by Dylan Schwartz

  The Constitution is very important to me and my country.  One thing I am committed to is a refusal to serve the U.S. government in its present condition, in any capacity other than one that would allow me to change current policy.

  One policy I especially dislike is voting restrictions.  I personally believe that any person who so inclined should be able to vote as they choose, and this paper is meant to cover why I hold this belief and why the changes I am suggesting can only benefit the country.

  In the 1960s, when the voting age was set at 21, eleven states chose to lower voting age restrictions separate of a constitutional mandate to do so.  I expect it will first be local government, as it was originally, who will first take action in this direction, not the federal government -- unless of course the Supreme Court steps in somewhere along the line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.  His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
-- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty", 1859
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  I believe that the absence of all age qualifications, not just political ones, would begin an era in which young people would develop knowledge and potential far greater than they do today, and at a much earlier age.  If our efforts were taken seriously, the benefits would appear quite miraculous.  The political equality caused by an unrestricted right to vote would challenge adults to take young people more seriously and abandon the patronizing attitudes they demonstrate today.  Underestimating young adults would become a thing of the past.

  Increasing interest and participation in politics is a major goal in the US, and programs such as mock elections for those of us under the golden age of 18 have been proven to increase interest in politics in both the young and the parents of the young.  However, this does not address the problems affecting children today.   Representation for youth in politics is weak, and organizations trying to unite youth and adults as one have had a rather poor success rate.  Problems such as crime, poverty, and environmental preservation all need input from young people.  The only sure way to provide this input and make sure that the information hits home is a meaningful vote, in which case the government would be forced to take youth interests seriously.  It is obvious that other methods of informing policy makers of youth opinion are dysfunctional.

  High school is a great medium for political awareness.  Middle schools keep a fairly common practice of holding mock elections for the president.  Sadly enough, traditions like this do not carry on to high school.  Public schools are a great place for political debate. And if the voting age were lowered, it would create a more politically aware adult.  It's well known that 18-29 year olds are demographically significant, but democratically insignificant when election day comes.

  Young adults are well known for being one of the most motivated and influential age groups in existence, but only when a common goal unites them.  It takes a lot to get most teenagers really interested in a political topic.  I believe we would have a more informed and educated society if the voting age were lowered.

  As occurred with the womenís suffrage, this unconventional way of thinking will most likely be met with much contempt.  I expect ridicule, derision, and perhaps as the idea catches on, misunderstanding.   However, the greatest problem that will come to bear is the adult refusal to acknowledge that children suffer from political discrimination and exclusion.  The common perception amongst adults is that children are not people, but helpless, inexperienced, defenseless things that need protection.  Even I, a competent, capable individual, still experience this at the age of sixteen.  This attitude must be challenged and refuted if young people are to ever secure any kind of political equality.

  The following is a sort of question and answer session covering arguments as to why teenagers shouldnít be allowed to vote, and why the thoughts are unfounded or untrue.

Teenagers and children are not mature enough to vote independently of their parents.

  Neither are adults, by that logic.  According to some statistics, if both your parents are members of the same political party, you are only 6% likely to join a different political party, regardless of what ethnic or social class you belong to.  In addition, let me add that I support the complete abolition of any voting age restriction because the age of maturity is reached at different ages by different people.  Children at the age of eleven are allowed to testify in court and the jurors are generally instructed to treat the testimony of a child the same as the testimony as an adult.

Teenagers are more easily swayed by advertisements than adults are.

  Not true.  By the age of nine, children are proven to know the difference between right and wrong, and can easily recognize advertisements for what they are: one side of a story.  Children also seem to be better at recognizing lies than adults.

  Also, adults with busy lifestyles donít spend the time to research politics.  Teenagers are often more informed about society because they have time to think about a subject before finalizing an opinion on it.  This extra time also translates into more interest in voting.

Teenagers do not have enough real world experience to vote responsibly.

  If an adult came down with amnesia, would you strip away their right to vote? Although that person is rather unlikely to vote, it would be considered extremely unconstitutional to take away that right.   Lawsuits would fly like a flock of pigeons.  So how can one argue that teenagers do not have enough real world experience if by the same token you would allow an adult with absolutely no real world experience to vote?

Teenagers should not have the right to change policies affecting themselves.

  This statement betrays a double standard for human beings.  Any adult who cannot treat me for the human being I am, irrespective of my age, is not mature enough to have my respect.  Such logic comes from that type of person, and it upsets me quite a bit to see someone who can not remember what it was like to be young.

  Besides that, adults have themselves proven that they aren't mature enough to make policy relating to teenagers.  Just look at the recent fad of trying voteless teenagers involved in crimes as adults.  Several states have policies such as this.  I donít support criminal activity, but this policy of trying teens as adults laws has gone so far as to say children as young as fourteen years old can be charged and sentenced as adults for a range of crimes (including murder) and serve the exact same prison term as an adult in the same situation, including execution.  Everyone should have the right to change policy affecting themselves.  The reason why the voting age was reduced in the first place was no one wanted to be forced into dying for a country and a war they had no political control over.  Likewise no one wants to be killed by a law they had no part in making, no hope of changing, even through the indirect method of elected representatives.

Teenagers are not interested enough in politics to want to vote.  Why bother?

  I am interested enough to have written this paper.  Surely if I choose to take the time to write a detailed two-page essay on the subject then at least a relatively significant percentage of the teenage population would turn out to vote.  Never mind the fact that a 1992 survey of 12-17 year olds conducted for the Washington Post found that 73% were very interested or fairly interested in politics, while only 27% were not very interested or not at all interested.  About 95% of these young people viewed voting in a presidential election as very important or fairly important.  The claim that "teenagers are not that interested in politics" is totally unfounded.  Oh, and that blatant misrepresentation leads me back to adults being incapable of representing a teenagers opinion...

Isn't it a bit of an undertaking to amend the United States Constitution?

  Yes, but who said we have to ratify the United States Constitution in order to change the voting age? The truth is that any state in the union can reduce its voting age independent of a constitutional mandate to do so.  This basically means that any state can abolish or lower the voting age however they wish to, and this also correlates to presidential elections.  Several foreign countries are experimenting with a reduction in the voting age at this very moment, and all results so far are positive, even increasing adult participation.

  Modification of the voting age at the state level allows for debate of the proposal, with success or failure determinable by the merits of the policy. Additionally, if something turns out as not expected,  it is just as simple a process to restore the original restrictions as it was to enact their removal in the first place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?"
-- Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  In 1776, John Adams worried about the liberalization of suffrage laws in Massachusetts.  He wrote: "It is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end of it.  New claims will arise: women will demand a vote; lads from twelve to twenty-one will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state."

  Voting restrictions used to include African Americans, Native Americans, people who do not own property, and women.  Those restrictions used to be thought of as important, and that all these groups of society were once thought of as "too stupid to vote". Granting suffrage to high school aged people, who have been known to carry a 40 hour work week by choice and still manage passing grades, is the next big step towards a society with equality before the law.

  In a free society, people will realize the mistakes the country has made in regards to age discrimination.  The truth of the matter is that representation for youth in politics is amazingly weak, and as long as adults deny the fact that children and teens suffer from political discrimination and exclusion, we will never have a truly free society.

  In a free society, people will realize that high school is a great medium for political awareness.  It would be a more informed and educated society if the voting age were lowered.  Young people will be able to develop knowledge and potential to a far higher level than they do today.

 In a politically free society, any citizen will be allowed to vote as they choose.
 

Dylan Schwartz
Gladstone, OR.