This campaign has caused me to rue the day 18-year-olds were given the vote. One more bad thing brought about by the Vietnam War, I kept thinking--though I felt guilty doing so. I hated to even mention it, so I'm glad someone else did. Your solution is excellent, since it incorporates the basic reason for teenagers being able to cast a ballot. As we probably all know, to our everlasting regret, 17-year-olds who would be 18 by Nov. could vote in the IA caucuses. And, as we definitely all know, very young folk have caused fiascos by their dreamy, idealistic followings. For thousands of years, societies have realized the danger of letting them have their lead. I'm sure millions shuddered when they heard the media gushing over "Barack-star". Luckily, Obamania will not last out the year. His cult of personality will be gone with him. Youth will grow older and wiser, and his black followers will largely either merge back into the Democratic Party base or will become disillusioned non-contributors. But how long will it be before the next Pied Piper comes along?

I wasn't in on the other discussion, but I'll put my 2 cents here.

If 18-year-olds couldn't vote, we wouldn't have had Bill Clinton, hence not Hillary.

If we want them to make better decisions, then we should do a better job of educating them. Maybe if young people were a little more welcome in places like this, they'd get themselves a little better informed.

But in the other direction.

I see no reason to give the vote unearned to someone who is 21, but not to someone who is 18. Or to someone who is 35, or even 60. I know lots of 18yos who are more fit to vote than many older persons, and 21 is certainly no magic number.

Granted, on average, 18yo's may not be as mature as their elders, but God help us if we start determining rights based on demographic averages instead of individual qualifications. Men would not be allowed to drive cars (and probably a whole lot of other things) for example. And frankly, I wouldn't want to live with the restrictions that could be placed on women either.

Instead, I believe the vote should be reserved for those who have already made some contribution to society. Military service would be the most obvious path to enfranchisement, but some sort of civilian corps could provide an alternate means. Call it the Robert Heinlein solution, for those who are familiar with his work.

Another idea: Mark Twain wrote an essay or short story about a society where everyone had one vote, but citizens could earn extra votes by their contribution to the common good.

Not that either plan is likely to ever happen.

Absent something like one of those, I guess we'll have to make do with the "if you're old enough to die for your country..." criterion. Bringing back the draft would make it more meaningful, since everyone would at least be equally at risk, even if they were never called.

Fwiw, I think 18yo's should also be able to drink alcohol, for the same reason.

P.S. - was wondering if someone would mention Heinlein ;-)
Thanks Jai!

Anyway - this is the exchange between James Mitchem and myself that got the thread created and moved over here:(his comments are in bold)

And I personally find it very telling that you think it is a bad idea to let young people vote. Your ideas on this particular strike me as being very plutocratic and elitist.

It's unfortunate, but not surprising, then, that you misread what I said, and jumped to an erroneous conclusion instead of asking me why I thought that way. I didn't say I thought it was a bad idea to let young people vote. I said lowering the national voting age to 18 was one of the stupidist things we've done.

The reason it was done, in 1971, was specifically because it was war time, during a highly unpopular war and on going draft - and for the very reason you state: that if one is old enough to fight and die for one's country, then one should be old enough to vote for or against those sending them to do that.

Unfortunately - it's a poor rationale for several reasons, but largely because I no more think adolescents should be sent to fight wars than I think they should be given the privilige to vote, before they are old enough to at least mostly understand the consequences of both. Perhaps if we send more adults and fewer children to fight wars, we will have fewer wars to fight. (edit: I'm not anti-war, just anti-stupidity)

And - if you're wondering, I'm also against trying children as adults. In short, James, there are reasons we have laws that treat adults one way and children another - because, in most cases, the human brain doesn't fully develop adult capacity until the early twenties. Now - while society might not have had the scientific evidence in 1971 to back it up, they did have an idea of the difference in maturity level of an 18 year old vs. a 21 year old, by simply looking back at how they behaved historically, based upong what society expected and demanded of them at a given time. That would be the 'nature vs. nurture' argument.

It isn't that an 18-year-old is chronologically too young to vote - it is that he/she, in most cases but certainly not all, is neurologically, psychologically, and sociologically ill-prepared (not incapable) to fully understand the consequences. So are many adults - but for usually different reasons. Is it wise that we let 16-year-olds loose on the street, in control of 2 ton weapons moving at excessive speed? Well - considering roughly 6000 teenagers die driving their cars every year - maybe not. That number doesn't include the teens riding in the car with them, or in the cars they hit. But there are a growing number of youth organizations advocating further lowering the voting age to 16.

Oh...and one of the unintended consequense of lowering the voting age to 18, just happened to be impacted by college students - many of whom find themselves able to vote for laws affecting the cities/towns where they go to school. At first glance - not a bad thing. However, those students, by and large, don't stay in those college towns after graduation - but the effects of their votes do, and quite frequently the long term effects were not considered and not beneficial to the town/city at large, yet those areas are stuck with the results sometimes for many years after.

We are good enough to go into battle and give our lives to defend your liberties, yet somehow we not good enough to vote? History also teaches us that it is mostly the young who are sent to fight our nation's wars.

First of all, it has never been a question of of the young being good enough to fight and die for one's country, but of being wise enough not to vote in someone who isn't good enough or wise enough to care about sending you to fight and die in the first place. If you are unable or unwiling to understand that simple idea, then you may well be proving my point.

Voting is not a right - it's a privilige, an honor and a very serious responsiblity that is not to be executed lightly.

...but somehow we aren't good enough to vote for who sends us, and our brothers and sisters to war until we are 35 in your book?

Again - not even close to what I said, let alone the tone I used. What I said was,
"Maybe we should make it 35, for presidential elections - as in, if you aren't old enough to hold the office of president, you aren't old enough to vote for anyone who can." And the tone - since you obviously missed it - was sarcasm.

James, let me ask you a question - why is it do you think the founding fathers set a higher minimum age requirement for the office of the presidency than for congressman or senator? And, why do you think they picked 35? Because the life expectancy in 1775 was aprox. 50 years old. In todays terms, that would make the minimum age to be president about 53-58 for a man, and 55-60 or so for a woman. Ergo, does it occur to you the founding fathers might have thought it a wise idea that the leader of the country be a person of sufficient age and experience in life so as to increase the chances that leader would make wise and thoughtful decisions? Certainly a possibility, I think.

Maybe we aren't always "wise" but does that mean only college educated people should be allowed to vote as they tend to be wiser than the general population?

Hardly. Wisdom no more goes hand in hand with a college education than gaining a sense of humor does. And while you may find a wise person with a college education and a humorous person with a college education, and a humorous person who is unwise, you will never find a wise person who doesn't have a sense of humor. The upshot being - there are a great many illiterates who are wise. The truly wise have discovered that they really know very little and understand even less.

I certainly hope Sen. Clinton does not agree with your views on this point. However, I fear she probably would given her poor perfomance among young people;

It is wholly unimportant if she agrees with me or not - it's only important she follow the current laws, those enacted in the future and the Constiution, whether as a senator or as president.

I wouldn't be surprised however if I were to discover that many bloggers here shared your sentiments

I would be highly surprised if they did - I tend to be rather more conservative than many here.

At least you are candid enough to say upfront what you think of us

If you think you have even the slightest grasp of what I think of America's or humanities young, based on the few things I've written on CCN, then you are a presumptuous and clueless fool.

But frankly I find your views to be appaling and deeply opposed to everything I thought America stands for.

Well - as I don't know what you think America stands for, I can't really address your comment above, but you're certainly entitled to your opinions of my views, however little you know of them.

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

The fact is, our modern day concept of a child is a relatively recent construct. Until about the mid-19th century, 20th century for poorer families, children worked, hunted, saw their parents have sex (most families lived in one room) and witnessed executions. Having a child at 14 was the norm. Books and culture specifically for children did not exist until the 1600s. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but it's true.

If you go to Europe, children aren't out of control like American kids are. You see families out together. Parents talk to their children like human beings, and the kids aren't all high on sugar and corn syrup. Children are allowed in pubs. Yeah, they witness drinking, but they're spending time with their parents learning how to be adults instead of being dumped at home.

Kids act like children because they're treated like children. It's the reason people my age still play video games and listen to rock music. Because it was never a function of age to begin with.

The fact that human civilization has outpaced human evolution is a much longer conversation for another day, but this is another example of the tension that this causes. Our modern culture requires that people know a lot more to be able to function in the world. So, it takes a lot longer for someone to be considered educated and ready to go out and be a productive member of society. It requires a lot more knowledge, but that doesn't mean that human beings have changed.

Sorry for all the editing. I think this thing is a thesis.

...I can say for sure that my generation was a LOT more mature at 18 than today's kids. We had to be because we were expected to get out on our own and support ourselves. I know--horrid generalization, with lots of exceptions.

Nevertheless--and despite being 7th in my class of 365 seniors-- I didn't feel at 18 that I was wise enough to vote. It was a moot point anyway as the voting age then was still 21.