A major American city may soon allow 16-year-olds to vote — and others could follow suit
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 4 years ago • 36 commentsBy: Haley Talbot and Julie Tsirkin
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
San Francisco residents will be casting ballots in November to determine not just who should be in the White House, but if the city should be allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections.
A similar measure introduced in 2016 narrowly failed with 48 percent of the vote, but local activists and organizers are confident that it will pass that this time.
"I really think that Vote 16 will help youth of color in San Francisco establish the habit of voting at an earlier age, and really provide them with the support and the resources that they need to continue building on that habit as they grow older," said Crystal Chan, an 18-year old organizer for Vote 16 SF who fought to get the measure on the ballot.
If the proposition passes, San Francisco would become the first major American city to give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in municipal elections. But the question remains: what would be improved by lowering the voting age by just two years?
"Research is clear on this, that voting is a habit. And 16 is a better time than 18 to establish that habit," Brandon Klugman, Vote 16's campaign manager, told NBC News. "Our motivation here first and foremost is to make sure that we put new voters in a position to establish that habit in the first election they're eligible for, and then to continue participating throughout their lives which is good for democracy on every level."
While this debate is getting renewed attention, some cities have allowed people as young as 16 to vote in local elections for years — like Takoma Park, Maryland, where city officials say they've seen positive results since its implementation in 2013, pointing to increased youth engagement and higher turnout.
"I hear from a lot of people around the country who are interested, a lot of young people but also people who are not young, who are interested in adopting this in their communities," said Jessie Carpenter, a Takoma Park city clerk.
At the federal level, lowering the voting age has not picked up the same traction, but the initiative does have some bipartisan support in the halls of Congress.
Congresswoman Grace Meng, D-NY, has long advocated for the issue and introduced a constitutional amendment in 2018 to lower the voting age nationwide to 16.
"I'm always inspired by our nation's youth who have demonstrated wisdom, maturity and passion on issues like social justice, gun control, and climate change," Meng said in a statement. "They are the leaders of our future and the decisions we make impact their lives every day. To capture their views and experiences, we must lower the voting age to 16 in all elections."
Rep Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., introduced an amendment to HR 1 — the For the People Act — in 2019, to lower the federal voting age to 16. The amendment received 126 votes including one Republican, Texas Rep. Michael Burgess, a member of the Rules Committee who said it struck a chord with him.
"Here's the point: would policymakers pay more attention to the problems that are being dealt to this segment of the demographic if policymakers were actually answerable to them? I think it is worth having the discussion," Burgess said in March of 2019.
The movement also garnered mainstream support including from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-Calif., who has long supported the idea.
"I think it's really important to capture kids when they're in high school, when they're interested in all of this, when they're learning about government, to be able to vote," Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, said in March of 2019.
Skeptics argue that 16-year-olds are not mature or informed enough to cast a ballot and that the policy could be inconsistent with other age-related requirements in the United States.
Nate Hochman, a senior at Colorado College and Republican Activist, doesn't support the initiative to lower the voting age, citing multiple reasons including whether young people have enough experience in "understanding exactly what good governance looks like" within their communities.
"Sixteen-year-olds — they're sophomores, juniors in high school like they're deeply impressionable. They're largely interested in learning what, you know, their friends are doing and appearing to be cool. And they're not capable of making completely rational decisions about voting," Hochman said. "When are you an adult? When do we trust you to make your own decisions about who you are in the world and making your own way?"
As was the case in recent years with gun safety advocacy and climate change, Klugman believes that the coronavirus pandemic lends urgency to the need for young people to have a say in local elections.
"We've seen the concrete effects that local policy decisions make on the lives of young people really more clearly than ever as school boards and local officials figure out how they're gonna reopen schools… how they're going to make sure that young people have access to remote learning and the achievement gap doesn't widen."
While Klugman is optimistic that support for the movement will continue to grow at the local level, he looks forward to it someday becoming the law of the land.
"I think we're just getting the conversation started here, and hopefully, when we look back a few decades down the road, we'll say hey, that actually was inevitable — even though it started off as something that was seen as pretty new and pretty bold."
Tags
Who is online
507 visitors
I used to think that sixteen-year-olds were too inexperienced. That their inexperience would keep them from distinguishing truth from bullshit.
Now we see that age and experience in no way ensure rational thought. Lots of seniors deny reality.
So.... why not get the kids involved?
Maybe because it's a bad idea?
Maybe.
What is your opinion?
How do you defend it?
Kids are generally not mature or intelligent enough at that age to take such matters seriously. They are probably less likely to examine a candidate and the issues rationally or logically and may be more prone to going by whatever their friends or parents tell them. Granted, that also seems to apply to many adults nowadays too. Kids at 16 are probably more interested on getting laid than politics. They may not even have taken a basic civics course in school.
Probably? I know for sure that's true. I have a 19 and 17 year old under my roof.
I used to think that way... but now... when I observe the foolishness of our adults... even our seniors... I have to wonder if teens wouldn't do less poorly.
I'm not convinced teens would do better. So no need to add to the mess.
Numerous people on both sides of the aisle simply vote a straight party ticket. No investigation of the people other than to see if there is a R or a D after the name. And skeptics argue that 16-year-olds are not mature or informed. What a frickin joke.
Leave it to San Francisco to come up with a lame idea like this!
Why do you think it's lame?
Because, in my personal opinion, 16 years old is far too young a age to vote responsibly, and San Francisco and California in general with it's leftist liberal mindset in general are the ones most likely to come up with something like this. Not to mention the increase in the Democrat's voter base. Again, just my opinion for whatever it is or is not worth
I used to think that same about maturity... but when people our age can disagree so profoundly, I have to wonder if the age of wisdom isn't perhaps death.
I happen to agree with you. Plus, the public education system is a Democratic animal. It pumps out a large amount of functional idiots, by design, who have been indoctrinated into the leftist's ideologies. Basically, whatever makes them feel good, no rational thought needed.
This country, in my opinion, is heading toward being dominated by Democrats for whatever few years this country has left. Allowing 16 year old children, who have no life experience and have been taught not to think, but instead just feel, will make it happen a little bit faster.
Unless Trump's loyalist "law enforcement" tramples the law to keep him in office.
Possible, I suppose, but unlikely. I think too many on the Right, and rightly so, would object to keeping Trump in office if he legitimately lost. Just the way we are.
But, really, the biggest reason I think we're headed for a future dominated by Democrats is that the Bible more or less says it will be so. Satan will deceive the nations. You Dems seem to be making that a reality just as fast as you possibly can. There's no such thing as objective morality. Morality is whatever you want it to be. Or so seems to be the Democratic position. Support anyone who believes anything they want to be true. Everyone has the right to be god of their own life. I would guess such a position fits right in with your religious beliefs.
Wow...
Just wow.
Really? The bible says Democrats will dominate? Wow indeed. Well if you really believe that, then you should vote & cheer Democrat, as that plays right into your bible story which also means the return of your Jesus friend. But you are correct about 1 thing. There is no such thing as objective morality, as morality is subjective.
Yes, I would agree.
Yes, I suppose lowering the voting age could establish a lifelong habit of voting. But that would be coupled with establishing other lifelong habits of political biases, prejudices, and divisions.
The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 by the 26th amendment, ratified in 1971. How has that affected politics in the United States? Did lowering the voting age make the country less divided or more divided?
The argument put forward is that lowering the voting age would make elected officials more accountable to younger constituents. But that argument isn't supported by what has happened with college education (an important influence for the 18 year old constituency). In fact, it can be argued that political pandering to to voters preparing to enter college has almost destroyed the value of higher education. The political promises were to make higher education more accessible. The promise was to go to college - a miracle occurs - and graduates would have better jobs, higher income, more economic security in old age. How has that worked out?
It's easy to politically appeal to youth's individual self-interest by promising a future that only requires voting. But one consequence is that the individual self-interest of youth becomes a life long habit that will extend beyond politics.
You mean this wouldn't help the entitlement mindset? \s
I think the key word here is LOCAL, now what the proposition deems as a local election could be simply within the city district , it doesnt say anything about state level representation so they likely wont be voting for anything more than local politicians and school board members and the like., and it would not apply to federal level elections since the min age has already been established for that and i doubt that will be changed anytime soon.
actually , i dont think its really a bad idea to get younger voters introduced to voting on local issues , and stressing how important voting actually CAN be .
First it is very wrong that you can't legally drink at 18 or purchase other items but can vote, either you you are a full adult at 18 or wait till 21, enough of this half rights stuff
Vote at 16 then full adult rights and responsibilities; smoking, drinking, age of consent, join the military, get married, adult jail if convicted of a crime, buy a gun of any legal type, ect ect
But at 18, you're old enough to join the military and die for your country. But you can't drink? Something not quite right about that.
Funny, I remember running into that same conundrum in the early 70;s when I joined the Navy. It was okay if you were on a military base overseas, but when you came back to "the world" it was a whole different ball game. I remember getting thrown out of more than one bar when I came back to CONUS (Continental United States).
I know, right? There's something not quite right about that.
21 for beer is just stupid
We accrue rights as we grow up. Children are not apt at everything an adult does.
Aptitude for this or that doesn't all arrive at the same time. Education and physiology arrive gradually. They aren't synchronized. Much of "becoming an adult" is just acquiring experience.
From what I researched, it is a pre registration to vote at 18.
I have a 19 year old and a 17 year old living in my home and they both said that in regards to voting, they're not informed enough nor are they ready for the responsibility yet. This is not me speaking, it's them.
I take issue with MI state legislature changing the age of tobacco [or other nicotine products] purchase age to 21, but there are some that want to change the voting age to 16? What kind of sense is that? They're not mature enough at 18 to decide whether or not to purchase tobacco or tobacco products or anything containing nicotine or to purchase alcohol in any form, but they are mature enough to decide who should be in office at 16? And at 18, they're mature enough to decide they are willing to die for our country but not mature enough to purchase and own their own firearm? Seriously... this is pure insanity. Either make everything 18 or make everything 21. My vote would be for the latter personally; can't join the military, purchase tobacco, firearms, alcohol, or vote until the age of 21.
16 year olds don't have enough sense to use deodorant and shower regularly or do any chores without being told to 5 times; do you really think they're ready to vote?
Not in favor of 16 yr olds voting. IMO they would be considerably more likely to vote for a candidate for trivial or irrelevant reasons. Not that adults are immune to that, but it would be much more prevalent with 16 and 17 year olds.
Wow... JR, we're in agreement on this topic too! We're on a roll!
Why does anyone vote for Donald Trump? Would children be less wise?