|
Just when the Arnold jokes have started to die down, a
group of California legislators want to amend the state constitution
to allow 14-year-olds to vote in state and local elections. It
looks like the circus is back in town and I don’t mean the recall,
which was actually something of a U-turn back to sanity.
As much as I would like to think this means the state
has run out of real problems it’s more likely that California pols,
rattled by the voter revolt that unsaddled Governor Davis, are
afraid there aren’t enough idiots left to keep them in office.
This is no slam on teenagers; 14-year-old idiocy is
usually temporary. I know no excuse for state senator John
Vasconcellos and his three co-authors.
Under Vasconcellos’ plan, 14- and 15-year-olds would be
allotted a quarter of a vote while 16- and 17-year-olds would get a
half. If the senator has explained how a state that can’t balance a
budget could keep track of quarter, half, and whole voters, I missed
it.
More important than how is why. According to Associated
Press, Vasconcellos believes having the vote will get kids more
involved in the political process. And, he adds, the Internet,
cellular phones, and multi-channel television have made teens better
informed than ever.
This makes me wonder whether Vasconcellos has ever met a
teenager. The next one I see surfing C-SPAN on a multi-channel TV
or using a cell phone to discuss the latest interest rate
announcement from the Federal Reserve Board will be the first.
Today’s technology might make this the most over-entertained
generation in history, but I doubt they’re better informed.
I turned 18 in 1972, the year the 26th
Amendment gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. My birthday was nine
days after the presidential election but it was still pretty
exciting. Political campaigns and network talking heads whipped up
a national frenzy over how we would change the world. Yes, the
young would flex their mighty muscles and bring in an era of
idealism like none before.
As it turned out, George McGovern, the presumed favorite
of the new voters, was stomped. Today, voters between 18 and 21
stay away from the polls in droves and have virtually no impact.
So why not let them vote if most won’t anyway? That’s
like handing a child a gun and hoping he or she won’t hurt anyone.
If the teens quoted in the news stories are any indication, those
who might actually vote want a say in education funding and similar
issues. In other words, they look forward to spending money that
isn’t theirs.
This is what teens do (I know; I have two), but most
don’t think far enough ahead to understand that once programs are
voted in they tend to last forever. A vote that seems like a good
idea to 14-year-olds today might well have them kicking themselves
for decades. It’d be better if they just kept kicking their elders,
who are only somewhat less inclined to vote their children a
lifetime of debt.
National elections are governed by the U.S. Constitution
so Vasconcellos’ pipedream would have no impact outside California.
Still, if passed, the idea might catch on and steamroll to other
states. Many trends have begun in California, not all of them bad.
For instance there was the Beach Boys, and, well, I guess that’s
it.
The measure requires the support of two-thirds of the
state legislature and approval by voters so is probably dead on
arrival. If it does pass, though, it may well be time for a serious
national debate – on whether any Californian should be allowed to
vote.
|
