-evidence he brought up. He just included a quip at the end, which is far from disproving FairVote's claim for trickle-up. Second, his quip didn't only involve ridiculing other people for their political stances, it engaged the "slippery slope" logical fallacy, which essentially plays to peoples' fear instinct. Davenport is trying to say that youth have radical political views, without actually providing any evidence. And although it's true that young people tend to be more left-leaning, perhaps that's because the political left has recently publicly focused on policies that improve their futures. Maybe this trend does not show that youth are stupid, or that we should be "ridiculed"; maybe it actually means that we're logical and smart.


"The last time the voting age was changed nationally was 1971, with the adoption of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution. With 18-year-olds fighting in Vietnam, it seemed wrong to say that they couldn't vote for national leaders until they were 21. In other words, there was some serious and logical reason to make the change, which doesn't seem evident here."


It's true that the Vietnam war draft contributed to lowering the voting age 50 years ago. It's also true that the Amendment was completely justified; the 18-year-olds who were being drafted into war had every right to have a part in choosing the leaders who declared war. But, using this logic, wouldn't it make sense to allow youth today to vote, too? Donald Trump is an elected leader who has failed to control a disease whose American casualties are well over double the amount of American soldiers killed in the entire Vietnam War. Ineffective and lax COVID-19 policies have caused permanent damage to our educations, a huge spike in adolescent mental health crises, and long-term. So, shouldn't the youth affected by this have a say in federal elections? Shouldn't we also have a say in dealing with other issues that directly affect us, such as climate change, and socioeconomic and racial inequalities?


"In fact, legal age thresholds have been going up, not down. The drinking age is 21, and the age when kids may drive a car without any conditions has now increased to 17 or 18 by most state laws, not 16. In other words, the law has moved toward greater maturity before responsibility, not less."


Unsafe driving and drinking are both issues that are heavily influenced by social pressure. While it may valid (although debatable) to claim that we shouldn't lower the drinking and driving ages, the voting age is a different deal. First, ballot boxes are purposely private, so that peer pressure plays as little role as possible in determining election results. I'll explain the second reason in response to Davenport's next statement.


"If it is a question of maturity, researches generally agree that the brain is still developing until the mid-20s, with moral reasoning and abstract though coming later in the cycle that previously thought."


Research has actually shown that cognitive development, especially in later childhood and adolescence, is largely impacted by social and economic environments and not as preordained as Davenport may believe. Also, people's ability for "cold cognition"—rational and logical thinking—is extremely close to its peak at age 16, according to the Institute of Child Development at the University of Minnesota, which used two executive function examinations to test people from age 8 to 80. In contrast, by age 49, participants' average test score was actually lower than that of 12-year-olds.


"Perhaps it should also be a question of having a real stake in the process—such as serving in the military (age 18, or 17 with parental consent) or writing a check to the government to pay your taxes."


To address the first part of the sentence, "having a real stake in the process," I'll remind you of my points about climate change and systematic racism. But also, if we're talking about the United States' four-year presidential term, 16-year-olds will be 20 by the time they get a say in elections again. 17-year-olds will be 21.


"Or, how about requiring younger voters to pass the citizenship test as an incentive and qualifier, tying civic engagement with civic education?"


This is not a bad idea, but there are two things I'd like to bring up: First, if we're going to implement the idea of a citizenship test before voting, why shouldn't we require everyone to take it? I'd be willing to bet that there are many adults who are less educated in civic issues than certain youth are. And secondly, the effectiveness and reliability of the U.S.'s current naturalization test are questionable. If we can fix the issues with the test and implement it with all voters, then sure.


"In fairness, there is not exactly a stampede in favor of lowering the voting age, though [the movement] is certainly taking place. Two cities in Maryland—Takoma Park (population 10,000) and Hyattsville (population 18,000)—have lowered the voting age to 16 for municipal elections only. In the primaries, 22 states allow 17-year-olds to vote if they will turn 18 prior to the general election in the fall. I suppose this makes some sense, allowing the same voters to narrow the field who will ultimately choose the winner."


This does make sense, but it is not enough. If 16-year-olds are able to vote in municipal elections in Takoma Park and Hyattsville, where the current mayors both seem like responsible people, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote in federal ones?


"Lowering the voting age is tricky under the law. The federal law allows it, since the wording of the 26th Amendment provides that citizens over 18 may not be denied the right to vote based on age. Arguably the Constitution could again be amended to change the age to 16, though the bar for such amendments is high, requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures to approve. The real locus for change, however, would be in state legislatures, since the states basically control elections under the Constitution. Efforts by cities to such as San Francisco and the two cities in Maryland can only affect their own municipal elections, which are likely to be of limited interest to teenagers, just as they tend to be for other voters."


This paragraph focuses on supposed infeasibility of lowering the voting age. But just because something seems unlikely or "tricky," doesn't mean it should not be attempted or accomplished. In the foundation of the United States of America, it was thought of as unlikely that the States would have a successful revolution. In 1950s America, it was unimaginable to some that Black people and other people of colour could go to the same schools and eat at the same diners as their white counterparts. Globalization and an international organization like the UN would seem preposterous to an average person at the turn of the 20th century. Change is always possible, even if it seems challenging.


"I think Major League Baseball replay reviews have a good standard for changing things like the voting age. Unless the review shows "indisputable video evidence" that the play on the field was called incorrectly, the call stands. OK, maybe we don't need 'indisputable' evidence, but how about some evidence that we need or even want 16-year-olds voting? It's just not there."


Well, actually, it is. Democracy is founded on the concept of the "will of the people". In fact, Merriam-Webster defines it as a "government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". By definition, a "free election" is an election in which the will and interests of the people, all the people, are fairly and justly accounted for. The interests of youth included.



sources










  • Winke, Paula. “Investigating the Reliability of the Civics Component of the U.S. Naturalization Test.” Michigan State University, 2011.



Comments

bottom of page