State of New Hampshire to Seventeen-Year Olds

reducio ad absurdum (4.00 / 1)

I dont really get this argument. If you made the age 17, then someone could make the same argument for sixteen , then fifteen etc. There is plenty of evidence that the part of the brain involved in judgemtn is not fully developed at 17, and that seems to me to be a reasonable basis to defer bestowing voting privileges until later.

This is saying that 17 year old are "stoopid" , it saying that as a group they are 17.
(I dont really care if 17 year olds vote or dont vote ( and I represented the ACLU pro bono in their effort to extend the vogte to 17 year olds last year), but certainly I dont see it as any great injustice if they dont vote)


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:13:32 AM CST

We allow sixteen year olds (0.00 / 0)

to drive, which IMHO, requires judgment and executive function as well.  

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:22:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We do allow them to drive (0.00 / 0)

and they kill and maim an inordinate amount of people, including many 16 year olds.
While I don't think there is a chance in the world of it happening, I don't think it would be a terrible thing if people couldn't vote, drive, go to war, or go to prison until they were 18.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 20:09:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The reductio argument is a good one. (4.00 / 4)

But my feelings on this are shaped by my years in the classroom with high-schoolers.

And in my view, in general, 17-ers are as informed and involved as 18-ers.

But that 16-ers, in general, are much less so.

Others in teaching, of course, may come to different conclusions.

But for me, I consistently feel a shift in maturity and individuality in thinking and accepting of responsibility from the lower (9-10th grade) to the upper (11-12th) as I watch students progress year to year.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:22:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If 17 is the right age to vote in a primary.. (4.00 / 1)

then why isn't it the right age to vote in a general election?. You are doing the same thing- choosing who among a set of individuals would make the best person for the position.

And if 17 is the right age to vote in the general election, then why shouldn't you be allowed to vote in the primary for that general election if you will turn 17 before the general election?  And so it goes..

In any case, isn't it actually harder to choose among several good Democratic candidates in a primary than to choose between the Republican and Democratic nominees in the general? Maybe the proposed bill has it backwards. You should be able to vote in the general when you are 17, but in the primary when you are 18  :-)

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 04:42:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

General election voters (0.00 / 0)

barred from voting in the primary have candidates forced on them without their consent. It's undemocratic. It's like saying we shouldn't have primaries at all and candidates should be selected by party elders, because everyone can still pick between parties.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 13:16:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

17 vs. 16 vs. 18 vs. 15.... (4.00 / 3)

it is interesting to look at the sliding scale of maturity in NH- which could be made into a quiz.

In NH at what age can someone:

purchase cigarettes?
Quit school?
Enlist in the military?
Get married?
Have sex?
Be prosecuted as an adult?
Purchase a car?
Not wear a seat belt?
Choose their own guardian?
In a divorce officially choose which parent they would like to live with?
Be ordered to have medical treatment against their will?

Answers about maturity are not so simple here.

---

by: Kathleen O'Donnell @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:46:25 AM CST

I support one federal voting age (0.00 / 0)

18.

I also don't support allowing a primary vote for someone who will be 18 at general election time. What's the argument for that, that they're being discriminated against?

One standard for all 50 states.  

---

by: JimC @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:07:35 AM CST

We Have 50 Elections, Not 1 (0.00 / 0)

No way, Jose.

We are a Federal nation, not a unitary one. The more unitary we become, the more endangered our own state's customs, like the New Hampshire Primary, will become.

It's particularly important for us, because unlike some states (California, Texas, Hawaii, etc.) there isn't a particularly strong cultural identity for our state.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:44:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

One election (0.00 / 0)

50 state elections.

And that doesn't always work out so well, does it?

---

by: JimC @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:47:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Works Out Well For Us (0.00 / 0)

Let's just forget the New Hampshire Primary or our distinct identity as a state in other ways for a second.

If we had unitary rather than federal elections in 2000, just imagine what would have happened. Instead of just Florida being messed up, we would have been messed up too.

Think of it like a quarantine.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 14:13:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How do you figure? (0.00 / 0)

49 states had no issues, one did.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 14:31:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

One Did (0.00 / 0)

You said it, Jim.

In a unitary system, if one has a problem, all do. And "we" as in New Hampshire, are not a very large voice within the broader American nation demographically, so there's very little "we" could do about it if there were a problem.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 14:51:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So (0.00 / 0)

In your world, the feds do everything right? :-!

IF we went with national elections, it would be the effective end of the Electoral College. Al Gore would have been president by a comfortable margin, and the malarkey in Florida would have been a footnote to it.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 14:54:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not Necessarily (0.00 / 0)

Elections don't just happen. The problem in Florida's Election in 2000 was the process beforehand, namely the ballots.

If everywhere in the US used butterfly ballots in 2000, that wouldn't have helped Gore, that just would have created more chaos.

Besides, we'd probably need to change the constitution if we went from federal to unitary elections, and that's another can of worms. If we were fighting Bush for being unconstitutional, we shouldn't be unconstitutional ourselves.

Theoretically, by the last sentence of Article I Section 8, if Congress made a law regarding national elections, then it could be constitutional I suppose without violating the 10th Amendment, but i'm not a Constitutional lawyer, so I may be wrong.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 15:15:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Too much time on this (0.00 / 0)

But you are arguing that Florida's flaws would have spread to the other 49 states, whereas it is much more likely that the feds would have adopted one of the more reliable methods used by the other 49.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 15:27:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No Worries, We're Just Having A Pleasant Conversation (0.00 / 0)

I dunno, remember FEMA in 2006? We may be at that point in the future again.

In any case, i'm glad we'll never have to know whose practices would infect whom.

We have a great Secretary of State and great Election Law committees in the legislature that I trust to deal with whatever our state has to handle regarding our elections.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 15:47:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's A Bit Squished Over Here, But One More Thing (0.00 / 0)

In terms of the Electoral College, I have to admit i'm up in the air with that, you could make an argument either way.

There's no reason a direct popular vote couldn't be administered by the states though, so to me it's a different discussion.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 15:52:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

All I can say is... (0.00 / 0)

I wish I had the opportunity to vote in 1984 when I was twelve. I won't say who I liked back then.

I followed politics back then religiously and was jealous as heck that I had to wait until I was 18 to vote. There's going to be 16-17 year-olds that don't want to vote and then there's going to be people who are 26-27 or 36-37 years-old and not vote. What's the difference? Give those who are 16 or 17 years old to vote. I didn't like waiting until I was 18.

Just speaking from experience y'all! Lower the minimum age to vote so that future generations can enjoy the privilege I wanted growing up!

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:26:21 PM CST

Calling Blue Hamster Lawyers (0.00 / 0)

Hey, question for any Lawyers reading this blog. Thanks Jim for reminding me about this above.

I've always wondered the scope of what Congress can do under the following sentence in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

I always read that as meaning that Congress can basically do anything not forbidden by Article 1 Section 9 or other various laws not repealed.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 15:19:58 PM CST

Drifting away from what's important... (4.00 / 3)

Civic engagement.

It's not like we'd be letting a 17 year old perform a ballon angioplasty on a collapsed aeorta (No offense Doogey Houser). We'd be allowing them to take responsibility and initiative in their lives and in their commuity.

This would make voting much* more prominent and visible at school, which would have the effect of making it one of those permanent traditions that populate student life at school.  That in turn, would create a larger number of people more likely to be both a) life-long voters, and b) voters with a vested interest in preserving our primary.

The topic of ACTUALLY voting in High School is rarely addressed because there is a very small group of Seniors that can vote. Imagine High School voting drives!? Awesome!

---

by: StevenPlace @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 15:53:38 PM CST

the member who spoke against was... (0.00 / 0)

Shawn Jasper, who like myself & Jim Splaine sits on the House Election Law committee, led the fight against CACR4.  He is a basically decent fellow, but he needs to have an eye kept on him.

One of his big issues is new voters... young voters in particular, but he seems very, very worried about anyone new who registers to vote.  He doesn't quite seem to be able to accept the idea that NH went Democratic because the people of NH have been abandoning his party, not because of out of staters coming here (illegally or even legally) to vote.

I was tempted to run up to the podium and bitchslap him when he spoke against CACR4 and another bill. (This would have been against the rules.) I had had a little runin with him the day before during an executive session: he blatantly misstated the facts about how Census data is used in the redistricting process and he also used his incorrect facts to impugn my integrity.  Luckily I have some past professional experience with the Census --- and was able to refute him to the majority's satisfaction.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 16:35:16 PM CST