Comments on: Give children the right to vote?

By: mef

mef — Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:12:38 +0000

There’s a fundamental contradiction here. If we say children’s interests aren’t represented in the electoral system—as I’ve heard it represented, the politicans don’t have to address issues that effect children because children don’t vote—we must be assuming that their parents aren’t taking the children’s best interest into account when voting (and that childless adults don’t care either). But if we redress this by giving children the vote via their parents, these votes will be cast by the people we’ve just assumed aren’t voting in the children’s best interests under the current system. Do people REALLY think that, as it is, adults (with children or without) don’t already vote with the knowledge that schools, social services, child welfare programs and the like, are not important? And it’s not as if they’re discussing giving the vote to children only on issues of direct bearing on the lives of children. What does a 2-year-old think about the death penalty? I don’t know, let’s give his parents an extra vote and see what they think. By the way—when the parents split up, who gets custody of the child’s vote? And finally, in my own family, all of us in the younger generation are flaming liberals, while the older generation votes straight Republican every time. I can think of little that would be less in my interest than watching, as a 16 or 17 year old, my parents cast “my” vote for Bush instead of Gore, as they certainly would have done. By the way—they would be voting that way because they thought it was in my best interest; if parents (and childless adults) are already voting for what they believe to be best for children, there goes the original premise, that children’s interests aren’t be looked after already by parents who consider issues of interest to children when casting their OWN votes.

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Mon, 01 Sep 2003 13:19:45 +0000

How about a vote for dead people? For, say, 5 years after they died? Assigned, like the children’s vote above, to the carer? Might produce some curbing of the autogeddon society f’rexample?

By: Rana

Rana — Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:40:23 +0000

I’d say that if the children (or young adults) in question have to pay taxes on the money they earn, and are citizens, then they should have the right to vote. For me, it’s less a matter of competence (there are some incredibly doltish and irresponsible “adults” out there) than of balancing responsibilities and privileges. In other words, it might be worth thinking about what it means to be a participating member of a society—if a person is actively involved in the larger social order, having a say in the running of things would seem to be just. This does raise questions about various categories of currently eligible-to-vote populations, however.

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:11:06 +0000

Lord of the Flies. It is apparent that many of the folks who have posted above have not raised children, and don’t spend enough time with teenagers. I have three children ages 21, 19 and 16. I favor raising the voting age to 21, the age for driver’s licences to 18 and lowring the drinking age to 16. Oh yes and the 40 shilling freehold was not such a bad idea.

By: Matt McIrvin

Matt McIrvin — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:58:09 +0000

michael: I’m not so sure that having an additional proxy vote for your kid would help you, because that ‘50s style sitcom family that likes the current system would get twice as many proxy votes as you, and people with ten children would have ten times as many. If their interests conflicted with yours, you might not be so happy. In the US, my guess is the immediate effect of proxy votes for kids would be to increase the influence of religious conservatives with huge families by a factor of several, and make them the overwhelmingly dominant voting bloc nationally. That shouldn’t be a contributor to the abstract question of whether this is right or wrong, but it is worth considering when thinking about the practical consequences.

By: Matt McIrvin

Matt McIrvin — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:38:12 +0000

Given the number of bad ideas that make it into law because somebody shouted “Won’t anyone think of the children?”, I’d be wary of anything that would tend to abet that.

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:33:51 +0000

We’ve already seen how proxy vote systems can be abused in the corporate world. On the other hand, I reckon if they’re old enough to menustrate, ejaculate and be issued with credit cards, they’re old enough to be issued ballot papers as well. And I don’t know about youse guys and girls, but when I was a teenager, I was considerable more idealistic, open-minded and public-spirited then I am now.

By: Robert T McQuaid

Robert T McQuaid — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:01:18 +0000

I have often thought favorably of allowing parents to cast a vote on behalf of their minor children. But there is a dangerous trap in the phrase: The idea is that parents (or principal care givers) would act as proxies for children by voting on their behalf. Welfare benefits for children are often assignable, that is, if custody of children is changed, the benefit goes to the new custodian. So children entitled to such benefits have a bounty on their heads payable to any social service agency with the power to alter custody, a source of great abuse in current child protection systems. To avoid custody manipulation for political gain, child suffrage has to be immune from reassignment by social services. As for giving real political power to children, here is another point to consider. In a historically authentic scene in the movie The Killing Fields, a hay wagon accompanied by a contingent of soldiers enters a village. A nine-year-old child on the top of the hay wagon points to two villagers. The soldiers pull them over and kill them. The Salem witchcraft trials show a similar abuse when adults took the rantings of children seriously.

By: pathos

pathos — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 03:14:45 +0000

A couple of questions: 1. What the heck is a “proxy vote by the parents”? Is “parents” now a singular noun? I am a Democrat and my wife is a Republican. Who gets the extra vote? We cancel each other out every election now, do we each get an extra half to cancel each other out even further? Or do we lose it completely if we don’t agree with each other on how to use it? 2. Are those in favor or lowering the voting age (directly) in favor of lowering the age for other things as well? Drafted into the military at 12 or 14 or 16? Sentenced as an adult for all crimes? Free to marry without parental consent? Will punishment no longer be appropriate when a 45 year old man has “consensual” sex with a 13 year old girl, since they are both voting-age adults? Yes, I’m sure everyone reading this had very strong, well-reasoned political opinions in junior high. And yes, schools would probably be better funded if children had a vote. But when I think about 16 year olds, and all the things they are not “grown up enough” for, I can see the obvious reason why moving from 21 to 18 was quite far enough.

By: Jonas Cord

Jonas Cord — Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:27:04 +0000

I’ve always presumed that while children lack the full rights and priveledges of adults, this was (theoretically) meant to be offset by the various protections granted to them, in light of the obvious vulnerablities that come with childhood. One need not make a case of rape against a child – even consentual sex is illegal for protective measure. Children, again theoretically, are not liable for crimes they commit when they reach adulthood. Now, such distinctions are eroding. I would rather see the protective regime brought back for children, but if it is not – and children continue to be tried as adults in court – I say it’s about time they enjoyed the rights and priveledges of adults if they have de facto adult responsibilities (i.e. avoid murder and other ‘adult offenses’.) So yes, I’m arguing that kids should be legally allowed to drive, vote, drink, smoke and fuck – but only because it makes my point more memorable.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:07:42 +0000

I am a parent of a 2 year old (Isobel) in Australia and I can honestly say that I have never felt more disenfranchised and disappointed by the difference between the rhetoric of “family friendly” policies and the reality. An 50’s style sitcom family (dad at work in the office with a stay at home mum and two happy, well adjusted sprogs) would do well given current policies. Anyone else has an almightly battle to raise their children well and avoid becoming a workaholic or destitute. Having an additional vote for my wife and I to use to ensure that Isobel’s needs were taken seriously by society would be bound to help.

By: alkali

alkali — Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:01:12 +0000

I would point out that the question of whether children should be formally represented in the electoral process (I would answer yes) seems to be a separate question from how children are to be formally represented (I would answer by proxy vote at least for young children, and perhaps by direct vote for near-adults). Putting it another way, it doesn’t follow from the obvious fact that babies can’t vote that they should not be represented in elections.

By: back40

back40 — Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:25:16 +0000

The science is not settled but there seems to be a brain maturity issue worth considering. Much of the human brain is developed by about 11 or 12 years of age, varying by sex and individual. But important parts, such as the temporal lobes which are though to be important for social thinking, don’t mature until 16 years or so. Sex hormones are related to brain maturation which therefore necessarily lags sexual maturity. It seems there would be some amount of time needed for humans to learn to use their newly matured brains, adding another time lag to maturity. How important is it that humans younger than 18 or so may not have mature brains or have learned to use their newly mature brains? History is filled with practical wisdom about the proper age for various acts. It’s interesting that the old traditions of considering 13 years to be enough for some types of binding commitments map well to general physical maturity of the brain (but not the temporal lobes). Jews have strong views on this as do other religions. Anabaptists are interesting in this regard in that one of their founding beliefs in conflict with Catholicism is that each human must choose to join the church when they have grown rather than be baptized as babies. Modern Anabaptists such as the Amish are known for their wild children who (often) grow up to be good church members after having experimented with drugs and promiscuity as youths. Some don’t choose to join the church, which seems to validate the principle.

By: raj

raj — Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:44:25 +0000

Having just returned from several weeks in Munich, anecdotal evidence suggests to me that they are having a bit of a baby boomlet at least in that area of Germany. Certainly in comparison to, say 15 years ago. Italy seems to be having a bit of a baby boomlet as well. FWIW, from appearances—which may admittedly be deceiving—the boomlets appear to be among european types.

By: Tina

Tina — Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:34:45 +0000

“Rather, it’s that a political system that takes account of children’s interests will promote social policies that make it easier for families to have more children.” I would like to think that it works this way, too. But if the claims of those above are correct, and the US birthrate in the 1990s increased while Western Europe’s was stagnant, then we can’t conclude that family-friendly policies impact birthrate. Clearly, Germany’s social policies (and most of Europe’s) are WAY more family-friendly than the US’s. I suggest we move away from a rational choice mentality when thinking about childbearing. I’d suggest cultural factors, such as gender norms and social valuation of motherhood, as one starting place, and structural factors, such as gender inequality in wage earnings, as another.