Teen voters

[cyndilouwhoo]

The Cambridge City Council is now voting on whether or not to allow 16 & 17 year olds the right to vote in local races .

If the measure as proposed passes, Cambridge will be the only municipality in the US to afford kids this privilege.

What do you think?

Cyndi

[poseidon]

I still think that there should be a test showing that someone understands the political process and has some insight as to what the race is about before anyone of any age should be allowed to vote.

But then again, that's just me...

[magenta321]

Well... erm...

I think it could be a good thing. If they felt priveledged to vote, I bet they would be out in droves. Also, schools could take the issues up as a really good life lesson. I mean, lets face it, how many adults even know what is going on in local races? I bet you it is a pretty low number.

I say this even though I fear those kiddies will mostly be liberals, and will counteract my votes (lol, at least it's over there, and not in my backyard, so they can go ahead with it )

[KateTPZ]

I don't like the idea. I agree with Jeff - I wish there was a requirement that a voter know the issues and something about the candidates (beyond "I've heard his name" or "He looks like a nice guy" or even worse, "I heard about all the bad things he did on those commercials") before being permitted to vote. I don't see any reason to allow those under 18 to vote.

We have "Kids Voting" here - a separate voting "booth" and ballot for kids - the schools encourage participation, talk about the issues and candidates. I think it's a good introduction to the process and, here at least, it has resulted in some adults voting who wouldn't otherwisee. (Nothing like pressure from the kiddies!)

[cyndilouwhoo]

So do we require a test for everyone--or just those between 16 & 17?

Cyndi

[bermudabum]

Until classified as adults, be it by court decision or comming of age I don't need children who don't either know the process or the true reasons for voting one way or another dictating to me with their new found voice as voters before they can even be held accountable for their own actions.

A test is unrealistic since for one it would cost to administer it and two would be a tediously grueling effort to even bring into effect. Now if the school systems were to pass us into adulthood and thereby be held accountable for the youths till then, both legally and morally they could administer the tests but you would be surprised by how many adults would fail. People passed over by the systems that were in place while they were being educated. Some people currently voting surely could use some political education but even still as responsible adults are at least held accountable for their own actions.

[poseidon]

Originally posted by cyndilouwhoo
So do we require a test for everyone--or just those between 16 & 17?

Cyndi

I'm for testing the masses...

[erik_kosberg]

Testing would be the new poll tax. Large numbers of poor people (a significant percentage of them with dark skin) would fail the test. The upper classes would pass the test with flying colors. But it doesn’t really matter; any attempt to impose testing would be ripped to shreds by the court system as blatantly unconstitutional.

[cristina1]

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
Testing would be the new poll tax. Large numbers of poor people (a significant percentage of them with dark skin) would fail the test. The upper classes would pass the test with flying colors. But it doesn’t really matter; any attempt to impose testing would be ripped to shreds by the court system as blatantly unconstitutional.

It wouldnt matter about class or race - it would end up being a democrat vs republican thing. Who would be grading the tests? In heavily populated ares with D's, the R's would more than likely fail and vice versa.

Let's face it, the two parties had a hard enough time just COUNTING together and having consistent standards on what the chad should look like. What would they do with a test?

[poseidon]

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
Testing would be the new poll tax. Large numbers of poor people (a significant percentage of them with dark skin) would fail the test. The upper classes would pass the test with flying colors. But it doesn’t really matter; any attempt to impose testing would be ripped to shreds by the court system as blatantly unconstitutional.

Erik, I think you're all wet. What, you're saying that blacks are stupid? Or that they don't pay attention to politics? I've got to disagree.

And what's left? Having a "leader" of a group tell someone how to vote? That's better? How?

I'd rather have less people voting and have them be informed more than I'd want the masses voting for stuff they don't give a damn about and don't have the first inkling of knowledge about.

But, you are right on one point, that the Supremes would knock that down in a second. I was just making a point of what my wish list would be -- and it has nothing to do with economics.

Cristina,

I don't think it would have to be that complicated of a test. I'm not suggesting that people be political analysts or anything of that nature. I'm just asking that they demonstrate some semblance of knowing something about the election, instead of "Gee that guy has a real nice smile, while that other guy has thinning hair so I won't vote for him."

Jeff

[Redlass]

Since 16 and 17 year olds are tried as adults when they commit crimes, made to pay traffic tickets like the rest of us, and are at risk for drafts at age 18 for events that probably took place when they were 16 or 17 (or, at least, the politicians that were voted in when they were 16 and 17 are the ones making the decisions when they turn 18), I see no problem with them voting.

Now, if we're willing to start treating 16 and 17 year olds like juveniles again--making them exempt from trials as an adult--then sure, keep from them the right to vote.

[erik_kosberg]

That’s not at all what I said or implied. I’m saying that the effect of testing would be the same as a poll tax — large numbers of poor people with dark skin would be excluded from the voting rolls.

What, you're saying that blacks are stupid? Or that they don't pay attention to politics?

[cristina1]

Originally posted by poseidon


Cristina,

I don't think it would have to be that complicated of a test. I'm not suggesting that people be political analysts or anything of that nature. I'm just asking that they demonstrate some semblance of knowing something about the election, instead of "Gee that guy has a real nice smile, while that other guy has thinning hair so I won't vote for him."

Jeff

I know what you meant, but hey, I would rather someone use the "He has great eyes" excuse over "I dunno. I just voted that way." LMAO At least it is a reason.

What I would like to see (if we can dream here) is abolishing the parties totally and then maybe people would actually have to listen to the candidates and choose someone to vote for.

[cyndilouwhoo]

But not maybe for all the reasons she articulated...

I'd point out (politely of course ) that you know you're getting old when you start implying that those damn kids would just screw up the works if they got to vote--and besides they don't know a damn thing about politics anyway--too busy blasting that damn Eminem and blabbing away on AIM .

I have to laugh at how crusty we've all gotten in our old age

I know a whole slew of thoughtful, well-read and informed 16 & 17 year old kids who could run rings around most of us in terms of issues, both local and national.

I think we forget how smart kids are (mostly because they are so surly and uncommunicative most of the time )

I was actually for passage of the measure, btw.

But then again I spent ten years in Cambridge and must therefore plead guilty to being brainwashed by the great liberal conspiracy.

As an aside, the measure failed by a vote of 6-3.

I would bet that it failed for the reason Magenta articulated. Kids are so much more idealistic (read: Liberal) than their cranky adult peers. I would wager that this might have something to do with it. From what I recall from living in the People's Republic, there are only 2 conservatives in the entire city.

Cyndi

[poseidon]

That’s not at all what I said or implied. I’m saying that the effect of testing would be the same as a poll tax — large numbers of poor people with dark skin would be excluded from the voting rolls.

Erik,

Perhaps I'm the stupid one here, but I can't for the life of me figure out how 1+1=2 here. So, if you could kindly elaborate, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Jeff

[kurt_messick]

Several issues are at play in this strand.

I wonder if these kinds of issues were brought up when the voting age was lowered to 18? After all, 18 is still not considered fully adult -- perhaps only those old enough to run for a particular office should be permitted to vote for that office?

You have to be 25 to be able to vote for Representatives
You have to be 30 to be able to vote for Senator
You have to be 35 to be able to vote for President, etc.

Every age at some point is going to be an arbitrary decision. Rather like the drinking age -- 18? 21? At what point to do people become truly adult? Didn't Foucault say it was age 40?

On the issue of testing, that has been done before in this country (literacy tests, for example), with rather painful effects, usually blatantly attempting to exclude some percentage of the populace. Any testing system would be subject to some kind of abuse. It isn't good enough to talk about constitutional issues, because often the local political situation has shifted long before the Supremes get around to fixing the problem.


As far as the relative intelligence and maturity of 16-17 year olds, hmmm, I'm more inclined to permit them to vote (that will probably do negligible harm, if any) than to drive a car, truck, or motorcycle (that may in fact kill me!). But then, I didn't learn to drive until I was 22, and I was voting at 18.

[erik_kosberg]

Any written test will have some inherent biases. People who are dyslexic would have a hard time with a written test regardless of how “well informed” they were. People who were poor readers and/or poorly educated would have a hard time passing the test regardless of how “well informed” they were. Citizens who didn’t speak English fluently would have a hard time passing the test regardless of how “well informed” they were. Why should those people be excluded from voting? Any written test has some cultural biases built into it. Who gets to write these tests to determine who gets to vote? Wouldn’t it be extremely likely that the answer would be a bunch of middle- and upper-class people with relatively little melanin? What cultural baggage would they bring along with them? Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. If lawyers with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund got to write the test and the questions were largely about W.E.B. Du Bois, Paul Robeson, and the history of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, how many middle- and upper-class people with relatively little melanin would pass the test and be able to vote?

The effect of the poll tax was to deprive poor (often dark-skinned) people of the right to vote. The effect of a voting test would be the same.

Perhaps I'm the stupid one here, but I can't for the life of me figure out how 1+1=2 here. So, if you could kindly elaborate, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[poseidon]

If the lawyers with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund got to write the test and the questions were largly about W.E.B. Du Bois, Paul Robeson, and the history of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, how many middle and upper-class people with relatively little melanin would pass the test and be able to vote?

But Erik, what does any of that have to do with the general idea of voting and basic voting issues? Absolutely nothing.

As far as the other concerns are -- those who can't read... last time I checked, voting was a written test. There's no oral exam as far as I'm aware. If you can't read, how can you possibly read a ballot? How can you possibly vote on a referendum that affects the rest of the citizenry? Because the person who drove you to the poll said "When you see a 'D' pull that lever?" Should those people really be voting and making decisions that affect the future of this nation?

As far as the questions, I suppose if the ballots are in different languages (and frankly I don't know if they are or not) then the tests can be offered in those languages as well.

I don't see how asking someone some very basic questions is going to adversely affect people of varying skin colors or cultural extractions.

[erik_kosberg]

But who gets to decide what those “very basic questions” are? That’s the whole point of what I’m saying. What you think of as basic is by no means necessarily the same as what someone else thinks is basic.

It’s quite possible to be able to read well enough to recognize a candidate’s name without being able to able to read well enough to pass a test. Why is that citizen’s vote less important than yours?

Again, the effect would be the same as for the poll tax. Poor people would fail the test much more often than middle- and upper-class people. And yes, those people really should be voting and making decisions that affect the future of this nation. Isn’t it their nation too?

[poseidon]

I don't know Erik, who decides the referendum questions that people have to vote on? The question is usually presented and the County Clerk or Secretary of State decides. Let them decide what's fair and what's not.

But I disagree with you on almost every other point you're making.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

[amykhar]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have two points to make.

1) I believe testing WAS in place around the reconstruction era for the sole reason of excluding former slaves. Testing was deemed unconstitutional. (This is something I remember from history class not 100% sure)

2) voters don't have to read now to be able to vote. There are people at every polling station who are there to help voters who need it. This includes reading the ballot.

Amy

[amykhar]

I just found this document which speaks of the literacy testing enacted to keep blacks from voting.

http://www.leadership.opm.gov/consti.../ConLit-IV.pdf

[poseidon]

Amy,

Those tests were, according to this article, set up to specifically exclude blacks (free and slaves) from voting. Whites were excluded from taking the test, and the tests were administered many times in a foreign language.

Christ Almighty -- that's a far different cry from what I'm proposing!

Also, on point #2, I don't know if that's true or not. My guess would be that it isn't, only because it violates the notion of a secret ballot. The secret ballot idea is paramount to nearly every other notion when something has been suggested to improve voting, etc.

Jeff

[amykhar]

I just called our voter registration office.

1) voters CAN request assistance reading the ballot. They simply have a request on file with their voter registration.

2) testing is unconstitutional for the reasons that Erik and I outlined above. It is impossible to construct a test that would not unfairly exclude some voters.

Amy