Comments on: Should children have the right to vote?

By: zdenek

zdenek — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:52:37 +0000

Christopher m—Society does respect that children are people with interests but it also recognizes that that is only a necessary condition of having a right to vote. The other necessary condition is that one has a grasp of what these interests are and that such interests are articulated . And of course small children simply do not meet this condition ; dont know what their interests are ( how could they vote to promote their interests if they dont have articulated set of interests to beggin with ? ). Its broadly recognised that growing up process involves developing ones moral personality which is closely tied to ones conception of good and there is empirical evidence that small children are only starting on this path ( Kohlberg, Piaget ). Not taking this fact into consideration is not doing children any favours ( never mind the muddle involved )
This is the status quo and is more sensible than the proposal which doesnt take into consideration that children are not adults. Also note that status quo cannot be shifted with litle bit of rhetoric and hand waving and without good arguments ( simply question begging ).

By: Christopher M

Christopher M — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:01:14 +0000

I have yet to hear a good argument for eliminating the voting age that wouldn’t also support allowing children to star in porn films.

Exactly, because the arguments here have mostly been framed in terms of individual autonomy justified by individual capability (responsibility, intelligence). And choosing to star in a porn film is an exercise of autonomy, so your reductio works.

But if the argument for children’s voting is (as it should be) an argument about how the structure of political institutions (like voting) affects the justice of political outcomes, then porn films are pretty clearly a red herring.

By: Christopher M

Christopher M — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:55:15 +0000

It’s kind of bizarre that the debate here (and in many places) over children’s voting has focused on whether or not some subset of “children” exists that is “responsible,” “thoughtful,” etc., as if it were plausible that the superiority of representative democracy over other political arrangements is the result of the voters’ collective thoughtfulness and expertise.

Democracy (in my view, a frankly pragmatic one) is about interests. There’s a bunch of people in this country (and almost every country) and the best way not to screw too many people over too badly is to let everyone vote and thus force those who hold power to accommodate the wide range of interests that all those people have.

The argument for children’s votes (controlled either by the children themselves or by their parents) should focus on how children’s votes would affect the structure of the political scene. I’d start with the presumption that children should have votes because they are people and have interests that society should seek to accommodate. Then I’d entertain arguments about how (1) children’s voting wouldn’t actually serve those interests, or (2) some other, negative structural effects would outweigh the gain to equality.

By: Steve Reuland

Steve Reuland — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:39:51 +0000

I have yet to hear a good argument for eliminating the voting age that wouldn’t also support allowing children to star in porn films. If we consider matters of competence, maturity, etc. to be unfair criteria for granting voting rights, then nearly every age-specific law needs to go.

By: zdenek

zdenek — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:08:04 +0000

Harry—assuming that djw characterises Cummings argument accuratelly it seems to me ( having taken another look ) that Cummings misrepresents the default position ( the status quo position if you like ) because he does not mention that the main reason we exclude children is precisely -as you point out – because they lack the relevant competence .
This is the core of the practice and any criticism of excluding kids should be aimed at that part of the case . Cummings simply fails to mention this point and so his criticism is aimed at a straw man.
An interesting question is whether Cummings could modify his argument to take the point about competence into consideration . One possible but implausible way to do this would be to try to show that voting does not require very high competence ( no policy assessment or moral reasoning required )and hence children can meet such a requirement.This would be difficult to defend though.

By: zdenek

zdenek — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:08:56 +0000

Harry—your argument is works very nicely for me but note that that type of argument is what underwrites the status quo position on the question of whether children should have the right to vote. The status quo position is sort of default position so how is it that the authors such as Cummins manage to shift the burden of proof to the status quo ? In other words it is people like Cummings that need to offer a sound argument and not just shift the burden of proof ( that is question begging ).You see quite clearly that this is going on in Cummings first premis : seriously question begging .

By: Iguanodon

Iguanodon — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:17:51 +0000

but we do not have a fine-grained way of distinguishing between the competent and the incompetent.

Indeed, I can think of many people who are not competent enough to vote. Believers in faith healing, the power of fairies, the infallible accuracy and virtue of the free market, purchasers of Pussycat Dolls CDs, people who believe they should support the president because he is the president, and so on and on…

Oh, wait, you were talking about children? Sorry.

I suppose we could dispense with voting, and people could simply interact with one another on a voluntary basis, with groups setting their own criteria for admission without the need for some abstract “government” to do so.

Anarchism. It slices and dices.

By: etat

etat — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:58:40 +0000

10. _Actually, I wonder what the effect would be of giving everyone the choice between

a) having no vote but no tax, or
b) being eligible to vote, but getting taxed_

I like this, partly because it raises an entertaining thought about what happens to people on welfare/income support. Do they retain a fractional vote? Does the state excercise a vote on their behalf? Would there be a means-test for voting?

By: Thor Likes Pizza

Thor Likes Pizza — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:05:59 +0000

I don’t believe we should allow adults to vote.

We should operate our political system the way Klingons run their starships.

The ones at the top intimidate their opponents/underlings into humiliating and abject submission.

When the submissive humiliated underlings have had enough, they attempt a coup, usually, if successful, involving the death of the previously intimidating leadership.

If the coup fails, the pretenders to power are executed or similiarly put out to pasture.

Waitaminnit – this scenario seems vaguely familiar…

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:59:09 +0000

From what I understand, the states are allowed to let anyone of any age vote, they just aren’t allowed to deny the vote to people on the basis of age if the people are 18 or older.

Why not petition your state to allow 16 year olds to vote? If you can get Wyoming, or wherever, to do it, maybe other states will follow suit.

By: Harald Korneliussen

Harald Korneliussen — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:55:53 +0000

Jonathan Edelstein, I agree, I made that comment on the other place. I’m in favour of a 16-year limit on most duties and rights associated with maturity, but voting comes in a special category. It’s through voting we decide what all our other rights and duties are. So, it’s only sensible to give it to those who ask for it – at least if they are governed by the laws they vote for.

By: reuben

reuben — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:34:23 +0000

self-centered, illogical, narcissistic yet financially dependent

You’re talking about farmers, right?

By: Henry (not that Henry)

Henry (not that Henry) — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:55:49 +0000

Ireland will be free when Ireland is sober.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:48:29 +0000

Well, I offer a radical and controversial solution because I assume the resistance will be overwhelming. Even on as simple and trivial and issue as enfranchisement, I have seen all minors compared to chimpanzees.

But it really is quite simple:I have known 14-yr-olds who handle a part-time job, a budget, savings and prudent purchasing. I have known 40-yr-olds who can’t imagine such discipline. I have difficulty understanding the justification for one having autonomy and the other being chattel. We generally do not treat individuals unequally because they are members of a class. As I said at LGM, I will grant that perhaps teenagers and people of Irish descent* are specially vulnerable to alcohol, but at what empirical level of statistics do we enact discriminatory laws?

Being of Irish descent myself, it was a hypothetical intended not to offend, tho as a prejudice with historical pertinence, etc.

By: washerdreyer

washerdreyer — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:33:41 +0000

Perhaps I was taking you too literally, it’s just that “Currently there is unjustified discriminaion against people because of age, especially because of youth, we should fix that” is really different from what I read you as saying.