Should children have the right to vote?

An argument you might make against juvenile suffrage is that the current system protects children from politics. It's not simply that they'd vote the way their parents wanted them to, thus slanting the outcome, it's that they'd be targeted by political pressure --- from their parents, teachers, peers, and the media --- in ways that they aren't today.

I have always believed that if you are forced to pay taxes then you must be given the right to vote. I thought it was incredulous that at 16 I was required to pay taxes yet unable to vote or influence where my money would go.

I'm not quite sure i agree with it, but it's worth at least thinking about the converse of this argument:<p>Perhaps we let too many people vote already? The average American isn't just a little uninformed, but is <i>provably wrong</i> about a number of issues, like what the government spends its money on, who holds the power to do various things, and the resources and governments of our neighbors. Heck, I'd bet that a non-zero percentage of voters don't even understand how the marginal tax rate works.<p>We don't let unqualified people fix our cars, work in our hospitals, or teach our kids, so why should they have the ability to make our political decisions?<p>Society has plenty of ways to accredit people to be 'knowledgeable' about these subjects (Basic civics test -&#62; high school diploma -&#62; college degree -&#62; Degree in econ/poli sci -&#62; masters -&#62; phd, or perhaps business owners, workers in gov't service, etc).<p>We already treat voting as a privilege, not a right, (It can be taken away, as with felons) why not weight votes based on your investment in learning??<p>Obviously this plan is harebrained in that it would massively disadvantage everyone other than upper class white people, and probably lead to a civil war, but it's interesting to think that voting is probably the one place in society where are an objectively recognized expert in the field (I'm thinking more on the Econ side than the Poli Sci side) has exactly the same say as someone who just picks one at random.<p>The whole idea that some privileged group has the ability to say whether I can vote makes me a little uneasy, so personally I think I'd give a firm no to the idea.<p>If you're interested in the idea, the economist Bryan Caplan wrote a book called 'The Myth of the Rational Voter' that discusses the common fallacies and provides hard evidence. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691138737?tag=bryacaplwebp-20&#38;camp=0&#38;creative=0&#38;linkCode=as1&#38;creativeASIN=0691129428&#38;adid=15GADVSDGSTT9WGRE8F5&#38" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691138737?tag=bryacaplwebp-20&#38;...</a>;<p>He also has the single ugliest web page that i've ever seen for an academic (a high bar indeed): <a href="http://www.bcaplan.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bcaplan.com/</a>

Heck, I don't think many adults should have the right to vote. Democracy is irrational enough as a decision-making mechanism as is.<p>There is tension between a hypothesized universal "right" of voting and the use of voting as a real-world method of choosing people to govern a country in a wise manner.<p>You see this tension when, for example, the ACLU advocates for restoring voting rights to violent felons. Personally I think violent felons have showed remarkably below-average decision making capabilities and I don't see why they should have a voice in running the country. However the ACLU seems to think that removing their voting rights is an affront to human dignity.<p>For many, democracy has become religion. It is no longer presented as a wise way to run a country. It is simply the unquestionable, universal, and only morally correct method of running a country. That's a dangerously inflexible stasis point for our thoughts to settle in, but that's where we are.<p>I prefer to avoid discussions that focus on the moral dimensions of voting. I would rather discuss how different government schemes are likely to effect society's well-being. I find these discussions to be much less predictable and more interesting.<p>Now, a voting test might be a good idea, and I would love to see it applied to adults too. Who knows, it might even elevate the level of political debate in this country to the point where candidates actually discuss substantive policy ideas. Of course, it would only last until an election cycle where women or a minority racial group had a lower than average pass rate, then it would be deemed "evil" and scrapped.<p>A disclaimer: I got halfway through and stopped when I ran into the giant pile of steaming kneejerk partisan assumptions (Oh look. A "George Bush is evil" quip. How original. Did it take a physicist to come up with that?). I'm bored and disgusted by this level of thinking, and I was somewhat surprised to see it from someone who argued so intelligently up to that point. So, if there is anything interesting after that segment, I missed it.

I think a better question is how can we send our "kids" to die for our country when they can't drink or gamble.

in a word: no. Rights and responsibility are 2 sides of the same coin. Since there isn't really a good test for responsibility (unless you're willing to have marriage or land ownership be qualifications for voting), then age is all we've got as a marker for responsibility. Probably unfair to a great many responsible children, but better than the alternative.

I wouldn't mind an 'earned franchise' for children several years younger than 18, perhaps as young as 12. It could also be partial: only on a subset of offices (such as lower houses, city councils, and school boards).<p>And any problems from early voters being especially shallow or manipulated by others would be offset, in the long run, by, these same voters in their 20s already having a deeper understanding of the process. A 20something voter with 10+ years of perspective would be better than today's 20something voters.<p>But I would worry about the combination of public schools and voting children. The school itself would likely be a polling place, and the pressure to both vote and vote in ways the school establishment prefers would be very strong.<p>So I'd slot the 'teen franchise' somewhere a decade after 'diverse and mostly-privatized K-12 education' on the reform priority queue.

Interesting piece. It's been pretty clear to me that age doesn't maturity - having unique experiences in life causes maturity. The older you tend to get, the more unique experiences you tend to have. If you ever are fortunate enough to meet anyone who had to become a head of household at a young age, compare them against someone a few years older then them and see the results. When a boy or girl takes responsibility for younger siblings or a parent that can't function well as early as 14-16, they're a hell of a lot more mature at 18 than most people are at 25 when they're starting to get promoted out of entry level jobs. No doubt entrepreneurship, becoming a parent, traveling and/or immigrating, working, leading, managing, and so on add to maturity.<p>Regardless though, lowering the voting age won't make that much of a difference. The percent of young people that vote is already abysmal. Related note: Why don't we have a polling period that lasts at least a few days? Like Friday/Saturday/Sunday/Monday?

If you were running a company, would you give the same number of votes to newest hire in sales, as you would to the two founders? That would be insanity and would lead to a very dysfunctional company. No one would wish that management structure upon their worst competitor. But if you wouldn't run a company that way, why would you run a country that way?

This is a well argued essay promoting that children should be allow to vote, not on the basis of age, but by demonstrating a grasp of civics and government by examination, for example. I was skeptical, but he convinced me. If a kid learns how our government works and what civic responsibility means, why not? The incentive and prestige of early voting might lead to a more responsible populace. As he says, with educated children voting we might not have had Bush the Younger.

screw that, lets take away the ability to vote from adults who act like children. The founding fathers didn't limit voting to white male landowners purely for racist sexist reasons. Landowners have a vested interest in the long term productivity of their region, as well as having shown themselves to be productive enough to get the land in the first place. On top of that, who is most affected by taxes? Producers and landowners again.

If the kid has a part-time job - they have taxation without any form of representation - which has always seemed wrong to me.

Vaguely related: Newt Gingrich's ideas on 'ending adolescence':<p><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_45/b4107085289974.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_45/b41070852...</a><p>I suppose if you're doing serious paid work -- even as an apprentice -- at age 13, you should also have a full civic franchise at the same time.

Voted up for "merely politically impossible [...], rather than 2 to the politically impossible power."

I know how this argument would go if only parents could decide!<p>Remember that the point is for "universal sufferage". While some youngsters may be responsible enough to vote, I wouldn't trust democracy to most of them.

No, for the same reason children shouldn't have the right to enter legally binding contracts.<p>No pre-frontal cortex, no votey.

I've always thought they should lower suffrage to kids who can drive, but...it's not going to happen.

This past election was the first election in Austria in which 16-year-olds could vote.<p>All hell did not break loose.<p>The conservative candidate who actually reached out to the teens got more of their vote (surprise).<p>Of course, everyone's been angry with the liberals and socialists who did nothing but bicker until the coalition fell apart, so that may have something to do with it, too.

Let's remember this is written by the same fellow who is convinced that Euclidean quantum gravity is a dead end because he feels there is some fundamental (rather than emergent) property about time that makes it unique. The vast majority of people who have thought about this believe time to be emergent, not fundamental. Hell, the Hamiltonian function doesn't even have time as we know it. So in my opinion this individual has some serious credibility issues.<p>That said, he does make some good point on this particular issue about minor's rights. Maybe lower the voting age to 16? Like if you are old enough to drive, you are old enough to vote. Of course this would be good for the GOP since children engaged enough to vote at that age would often be copying their parents, who could be Rush Limbaugh "ditto-heads" or the like. Nevertheless, I would be open to allowing the voting age to be 16.<p>Still though it is astounding to me that people who think time is a fundamental property are taken seriously in academia. That is sooo 19th century. I really don't have the <i>time</i> for such folks.