Posted on 05/21/2016 9:24:40 AM PDT by 6ft2inhighheelshoes
The Left’s Next Battlefront If you thought the transgender bathroom was the hill upon which the progressive movement would die, get ready for the next outrageous little war the left is waging against common sense.
Last week the City of San Francisco passed an amendment (9-2) to lower the voting age to 16 years old. It will appear on this November’s ballot in an effort to expand voting “rights”. It may be tempting to laugh it off as “wacky San Francisco”, but advocates intend to replicate this around the country, and worldwide. Their wishes may be soon granted:
Council members in Washington, D.C., are considering legislation to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in federal elections, a measure even more radical than San Francisco’s. Two other municipalities have lowered the voting age in local elections to 16 — Takoma Park and Hyattsville, both in Maryland.
The 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971 allowing 18 year olds the right to vote. The push was based on the simple slogan “old enough to fight, old enough to vote”. The effort began 30 years earlier during World War II by Congressman Jennings Randolph (D-WV). He introduced the bill 11 times during his career in the House and Senate.
While the premise was marketed as ‘Kids, who can fight and die for their country, should have a voice’, the primary reasoning for Randolph’s push was his belief that America’s youth “possess a great social conscience, are perplexed by the injustices in the world and are anxious to rectify those ills.”
In 2016 less than 2% of 18 year olds serve in the military. Since they have not yet paid into the system with a meaningful career, over 98% of 18 year olds are not invested in greater society in any way. They have mostly only received benefits in the form of education and/or being supported by their parents. Granted there are exceptions, but even our forefathers knew 18 year olds are molly coddled children whose ideology has another 7-10 years to marinate before being fully formed.
Jason Brennan writes in his book The Ethics of Voting about voter’s lack of knowledge and their ‘moral obligation’ in becoming educated on issues before voting.
“The key argument against letting high school juniors vote is simple: Their choice would affect all of us. After all, a voter chooses for everyone, not just him or herself. Many worry that most 16-year-olds lack the wisdom or knowledge to cast smart votes, so we don’t let them vote because we want to protect ourselves from their decisions.
And this concern is often grounded in reality — young adults are indeed in many cases profoundly ignorant about politics. But if that is a reason for excluding them from voting, it is surely a reason to exclude almost everyone else.”
Brennan begins his book suggesting citizens are not required to vote, but are required to become educated on the issues should they choose to vote. Brennan’s point being: Most everyone in society is uninformed and they shouldn’t vote unless they can prove otherwise.
His point is confirmed by several studies. 2 years after Brennan’s book was published Annenberg Public Policy Center released a study suggesting Americans show great uncertainty when it comes to answering basic questions about how their government works.
While little more than a third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, just as many (35 percent) could not name a single one. Just over a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration. Anecdotally, I asked my almost 16 year old son what he thought of him and his friends being able to vote. Without hesitation he replied “That’s crazy! even 18 is too young! My friends have no clue about politics and the only reason I do is because I’m stuck in your car each day. We have no life experience yet. It should be 21 or even older.” #ProudDad
Many conservatives suggest the left pass policies (immigration, criminal voting rights, mandated union dues, etc) to prop-up their dwindling voter rolls.
They use the language of ‘disenfranchisement’, or as the British version of this effort ‘VotesAt16’ suggests “We believe it is impossible to justify the automatic and blanket exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from the right to vote”.
VotesAt16 VotesAt16 This new transparent ploy signifies a new front by progressives to restructure democratic societies. Youths are generally ideological, thus why many who attend rallies, social justice protests, or support a self-avowed socialist for President are missing the wisdom accumulated with years. Without life experience many youths only know emotional arguments or selected truths spouted by Marxist professors and media influencers.
The proven formula to win progressive policy is to discuss “feelings”, something conservative candidates can learn from. People generally first vote emotionally and second logically (if ever). Conservatives who take a page from progressive tactics can turn normally boring conservative policies in their favor. ie: Instead of simply preaching ‘less government/regulations!’, candidates could benefit by explaining how it impacts real lives. For example: privatizing infrastructure contracts – “Competition equals less expensive roads, means quicker fixes to potholes, quicker commutes home, more time to spend with your family.”
For most young adults the heart speaks louder than boring, pesky realities like fiscal responsibility and history repeatedly demonstrating failed big government solutions.
The emotional voter fits the left’s demographic outreach like a dovetail joint. After decades of ingratiating themselves in the power structure of higher education and promoting leftist causes in primary school (ie: global warming) they are eager to now cement their hold on children at an ever earlier age.
The efforts by the left are purposeful. They intend to destabilize elections, decrease the impact of conservatives across state and federal governments. They know that 8-10 million children can easily be organized in schools as a captive audience and transported to polls en masse in GOTV efforts.
Progressives understand that once they own the children, they own the future.
Fine, then old enough to vote is old enough to send 16 year olds, male and female, to the front lines. Let them buy booze and smokes and super sized soft drinks. Better yet, lower the age to 10 or 7 or 5.
I’ll sit back and eat popcorn watching the helicopter moms’ heads explode when their precious little snowflakes get sent off to some third world hell hole.
Next battleground? The only people left that they haven’t gone after is Canadian and Mexican citizens still permanently living in their respective countries. But then again, that would only cover North America. And judging by the way they screwed up overseas ballots for the military, they could never get the foreign vote covered and counted in time. God help the APO for that.
red
Too many 35 year olds are still children. There’s at least one state (a northern one?) that passed a law to keep widdle snowflakes on their parents’ health insurance until they’re 27 or so.
Well, they are not “smart enough” to drink at age 18 ....
Other than Kool Aid.
“What are we going to do about it?”
Split their base.
For example, campaign on making federal handouts a function of the amount of federal taxes paid by the recipient and his/her close relatives.
Campaign on capping all taxation by federal constitutional amendment.
Would Democrats in say New York State like to see their taxes cut by 25%?
Would Democrats in say New Jersey like to see their property taxes cut to a max of $2 per finished square foot?
How about capping non-federal cigarette taxation at 10 cents a cigarette?
If taxation is capped, the moochers of America will not want more moochers eating a fixed tax base.
Old enough to vote, then old enough to smoke, drink alcohol, enter contracts, get sued, get married, have their own health insurance, get charged with crimes as adults rather than juveniles, and so on. Oh...and old enough to buy firearms.
Why not make it so ONLY 16 year olds can vote. I love the smell of Cambodia in the morning.
Tobacco, that is.
A city charter amendment.
Or smoke cigarettes in certain cities
They won’t need to bus them anywhere. My poll is located in the local middle school. They can just vote on their lunch break.
If the commie libs think that CHILDREN are responsible enough to vote, the laws need to be changed to say that all CHILDREN will be tried as ADULTS for every crime they commit.
If CHILDREN are responsible enough to vote, all laws for purchasing booze and tobacco must be abolished. CHILDREN should also be eligible to purchase a gun at any age. They should also be allowed to obtain a driver’s license as soon as they learn to walk. They should also be required to pay taxes on all benefits they receive from any governmental agency.
But they keep telling us they all ready know everything. /sarc
Fine with me. Illegals also, and criminals, and people with no identification whatsoever.
One little detail though.
Your ballot is printed on the back of your IRS 1040 form. When you file your taxes, you vote.
Don’t file taxes?
Then you don’t have a dog in the fight so you don’t need to vote!
(By the way, thanks to my afternoon job, under my plan I could have voted at 14. Yes, I’ve paid into the stupid system for 52 years.)
*Wild in the Streets* was a troubling movie, terrifying in the end. When BO’B was first elected, the movie hit me in the face. Shelly Winters, the only actor remembered in the cast, but the plot long remembered, never forgotten. If everyone over 20/30/50,is in a re-education camp, who takes care of the store?
Double or nothing, let’s make it 32 instead of 16.
I apologize, but I copied and pasted the article without double-checking the formatting - so be aware that Dave quotes and hyperlinks many sources that don’t appear here- please go to Davesussman.com for the full article with all the links and quotes correctly formatted.
Children should be given a vote, but their legal guardian should cast it on their behalf until then reach 18.
Many worry that most 16-year-olds lack the wisdom or knowledge to cast smart votes, so we don’t let them vote because we want to protect ourselves from their decisions.
The rat cry will be “so you think 16 year olds are stupid”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.