Editorial: Senator’s fraction vote proposal half-baked

Democratic state Sen. John Vasconcellos wants a constitutional
amendment in California to allow children as young as 14 to
vote.

That’s just a bad idea. The San Jose-based state senator
and the supporters of his proposal are ignoring the problems that
would arise if children could vote.

Vasconcellos probably had noble intentions in mind when he came
up with his idea. He told The Associated Press that increasing
“democratic dialogue” could be a model for the world,
comparing his proposal to historic reforms that allowed women and
minorities to vote.

Realistically, though, there are vast differences between fixing
real inequalities and allowing 14-year-old children to vote. Women
and minorities were specifically targeted and denied the franchise
because of sexism and racism.

In contrast, there are rational reasons why children are not
allowed to vote.

First, most children simply do not know enough about the world
to make informed decisions about the political process. Certainly,
there are some children who read the news and follow politics, but
most do not. While it is true few adults could be considered
political geniuses, at least they have been alive long enough to
know generally what is going on in the world
““ hopefully.

Also, it seems unlikely that children would constitute an
effective voting group. Advertisements would not be geared toward
children. Children might not be able to understand or debate
certain complex issues. And most children simply don’t care
about political debates. In all likelihood, children would probably
vote the same way as their parents.

Even if letting children vote was a good idea,
Vasconcellos’ specific proposal still would be flawed. His
amendment would allow 14-year-olds a one-fourth vote, with
16-year-olds getting a one-half vote. People 18 and older would get
a full vote, as they do now.

The idea of fractional representation has proved to be
dangerous. Those who supported slavery when this country was
founded used the idea of a fractional person to negotiate the
infamous “three-fifths compromise” that made slaves
count fractionally toward congressional representation. Even though
the proposal to lower the voting age has nothing to do with
slavery, a return to fractional representation would send the wrong
message about the value of individuals.

The current proposal also cannot be compared to the to the U.S.
constitutional amendment lowering the voting age to 18. In 1971,
there was a reason to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. Young
people were being killed in Vietnam every day, yet they could not
even vote.

In the current case, there is simply no compelling reason to
lower the voting age to 14.

Vasconcellos needs to reconsider his proposal. It is silly and
deserves no consideration by anyone in government.

A better idea would be to help engage existing young voters. The
fact people between the age of 18 and 24 have little say in who
represents them in government and what their priorities are
““ that’s a problem that deserves attention.