The Youth Vote: Lets Have The Conversation

Last year there was an initiative pushed in San Francisco, to lower the voting age in local elections to 16 or 17 years old. The campaign for Proposition F, the legislation being proposed, did not pass however, keeping the voting age of San Francisco in line with the traditional 18 year old requirement. It’s success though, can be found in the conversation in sparked. From support by leaders as high as Nancy Pelosi, to staunch opposition, the debate what age legitimizes civic participation was once again reignited.

Perhaps one of the most referenced pieces of opposition is one written by David Davenport, a contributor at Forbes, titled “No, We Shouldn’t Lower the Voting Age to 16” . Published on May 25, 2016, as of 3/1/2017 the article has over 25,000 reads. In his article Davenport argues that lowering the age to 16 is both unnecessary and unwise. Though most of his argument is anecdotal, Davenport suggests that it should not be done as 1) 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough to vote 2) There is no real reason to change the current standard 3) It would require too much from Congress, to change it Constitutionally.

Davenport begins his piece by taking an immediate jab at former Speaker of the House and supporter of Proposition F, Pelosi, by inappropriately criticizing comments she made in support (without proper references, I might add). Pelosi’s comments, which were simply “ “because when kids are in school, they’re so interested, they’re so engaged.”, were rejected by Davenport’s “Tell that to the teachers whose students, according to surveys, don’t know who their U.S. senator is or how to amend the Constitution.” Davenport is right: there have been studies conducted which suggests that a large percentage of young people aren’t aware of common political knowledge, one suggesting that out of millenials 18–34 only 23% could name one of their Senators . This, however, is not an isolated incident or exclusive to young people. The study previously referenced for instance, was conducted on young people who were eligible voters, eliminating the idea that age resolves political ignorance. Lack of political knowledge is a broader issue in American politics, with numbers as high as 36% of the total population being incapable of naming our 3 branches of government.. Political awareness doesn’t increase exponentially after crossing the age of 18, which Davenport’s comment implies. If students don’t know enough about our political process, teach them about it, don’t restrict them from participating.

He goes on to argue against the vote, by suggesting that young people vote with a gross sense of incompetence, supporting figures like Ralph Nader. It is a point to mention that, according to polls conducted by the Atlantic, Trump had a slight margin over Hillary Clinton with voters over the age of 65. . Once again, incompetence isn’t solved by age, it’s solved through education and interaction. It should also be noted that disagreeing with an individual’s partisan leanings isn’t an effective method of judging competency. If it were, none of us would be voting, because our opposition would insist on our ignorance.

The last time the age for voting was changed was in 1971, with the 26th amendment, tied to ensuring that young people would were forced to go to war in Vietnam also had the right to assist in determining the trajectory of the country. Davenport agrees with that point, but goes on to suggests there isn’t anything now that demands participation of the youth. Perhaps this dismisses the fact that an individual with no educational experience has been appointed as the head of their education, which will determine their futures, or that our educational system continues to perform below the top 20 other nations? Perhaps this dismiss the fact that approximately 2 million people ages 18 or below are arrested each year, 95% for non violent crimes, yet they have no say in the criminal justice reform? Is this not pertinent? Are they not at least entitled to a voice?

Davenport concludes his argument with two points 1) That the brain is not fully developed until we are in our mid twenties and 2) The it’s extremely difficult to change the voting age, because Congress would be opposed. Well 1) This isn’t an argument, for as previously stated, there’s nothing to suggest that after the mid 20s people become more understanding of the political sphere and 2) Then we need to oppose Congress if they are unwilling to have this conversation, or at the very least support the conversation on the municipal level aka Proposition F.

Here’s the thing: Young people are given the right to vote at 18, but between the ages of 18–24, according to The Economist, only 21% of them register and participate. Interestingly, this corresponds with many of the years when young people are entering and attending University, which makes registering and learning out politics extremely difficult. Bringing the age down to 16, allows for 2 years of familiarization and involvement, making it possible for them to engage effectively and continually.

Perhaps changing the national voting age is not the answer, but at the very least, it warrants conversation. These individuals are too drastically impacted by the decisions made by our government, to be completely disenfranchised from the system. Too many of them have proven themselves more than aware, more than capable of understanding policy, politics, and government, for us to continually deny their cognitive abilities. This is true on both sides of the political aisle, from Conservative youth like CJ Pearson to those who are more liberal leaning activists like Yara Shahidi or Rowan Blanchard. There are even moments where we defer to these young people, to influence our own political positions.

Reducing the national age to 16 might be the appropriate end and some alternatives may be proposed: maybe we should start at the local level — School Board elections or City Councils. Maybe we should establish a youth council in our legislature, to insure that the voices of these young people are constantly represented. Regardless of what we decide, there is one thing we can’t continue to do, and thats silence these vital voices in our country and act as if they’re incapable or too uneducated, to contribute to our government, because that’s just untrue. Yes, I’m talking to you Mr. Davenport.

Proposition F http://vote16sf.org/

Davenport original article: (Davenport, Forbes, 2016) https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2016/05/25/no-we-shouldnt-lower-the-voting-age-to-16/#cc9d1a6531e9

Study on 18–34 Millennial Political Knowledge: (LoGiurato, Fusion, 2015) http://fusion.net/story/41972/fusion-poll-millennials-politics-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-election-2016/

Study on American Political Knowledge Overall: (Annenburg Public Policy Center, 2014) http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-know-surprisingly-little-about-their-government-survey-finds

Commentary on Older People Voting For Trump: (Ball, 2016, The Atlantic) https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trumps-graying-army/505274/

Comment on US rank in Education: (Chappell, 2013, NPR) http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/03/248329823/u-s-high-school-students-slide-in-math-reading-science

Youth arrest numbers: (Mimms and Stamms, 2014, The Atlantic) https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/2-million-kids-are-arrested-in-the-us-every-year-congress-is-trying-to-change-that/450522/

18–24 Political Participation: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/10/economist-explains-24