Primaries: Voting at 17?
On Thursday, May 1, 2008, the Connecticut State Senate passed, by a unanimous 36-0 vote, a proposal to amend the state’s Constitution to allow 17-year-old residents to vote in primary elections, so long as they turn 18 on or before Election Day. Having already been widely passed by the Connecticut House of Representatives in April, the subject will now appear as an amendment question on November’s ballot, as the measure requires the approval of voters before the state Constitution can be amended.
With such a wide passage by the General Assembly, Connecticut’s legislative body, the measure is a victory for democracy, a way to create greater enthusiasm and participation among the state’s youngest voters, right? Actually, in my opinion, such a move would not be as truly democratic as it may seem, and I plan to vote against it in November.
It is important that we realize what lowering the voting age in primaries would actually do before we approve such an amendment. While the strongest argument in favor of the 17-year-old primary vote proclaims that those who would be of age by the time of the general election ought to have a say in who the final candidates in it are, we must contrast this with the long-standing premise that voting is a right reserved for those capable of possessing the capacity to cast a vote with true understanding. Today’s average 17-year-old is a high school junior or senior, likely preoccupied with not only their scholastic studies and activities, but likely also with out of school recreation, some sensible and benign, some which may causes parents to ask, partially out of frustration and partially out of love, “Why did I have children?” While there are always exceptions, because of other issues on their minds, many of which concern their current lives and the insignificant matters of the moment, the reality is that today’s 17-year-olds are not going to be as politically informed as they could be. As such, their participation in primary elections would likely cause them to make less informed or uninformed decisions, perhaps even by ignoring any personal feelings they may have and going along with popular cultural trends among their demographics.
Time and time again, the “go with the flow” mentality can be seen among America’s youth. I cannot count the number of times I have seen or read in the news or heard on the radio about the frenzy for Democrat Barack Obama on American college campuses among the students. But ask one of these students why they practically worship Obama, their answer is, nine times out of 10, either that he is “for change,” that he inspires them, or because they dislike or despise President Bush and his administration’s policies (likely because they have been misinformed or uninformed of Bush’s real accomplishments, convictions, and records). When pressed for specifics, these students often enough cannot name accomplishments (accomplishments?) in Obama’s political career or name his issue-by-issue political positions. And they’re over 18 – you’ll probably be standing in line with one of them on Election Day.
Is it wise to allow likely uninformed voters access to the polls – in Connecticut’s case, if 17-year-olds had been allowed to vote in the February 5 “Super Tuesday” primary – up to nine months before they reach the age of majority and the long-held age of participation in voting? It’s troublesome enough to me and countless others that too many of those over 18 who do vote do not know much about why they are voting for the candidate they vote for. I do strongly believe that everyone in America 18 and above should vote in each election and primary they are eligible to vote in, but I just as strongly believe in making an informed vote. That means there’s going to have to be a little effort on behalf of the voter. They ought to research all candidates and examine their current positions and proposals, as well as their records of the past, in order to select the best candidate for each office. Even those who tend to be quite partisan (admittedly, me) should at least know where and why their party’s candidate differs from the opposition’s. In fact, if I could have it my way, because Connecticut now uses optical scan ballots on which voters use a felt-tipped pen to bubble in their choices in the fashion of a standardized test, I wish that there were a few blank lines below each office on the ballot where voters could write in a few brief reasons why they are voting for their choice of candidate. There would be no checking of the truthfulness of voters’ responses and no election official would ever bother to read them, but it would serve as a reminder to vote with understanding and reason.
So, in conclusion, does it disenfranchise those who will be 18 by Election Day that they cannot vote in the preceding primary? Or does it strengthen the value of a vote by their having to wait until it becomes a right at 18, a way to welcome in a transition to adulthood (at least under the law)? I can say with some authority that I probably could have cast an informed vote at 15, as I found gaining political knowledge to be fun and rewarding. (I’m not going to say how many years ago that was, however, though I still haven’t yet been summoned for jury duty.) But I realized that good things happen to those who wait. And I was not bitter over it. I spent those years gaining more knowledge and celebrating conservative victories and liberal defeats. Finally being able to vote allowed me to use my knowledge through the simplest and most fundamental form of governmental participation. It was better for me to wait.
Would the value of a 17-year-old primary vote truly be worth the same? In this effort to get more young people to participate in government, do we create their loss of drive to seek out political information in its most rewarding form: on their own? Before long, will we have 16-year-olds wanting the vote because they can work and pay taxes? Folks, it’s the knowledge that comes with time and our seeking out of information on our own accord that is our greatest resource, both for voting and in life.
© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.
With such a wide passage by the General Assembly, Connecticut’s legislative body, the measure is a victory for democracy, a way to create greater enthusiasm and participation among the state’s youngest voters, right? Actually, in my opinion, such a move would not be as truly democratic as it may seem, and I plan to vote against it in November.
It is important that we realize what lowering the voting age in primaries would actually do before we approve such an amendment. While the strongest argument in favor of the 17-year-old primary vote proclaims that those who would be of age by the time of the general election ought to have a say in who the final candidates in it are, we must contrast this with the long-standing premise that voting is a right reserved for those capable of possessing the capacity to cast a vote with true understanding. Today’s average 17-year-old is a high school junior or senior, likely preoccupied with not only their scholastic studies and activities, but likely also with out of school recreation, some sensible and benign, some which may causes parents to ask, partially out of frustration and partially out of love, “Why did I have children?” While there are always exceptions, because of other issues on their minds, many of which concern their current lives and the insignificant matters of the moment, the reality is that today’s 17-year-olds are not going to be as politically informed as they could be. As such, their participation in primary elections would likely cause them to make less informed or uninformed decisions, perhaps even by ignoring any personal feelings they may have and going along with popular cultural trends among their demographics.
Time and time again, the “go with the flow” mentality can be seen among America’s youth. I cannot count the number of times I have seen or read in the news or heard on the radio about the frenzy for Democrat Barack Obama on American college campuses among the students. But ask one of these students why they practically worship Obama, their answer is, nine times out of 10, either that he is “for change,” that he inspires them, or because they dislike or despise President Bush and his administration’s policies (likely because they have been misinformed or uninformed of Bush’s real accomplishments, convictions, and records). When pressed for specifics, these students often enough cannot name accomplishments (accomplishments?) in Obama’s political career or name his issue-by-issue political positions. And they’re over 18 – you’ll probably be standing in line with one of them on Election Day.
Is it wise to allow likely uninformed voters access to the polls – in Connecticut’s case, if 17-year-olds had been allowed to vote in the February 5 “Super Tuesday” primary – up to nine months before they reach the age of majority and the long-held age of participation in voting? It’s troublesome enough to me and countless others that too many of those over 18 who do vote do not know much about why they are voting for the candidate they vote for. I do strongly believe that everyone in America 18 and above should vote in each election and primary they are eligible to vote in, but I just as strongly believe in making an informed vote. That means there’s going to have to be a little effort on behalf of the voter. They ought to research all candidates and examine their current positions and proposals, as well as their records of the past, in order to select the best candidate for each office. Even those who tend to be quite partisan (admittedly, me) should at least know where and why their party’s candidate differs from the opposition’s. In fact, if I could have it my way, because Connecticut now uses optical scan ballots on which voters use a felt-tipped pen to bubble in their choices in the fashion of a standardized test, I wish that there were a few blank lines below each office on the ballot where voters could write in a few brief reasons why they are voting for their choice of candidate. There would be no checking of the truthfulness of voters’ responses and no election official would ever bother to read them, but it would serve as a reminder to vote with understanding and reason.
So, in conclusion, does it disenfranchise those who will be 18 by Election Day that they cannot vote in the preceding primary? Or does it strengthen the value of a vote by their having to wait until it becomes a right at 18, a way to welcome in a transition to adulthood (at least under the law)? I can say with some authority that I probably could have cast an informed vote at 15, as I found gaining political knowledge to be fun and rewarding. (I’m not going to say how many years ago that was, however, though I still haven’t yet been summoned for jury duty.) But I realized that good things happen to those who wait. And I was not bitter over it. I spent those years gaining more knowledge and celebrating conservative victories and liberal defeats. Finally being able to vote allowed me to use my knowledge through the simplest and most fundamental form of governmental participation. It was better for me to wait.
Would the value of a 17-year-old primary vote truly be worth the same? In this effort to get more young people to participate in government, do we create their loss of drive to seek out political information in its most rewarding form: on their own? Before long, will we have 16-year-olds wanting the vote because they can work and pay taxes? Folks, it’s the knowledge that comes with time and our seeking out of information on our own accord that is our greatest resource, both for voting and in life.
© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.
Labels: Barack Obama, Connecticut, Connecticut State Constitution, Elections, Primaries, Youth Vote
posted by cptsteel31 at 12:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home