Raise The Age To Vote
Since 1971, when the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted, it has been legal for anyone of at least 18 years of age on Election day to vote (though that right had existed at the Federal election level since 1970, as a provision added to the Voting RIghts Act of 1965).
The result has been, to date, less than earth-shattering.
That may change this election cycle, with the first Generation X’er, Barak Obama, (though he is technically a tail-end baby boomer, having been born in 1961) with a shot at actually winning the White House.
Anecdotal ecidence suggests that Obama pulls vastly more young voters (17-24 range) than other candidates (way too many sources for this - here’s one).
In the late 90’s and to the current day, evidence has mounted that the decision making capabilities of the average American are somehwat less than desirable until later than previously supposed. One recent study suggested that while there is individual variation, :
indicates the juvenile brain is still maturing in the teen years and reasoning and judgment are developing well into the early to mid 20s.
Which should come as NO suprise to anyone that has lived through the horror of having Teenage children in the house.
Experts say that even at ages 16 and 17, when compared to adults, juveniles on average are more:
_impulsive.
_aggressive.
_emotionally volatile.
_likely to take risks.
_reactive to stress.
_vulnerable to peer pressure.
_prone to focus on and overestimate short-term payoffs and underplay longer-term consequences of what they do.
_likely to overlook alternative courses of action.
All of which could lead them to do something colossolly stupid, like voting for an empty suit, whose main talent is that he can read a Teleprompter REALLY well, and make it sound inspiring; is married to a woman whose College Thesis suggests a belief in Black Seperatism, who only decided that she was Proud Of America when her husband became the front runner for the Democrat nomination for President; attends what appears to be a Black Seperatist church; who is associated with a domestic (unrepentant) terrorist; and did, from all appearances, nothing during his single partial Senate term, except raise money for his Presidential run.
But I digress.
In the last several years, we have, as a society, determined that are young are, to put it simply, incompetent to make rational and reasonable decisions about many things.
Here in Washington, new restrictions were placed on new drivers.
On a national level, the sale of Alcohol is banned to anyone under 21.
Going back to the study:
It’s one thing to say teens don’t control their impulses as well as adults, but another to show that they can’t, he said. As for peer pressure, the new brain research “gives credence to the idea that this isn’t a choice that kids are making to give in to their friends, that biologically, they’re more vulnerable to that,” he said.
Consider the lobes at the front of the brain. The nerve circuitry here ties together inputs from other parts of the brain, said Dr. Jay Giedd of the National Institute of Mental Health.
This circuitry weighs how much priority to give incoming messages like “Do this now” versus “Wait! What about the consequences?” In short, the frontal lobes are key for making good decisions and controlling impulses.
Brain scans show that the frontal lobes don’t mature until age 25, and their connections to other parts of the brain continue to improve to at least that age, Giedd said.
The inexplicable behavior and poor judgments teens are known for almost always happen when teens are feeling high emotion or intense peer pressure, conditions that overwhelm the still-maturing circuitry in the front part of brain, Giedd said.
Peer Pressure like is found on College Campii, and at Political Rallies.
Different mental capabilities mature at different rates, Steinberg notes. Teens as young as 15 or 16 can generally balance short-term rewards and possible costs as well as adults, but their ability to consider what might happen later on is still developing, he said.
Like the consequences of electing someone completely unexperienced to the highest office in the land, who talks freely about giving credibility to the worst tyrants and bloodiest dictators in the world today, by meetind with them for photo-ops and “talks”.
So, the obvious answer is that if we, as a society deem someone mental imcapable of making a rational decision about something as minor as Alcohol consumption before they are 21 - and while medical studies confirm this judgement - it is irrational on our part to allow them to make what will most likely be - based on medical evidence of mental development - a bad decision.
Repeal the 26th Amendment. If we think 21 is old enough to buy a beer, then it should be OK to let you vote.
But trying to have it both ways - saying that at 18 you can’t make a considered decision about personal alcohol consumption, but you are mature enough to help decide who the leader of the free world (and keeper of the keys to the Nuclear Button) should be - is less than rational.
On February 28, 2008 at 5:19 pm, Perri Nelson wrote:
prone to focus on and overestimate short-term payoffs and underplay longer-term consequences of what they do.
That sounds like most liberals if you ask me. Let’s put together a massive new entitlement program NOW and worry about how to pay for it after I’m out of office.
On February 29, 2008 at 1:55 pm, Aurelius wrote:
I concur completely.
On March 1, 2008 at 2:19 pm, Tired Turtle wrote:
Carefull what you wish for. These immature brains that you don’t want mucking up the political process are the same brains we put in harms way to satisfy the paranoid fantasies of the commander in chief. Not mature enough to vote yet mature enough to make life and death decisions in the heat of battle. Hell, why not bring back poll taxes to weed out the poor who obviously have a conflict of interest and don’t forget literacy tests to keep the morons under control.
On March 3, 2008 at 7:47 am, Aurelius wrote:
As far as the sub-21 agers go in the Military; they are trained and guided for their jobs, and have a chain of command (presumably substituting for adult supervision). There is structure, rules, and procedure.
As far as a "Poll Tax", I think it should be obvious to anyone that spends more than 5 minutes looking at our system, that the "have-nots" are always inclined to vote themselves largess from the public trough, paid for by the "haves". Put another way, a anything that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s vote. I don’t know what the answer is to this quandry, but it must be found, or we will surely (and soon) go the way of the Romans.
As for Literacy tests… I think there mjust be a lowest rung, below which you are not allowed the franchise. Today, the requirements are Age, and Mental Competance (rare on that 2nd one… Think Britney Spears). Citizenship is legally required, but no longer enforced.
You tell me, should someone be allowed to vote for President, if they can’t name at least two of the candidates?
Should someone be able to vote for an Initiative, if they can’t prove they have read it?
Should we not have some type of check that people are casting a ballot with some basic knowledge of what they are voting for?
None of which get’s back to my basic point, which is that the Obamessiah phenomenon we are seeing today among young voters is a clarion call to raise the voting age…
On March 3, 2008 at 2:53 pm, Tired Turtle wrote:
Shame on you. How quickly "resonable" people wish to rig the results of free democracy when the results are not to their likeing. It is clear that your own personal egenda is worth more to you than the greatest experiment of all time, namely the United States of America. We are supposed to be about inclusion not exclusion. We are supposed to be about personal freedom not limitations imposed by "experts".
The single greatest threat we face is the undesputable fact that the foundation of American society is based on profound philosophical principals that don’t lend themselves to the same kind of practical discusion that arguements for limiting rights fall under. Even the most simple minded person can come up with perfectly reasonable arguements why personal freedom is neither practical nor in our best interests or why participation in policy decisions should be carefully limited to "qualified" persons. This is why adherence to the principal of freedom is our only defence against society by bureaucracy.
On March 3, 2008 at 5:50 pm, Aurelius wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that there be NO limits on eligibility to vote?
Should we allow anyone of any age, if they are able to scratch a mark on a ballot? Should we allow anyone who resides in this country, regardless of their citizenship, to have equal sufferage? Should we allow convicted felons the vote? The Institutionalized?
We have already extended the franchise to those who cannot speak our common language. Citizenship is no longer verified, though it is technically a requirement.
The United States of America was never intended to be an experiment in Mob Rule. The French tried that, and it went so far wrong, that they ended with an iron handed dictator in its place.
America is, and has always been, a Representative Republic, and that is why it has lasted so much longer than the original French Republic (what are they on now, their 6th or 7th??) But the siren call of the Mob is always there, pressing, pounding… Direct Election of Senators! And now a Senator is no better than a Statewide Congressman, not the representative of the State Legislature, as the constitution set down. Lower The Voting Age! And now people too young to have any life experience, and many lacking critical decision making skills, and having made no contribution to society have as much say as a veteran, or cleric, or medical professional. Requiring English is Racist! And now we have ballots in every conceivable language, and how can anyone be sure the translations are correct? Requiring Proof of Citizenship is Racist and Classist! So now ANYONE can vote, if they can get a drivers license, which means pretty much anyone, so we have (potentially) people who are not citizens, who are just here to make money to send back to their home country, swaying elections.
What then do you want? To make another try at the Mob Rule of La Revolution? Maybe we can avoid the RIegn of Terror, since we are sooo much smarter than they were.
What I believe in, is the Constitution, becuase without the constitution, there is no United States. I realize that is an old fashioned idea, but there it is. I contend that the Constition can exist without the United States - and in fact, will always exist, wherever there are free men. But without the Constitution, the United States will quickly cease to exist.
The Roman plebes voted themselves bread and circuses, and bled the empire dry to pay for it, so that there was nothing left to hold back the barbarian hordes.
Couch it in whatever high minded terms you like, but the collective IQ does not increase as the crowd does. In fact, I suggest it is an inverse relationship.
On July 20, 2008 at 1:51 am, uk casino club online trackbacked:
uk casino club online…
dildo dwarfed causality safeguard concentric heaviness …