Something good has actually happened for the future of democracy someplace! Not in the U.S., natch, but in the land of Viginia Woolf and Thomas Hobbes. You know, our (one-time) close ally, England. Those hiding in their American basements between their meat freezers and their dart boards may wonder what it is that I believe ought have their populace absolutely chuffed. So, I will keep them in suspense no longer: ENGLAND HAVE/HAS LOWERED THE VOTING AGE IN NATIONAL ELECTIONS TO 16!
There will, no doubt, be those who doubt that this is really a good thing. In fact, the U.S. is home to a burgeoning new movement that advocates for the removal of suffrage from women (or, I suppose, those assigned Female at birth, or conception, or whatever this group thinks is the Godly way to put this sought after restriction). What those concerned gentlemen (mostly gents, anyhow) are quite sure of is that women don't "have what it takes" to be allowed to make a difference in their country based on their views--unless any difference-making opportunity they're given consists solely in begging their husbands, and that is something for which I think it's deemed OK by this group to beat them.
Now, of course, the proportion of the U.S. population that denies that 16- and 17-year olds have the mysterious something required to be eligible for voting rights is considerably larger than the fringe group that would remove women's suffrage. Indeed, the anti-youth vote segment even contains multitudes of women! It's not a marginal group at all. It's just those people who can be heard to say, "Teens simply aren't ready. I mean, have you ever talked to one? Let me get Bracey away from his screens for a minute and you'll see what I mean!"
These sorts of pronouncements aren't new: "They don't pay taxes! They don't know anything! They can't buy a rifle or get a mortgage! They never work! They don't care about anything but video games, halter top styles, muffin recipes, fantasy football or porn! For heaven's sake, if you think about this even for a minute, you'll see that it's a ridiculous-- even disgusting--idea!"
Of course, the same charges have long been--and in numerous quarters still are--aimed at non-caucasions--regardless of gender.
I discuss this matter at some length in Chapter 6 of my book on democratic theory (which if you haven't yet read in its entirety, tsk, tsk). However, I am so delighted at seeing this news about what's happening in the Parliamentary world of dear Bertie that I will provide an excerpt from that book here. [For those who are already sick of reading at this point, the bottom line is: midteens should be allowed to vote, and democracy is that much worse where this right is not granted.]
First, there are a few pages spent on discussing the numerous arguments that have been brought against teen voting for centuries. I omit them here, as well as any footnotes to what I will reproduce. The text continues as follows:
So, what should voters be able to do? According to Vivian Hamilton (2011, 53), “a minimally competent voting decision involves the appropriate application and coordination of various reasoning processes to make a choice that could be justified by a good reason.” This is because, on her view (2011, 52-62), the ability to cast a non-random vote requires minimal competence in all of the following:
• The ability to learn and retrieve information.
• The ability to form mental representations of information.
• At least some ability to reason inductively, deductively and analogically.
• The ability to apply and coordinate reasoned inferences to some goal, like the solving of a problem or the making of a decision.
Once there is agreement on these, settling on a minimum voting age is simply a matter of consulting the literature on the stages of psychological development. That is precisely what Hamilton does, with patience and care. I will not rehearse her generous summary of the research here, but simply report the absolutely decisive conclusion that, (i) prior to the mid-teens (i.e., 16 or thereabouts) there is, on average, arguably insufficient maturity to meet Hamilton’s criteria; and (ii) after the mid-teens, there is, on average, no development in those areas significant enough to be declared relevant.
This result will not be surprising to anyone who has adult children. That something dramatic happens during the high school years is quite obvious. Athletes begin to have 90 miles-per-hour fastballs, close in on Olympic records, even get notifications of interest from professional teams. Musicians, visual artists, and actors begin to give performances or create pieces that could be staged without embarrassment anywhere in the world. Writers begin to compose publishable works of poetry and prose. Mathematicians suddenly make progress on matters that have stumped the world since the beginning of time. Chess and video game players become masters. Actors start to show multiple levels of depth and nuance of expression. Comedians become funny in original ways. Of course, some kids develop earlier, and some are late bloomers. But those of us who have gone to plays, concerts, games, showings, etc. at our children’s high schools will know that an incredible change takes place among the rank and file there. Clearly, if what the people in some polity want is a strict function of what the individuals in it want, 16-year-olds must be allowed to express their desires and aversions in the same manner as older members of society.
Will the votes of 16-year-olds be independent, or will they just ape the votes of their parents or teachers? It really doesn’t matter: nobody’s vote is entirely independent of those around them. What about the danger of teens simply being instructed to cast their votes in a particular manner by those who feed and house them? The secret ballot is a wonderful protection against coercion of that type. Will they not care enough to vote, based on the belief—correct or incorrect—that most of the issues won’t affect them? That is entirely up to them. Electoral indifference also provides useful information about the state of the populace. (And if they are made to go to the polls against their will, they can always write in Rihanna, Payton Manning, Zippy the Pinhead, or one of the Mutant Ninja Turtles: no harm will have been done).
Let us agree then to take a break from either mourning or protesting--or whatever you think is most called for in these desperate times--and celebrate this brave British revision of its electoral rules. The new youth vote in England is estimated to constitute only 2% of the total electorate, and the new voters will remain ineligible to hold office themselves. But, in spite of its limits nobody should deny that this is a wonderful moment for democracy in the world. May more soon follow!!
No comments:
Post a Comment