Lowering the voting age? [Archive]

EinBebop

03-09-2004, 10:36 AM

It's a funny thing. I saw a commericial on TV for MTV's "Rock the Vote", talking about how 18 million young people voted, how close the race was, and what would have happened if 20 million young people voted. And though they didn't say it, the answer is obvious to any thinking person: people are far more idealistically liberal when they're young. Hell, I registered Green Party when I turned 18. So 2 million more twenty-somethings probably would've turned the tide for Gore.

So as soon as I saw this article, I knew the Senator in question had to be a Democrat, and have confirmed it to be true.

California lawmakers propose lowering voting age to 14 for state elections
A proposed amendment to California's constitution would give 16-year-olds a half-vote and 14-year-olds a quarter-vote in state elections.

State Sen. John Vasconcellos, among four lawmakers to propose the idea on Monday, said the Internet, cellular phones, multichannel television and a diverse society makes today's teens better informed than their predecessors.

The idea requires two-thirds approval by the Legislature to appear on the November ballot.

"When we gave the vote to those who didn't own property, then to women, then to persons of all colors, we added to the richness of our democratic dialogue and our own nation's integrity and its model for the world," Vasconcellos said, calling it time to further extend the vote.

A Republican colleague said it was "the nuttiest idea I've ever heard."

Said Assemblyman Ray Haynes: "There's a reason why 14-year-olds and 16-year-olds don't vote. They are not adults. They are not mature enough. They are easily deceived by political charlatans."

Student supporters said the idea could give them a say in issues such as education funding and bring new voices to the California electorate. "If we could vote, politicians would see us as votes, not just kids, and they would take our issues seriously," said Robert Reynolds, a student at Berkeley High School.I oppose this for a few reasons:

1) I think it's a blatant attempt to strengthen the liberal base, obviously. Not just in terms of presidential and gubernatorial elections, but for things like bond issues. CA used to pass all of those education bonds, but have finally realized that it's just gives the one of the most overpaid, underperfoming education systems in the country more room to waste and has voted the last one down. Time for plan B! How about some kids voting to push those bonds through?

2) You really think 16-year olds are going to stay abreast of the issues when 32-year olds don't do it? Unless it comes up in the classroom, dear God, which brings me to...

3) I can just imagine how the teacher's union, one of the most influential political machines in CA, would try to manipulate this to their advantage. The teachers would have incredible power to influence how their students vote.

4) Are we really going to have 14-year olds serve on juries?

Griever

03-09-2004, 01:53 PM

people are far more idealistically liberal when they're young. Hell, I registered Green Party when I turned 18.LOL! I had a bunch of Liberal ideas, just two years ago.

Kids are better informed indeed. It seems most school systems no longer require civics courses. Almost as if they want people to stay ignorant...

Lucky Bob

03-09-2004, 02:09 PM

A quarter of a vote? Where are the equal-rights organizations? DOWNGRADE THE SYSTEM! (A P.C. technological term for a baby-boomer concept.)

(This isn't technically a poltical topic, BTW. More like "Oddly Enough". I'm clear. ;))

randomguy

03-09-2004, 06:42 PM

Wow... this is dumb. 18 is a perfectly reasonable age for voting, and this whole "quarter-vote/half-vote" thing is incredibly stupid.

Besides, EinBebop's right, this is a blatant attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party.

krazymed

03-09-2004, 06:47 PM

It violates the Constitutional law that everyone is equal. It won't fly.

I do like the idea of kids having voting power. Certainly if they are being prosecuted as adults for things like murder. The courts seem to think that 15-year-olds have some intelligence. Why the voting committees don't is anyone's guess.

TimTwoFace

03-09-2004, 07:26 PM

14 years old!? Most kids I know - and knew - at that age didn't give a rat's ass about politics. Yet, they'd love to go and vote just because it's a fun, new way to get their voices heard. It's a novelty. If I had the right to vote at age 14, chances are I wouldn't be able to choose a guy based on anything other than something as trivial his or her tie or something.

No way - 18 is young enough. I don't see why that should change. I think the more immediate concern should be trying to get more than an average 50% voter turn-out of the people that are already eligible.

-Tim

Caffeine King

03-09-2004, 07:33 PM

14 year olds wouldn't give a damn. I wouldn't, I don't like any of them and wouldn't vote.

Most would probably just vote for fun and wouldn't care.

I'd just wait untill I'm 18. :cool:

ChuckRoast

03-09-2004, 07:39 PM

Like the quote in the top says, 14 year-olds are not mature enough. And the quarter of a vote thing sounds stupid and might cause some problems in the actual elections.

SlyBoy

03-09-2004, 07:42 PM

Like the quote in the top says, 14 year-olds are not mature enough.Uh, don't you mean most 14-year olds? ;)

Tienshin

03-09-2004, 07:45 PM

Lowering the voting age...if anything it should be raised!

shogunthethird

03-09-2004, 08:23 PM

instead of adding in more voters how about we get the ones we've got heard, far be it to get into partisan bickering but I could just as easily cite the cutting of civics requirements as a republican plot to keep the constituency ignorant and in their thrall, so let's think before we start slinging political accusations of ulterior motives here, okay?

Zach Logan

03-09-2004, 08:27 PM

14s a bit young, but I say if you're 16 and you are knowledgable enough about politics (take a test or something) then you should be able to vote.

Squall

03-09-2004, 08:37 PM

This is a ridiculous suggestion. We have a hard enough time finding adults who understand the issues, know who they're voting for, and are informed citizens, and now a politician wants to let kids vote?

Minors can't vote because (1) they're not mature enough yet (Some 21 year olds aren't mature enough yet either, but you have to draw the line somewhere, so 18 is a good place to draw it), (2) they're not free yet (Many will just vote for who their parents voted for), and (3) they're not independent thinkers yet (Most are in the public schools, where they're already told what and how to think).

This sounds like a politician who's desperate to get re-elected to me...

SlyBoy

03-09-2004, 09:04 PM

...and (3) they're not independent thinkers yet (Most are in the public schools, where they're already told what and how to think).
You're kidding, right? o_O

The Dork Knight

03-09-2004, 09:14 PM

Before I went to school today, I was listening to the radio and heard about this. I honestly hope it does'nt go through. Think about it, the 14 to 17 age demographic is easily persaudable. Imagine the AIM generation being able to vote.

"OMgWTF!1 I'm guna vote 4 buhs bcauze he is so kewl!"

Be afraid people, be very afraid.

- The Dork Knight

Barb Gordon

03-09-2004, 09:26 PM

18 to 21 seemed always like a good age for voting to me. Do they really think the average 14-16 is that aware of the issues? I don't know how much has changed since I was last in high school, all of two years ago, but all I can say is "Hardly!" The average teen I knew couldn't care less about the issues of politics or anything outside their "world" of school, guys, girls, tv and movies, fashion, etc. Yes, there were certainly some very very bright kids I knew who had such a mass amount of interest in politics from the get-go, but they were few and far between compared to the majority.

~Barb

Ed Liu

03-09-2004, 10:18 PM

Howdy,

I oppose this for a few reasons:

1) I think it's a blatant attempt to strengthen the liberal base, obviously.

There are many, many reasons which I can think of why this is a stupid idea, but not too many of them require some vast Evil Liberal Left-Wing Conspiracy to try and rob conservatives of votes. I could just as easily retort that the ELLWC could lower the voting age to 7 and hand out free candy on campaign stops, but it won't matter because the Republican-controlled electronic voting machines will just hand the election to the more conservative candidate, which is only slightly less plausible a scenario.

Feel your eyes rolling back in your head? Now you know how I feel when you howl indignantly about how "liberals" want to take over.

Not that I'm FOR this proposal. Just trying to suggest that if you're really interested in maintaining civil political discourse around here, as you suggest in the "political discussion" thread (http://forums.toonzone.net/showpost.php?p=1175658&postcount=29), it would be a good start not to paint everybody of a particular political slant with the same brush.

That said, it seems to me that if we, as a nation, are willing to put any given 14-year old on trial as an adult because he or she can be responsible enough for committing a crime, why wouldn't some other given 14-year old have the same mental capacity and responsibility to vote? If we're going to make teenagers fully responsible for their actions to the point of executing them, then I say be consistent about it.

-- Ed/Ace

EinBebop

03-09-2004, 10:48 PM

Just trying to suggest that if you're really interested in maintaining civil political discourse around here, as you suggest in the "political discussion" thread (http://forums.toonzone.net/showpost.php?p=1175658&postcount=29), it would be a good I'm not making any broad statements at all, and I fully expected most if not all of the liberals on this board (over the age of 18) to be as outraged as I. I'm also not making any broad statements about the liberal agenda; only the agenda of the four guys making this proposal.

EinBebop

03-09-2004, 10:57 PM

That said, it seems to me that if we, as a nation, are willing to put any given 14-year old on trial as an adult because he or she can be responsible enough for committing a crime, Let me stop you... noone is "responsible enough" to commit a crime. They ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences of their actions if judged mentally competent to understand why what they did was wrong. Which I don't think should still be in question at age 14.

But understanding right and wrong and understanding social issues are unquestionably two different levels of mental capacity.

Mynd Hed

03-10-2004, 03:07 AM

That said, it seems to me that if we, as a nation, are willing to put any given 14-year old on trial as an adult because he or she can be responsible enough for committing a crime, why wouldn't some other given 14-year old have the same mental capacity and responsibility to vote? If we're going to make teenagers fully responsible for their actions to the point of executing them, then I say be consistent about it.
I'm with you, but I'd say that the solution to that shouldn't be to lower the voting age, but rather to drop this ridiculous "trial as an adult" thing.

But let's face it, putting an age limitation on anything (voting, driving, buying controlled substances like alcohol, nicotine, and prescription drugs, gambling, porn, etc.) is always going to be arbitrary, simply because there's just no good way of measuring maturity. But if it IS going to be arbitrary, I see nothing wrong with setting our arbitrary limit on voting exactly where it is-- 18. I could see maybe raising it to 21-- I know that I know a helluva lot more about the world now than I did three years ago, personally-- but dropping it? HELL no.

EinBebop

03-10-2004, 03:19 AM

I see nothing wrong with setting our arbitrary limit on voting exactly where it is-- 18. I could see maybe raising it to 21-- I know that I know a helluva lot more about the world now than I did three years ago, personally-- but dropping it? HELL no.A legal voting age of 21 worked for the first 195 years. :anime: I kinda lean toward linking voting with 'becoming an adult', as it were. But on the other hand, maybe it would mean a little more if they were forced to wait a little longer. Who turns eighteen and says, "Hooray, I can vote!"

krazymed

03-10-2004, 05:47 AM

Blame the schools. Not keeping our kids aware of the issues. They hit 18 and they are apathetic.

SSJPabs

03-10-2004, 08:20 AM

Who turns eighteen and says, "Hooray, I can vote!"I did. :cool:

EinBebop

03-10-2004, 09:51 AM

Blame the schools. Blame the parents for not holding their children accountable for the performance in school.

Ed Liu

03-10-2004, 10:03 AM

Howdy,

I can see this devolving into an argument amongst people who agree on the fundamental point but for entirely different reasons :), but...

But understanding right and wrong and understanding social issues are unquestionably two different levels of mental capacity.
Why?

To my mind, they're both manifestations of accepting responsibility for your actions. Actions Have Consequences, and pulling the lever in a voting booth is at least as dangerous an action as pulling the trigger of a gun. If a teenager can't be expected to understand the consequenes of the former, I can't accept that a teenager can be expected to fully understand the consequences of the latter.

My ultimate answer is to strip teenagers of both of those responsibilities until at least age 18:

I'm with you, but I'd say that the solution to that shouldn't be to lower the voting age, but rather to drop this ridiculous "trial as an adult" thing.
My point exactly, although in hindsight one that was not very clearly made through my sleep-deprived haze :).

-- Ed/Ace

EinBebop

03-10-2004, 10:29 AM

To my mind, they're both manifestations of accepting responsibility for your actions. If a teenager can't be expected to understand the consequenes of the former, I can't accept that a teenager can be expected to fully understand the consequences of the latter.What you say is true; that is because the latter is an outgrowth of the former. That's why you can't expect to have them both manifest themselves simultaneously.

To clarify what I'm saying: in any given social issue, there may be several layers of right and wrong. It takes a different level of maturity to understand that things aren't all black and white, and a degree of intelligence to delve into those layers as well.

I'm just waiting for the psych/philosophy people on this board to jump on this.

Roman Legion

03-10-2004, 10:32 AM

Blame the parents for not holding their children accountable for the performance in school.

Blame the school for not having high-enough standards and for not doing their job in educating their own students to help them meet those standards.

Then, blame the parents for dumping the kids into an average public school. :p

From there, blame whoever needs to be blamed for needing both parents to have full-time jobs to get by or not being educated enough to handle their children's education up to a reasonable point.

In fact, let's blame everyone, cuz I'm in a bad mood. :p

--Romey

EinBebop

03-10-2004, 10:43 AM

Blame the school for not having high-enough standards and for not doing their job in educating their own students to help them meet those standards.I feel like we're going to keep running in circles here! :D

The schools can't educate if the parents won't discipline. The schools can't raise standards if the parents won't allow the implementation of those standards. It's all about lack of accountability on the part of the parents.

Lord knows I tried.

Zechs

03-10-2004, 10:59 AM

This is the biggest bunch of belly wash I've seen in while. Teens shouldn't vote because they are not mature enough yet . There are some 40 year olds who have yet to and never will mature, but most people of voting age are mature enough to use their brains a chose a candate by merrit. As for teens so many are infulcndey by singers, actors an the biggest infulence peers. I mean all we need is a buncha teens voting for bush or kerry because their best friend or boyfriend did. Besides I don't think many are willing to sit through election crovarage in order to find out who they like, they might catch it if their parents are watching it. In my expriance as a teen most weren't really into the elections and didn't want to be.

SSJPabs

03-10-2004, 11:16 AM

Ideally it'd be on a case by case basis so some people wouldn't get to vote until their 50, others maybe as young as 15. For example, I stayed a liberal despite having almost all republicans around me, and most as my closest friends and despite having things like my faith called into question for my political beliefs while also breaking from my parents on several issues when I felt they were wrong. I was more informed at 16 than the vast majority of my peers and their parents.

I'm just saying what an ideal would be. Realistically speaking we trust people to drive cars, 1 ton death machines and not to pull a lever? Well, personally the voting age can stay the same for all I care. If I had to vote on this measure I'd vote "no." Just some points to bring up.

To clarify what I'm saying: in any given social issue, there may be several layers of right and wrong. It takes a different level of maturity to understand that things aren't all black and white, and a degree of intelligence to delve into those layers as well. Well I'm shocked EinBebop is the one saying that but the Data Dog is entirely correct! I applaud your reasoned response and very much agree.

randomguy

03-10-2004, 07:13 PM

Who turns eighteen and says, "Hooray, I can vote!"
I did that. I also voted just a couple of weeks afterwards. Believe it or not, there are plenty of teens who are excited about being able to get involved in the voting process.

Selective service, on the other hand...

I wanted to say, though, that I think raising the age is as serious of a mistake. I'd be damn annoyed if I could be drafted and sent into the field to die, but couldn't place my vote for an elected official. Eighteen is the best age you could have, I think.

That being said, something about this whole proposal has kind of gotten me thinking. I started working when I was 15. For three years, I was taxed like any other American. Most of my paychecks were around three hundred dollars, so I lost an average of $60-80 every two weeks. All this time, I was being taxed... but I had no representation of my own choosing. Now, I'm not saying we should lower the voting age, but doesn't that mean something?

SlyBoy

03-10-2004, 07:37 PM

Teens shouldn't vote because they are not mature enough yet .
That's not completely true, most teens aren't mature, but some are. You just have to look in the right places. ;)

EinBebop

03-11-2004, 01:06 PM

Mynd Hed

03-11-2004, 01:50 PM

I wanted to say, though, that I think raising the age is as serious of a mistake. I'd be damn annoyed if I could be drafted and sent into the field to die, but couldn't place my vote for an elected official. Eighteen is the best age you could have, I think.
My assumption when I suggested that it might be okay to raise the voting age is that the draft age would be raised along with it. Actually I'm against the draft on general principle, but I don't think anyone would suggest that it would be cool to draft folks without voting rights. (-:

Lucky Bob

03-11-2004, 03:16 PM

Fone Bone

03-11-2004, 05:27 PM

How 'bout this...

How about one becomes eligible to vote...when he/she starts paying taxes?

First time you file a 1040-anything, you can vote from then on. Taxation with representation.

Not a lot of under-18s in that mix, I agree, but the ones who are smart enough to be making money at that age should be smart enough to vote.

Just a thought.
How 'bout us disabled folks who can't work? Or poor people who don't pay taxes? I would like to have a say in who is running our country, but if that ever happens I couldn't. :(

Zechs

03-11-2004, 06:20 PM

Before this thread fades into obscurity, I had a thought last night. Specifically, a circumstance under which I would consider voting for an amendment to lower the voting age:

If the 17-and-under population demanded it.

I'm not talking about a bunch of politicians herding a select few onto TV; I'm talking about a juvenile-organized, juvenile-led movement. Demonstrations. Tea-party style boycotts where they withhold their money from industries supported by young people. Scientific research showing how much the average 16-year old knows about social issues compared to a 32-year old (the results might be surprising). Young voices across the land demanding what they feel is their right.

But the reality is that, as a whole, they don't care. It'll never happen. They'll get over it. they'll have to because it will never happen. IMO I really don't think teens are mature enough to vote. Even if they say they you have to ask will they realy keep up with corvarge and will influencedby peers , parents stars and others. I think for now it should stay the way it is unles they can prove teens are mature eonugh to make such an important decision.

Slash Tompson

03-11-2004, 06:54 PM

Okay, I've decided I don't have the time to read all the resposes on this thread. That being said I'm sorry if I repeat anyone above me.

First of all, Sly Boy, free thinker and everything, you can't possibly care for such issues as economy, war/foreign policies, free trade, and social security. Then there's health care and border control and environment and energy. You can't tell me you feel the same way about this as a tax payer would. Okay, so you got the education thing down. Thats just one.

Look, I'm of age, mature, and ontop of the issus like skin on bones, and yet I was tempted not to vote for Kerry cause I can't imagine such an ugly president. Look, Kids have enough problems, anyway, they don't need to worry about voting. Its a big responsibility, which every has to sit and watch everything a politicians say carefully, and YOU have homework to do, mister! You can't waste time watching CNN and analyzing each debate.

A stab for SlyBoy, coz 'eez ah foin lad!

EinBebop

03-11-2004, 07:36 PM

That being said I'm sorry if I repeat anyone above me.No, your thoughts are... unique.

TimTwoFace

03-11-2004, 09:17 PM

Look, I'm of age, mature, and ontop of the issus like skin on bones, and yet I was tempted not to vote for Kerry cause I can't imagine such an ugly president.
Not to sound totally shallow, but that's the first thing I thought when I saw him campaigning, too. Ugh! :confused:

-Tim

SlyBoy

03-11-2004, 10:26 PM

First of all, Sly Boy, free thinker and everything, you can't possibly care for such issues as economy, war/foreign policies, free trade, and social security. Then there's health care and border control and environment and energy. You can't tell me you feel the same way about this as a tax payer would. Okay, so you got the education thing down. Thats just one.I'm well aware of the issues at hand.

EDIT: Hot damn, I started another page! :anime:

Slash Tompson

03-12-2004, 12:28 AM

That's not what I'm saying dude, like yeah, you're aware of them but you're feeling can't be the same as someone who pays a substantial amount of money every year to have things a certain way

Fone Bone

03-12-2004, 11:58 AM

That's not what I'm saying dude, like yeah, you're aware of them but you're feeling can't be the same as someone who pays a substantial amount of money every year to have things a certain way
I have no problem with keeping the voting age at eighteen. But not allowing non-taxpayers to vote is wrong. It should be one person, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote.

Lucky Bob

03-12-2004, 12:31 PM

I have no problem with keeping the voting age at eighteen. But not allowing non-taxpayers to vote is wrong. It should be one person, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote.
I don't see why we couldn't have a default age, as well. But I would propose that anyone below that age who makes enough to pay taxes should be able to vote.

I, for one, don't think that mental capacity and discernment should play a role. I mean, that puts a lot of Californians and Floridians out of the picture.

*dodges creampuffs*

SlyBoy

03-12-2004, 03:58 PM

I have no problem with keeping the voting age at eighteen. But not allowing non-taxpayers to vote is wrong. It should be one person, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote.
You shouldn't have to pay taxes in order to vote, that's silly IMO. As long as you're aware of the issues, you can vote.

Fone Bone

03-12-2004, 05:59 PM

I don't see why we couldn't have a default age, as well. But I would propose that anyone below that age who makes enough to pay taxes should be able to vote.

I, for one, don't think that mental capacity and discernment should play a role. I mean, that puts a lot of Californians and Floridians out of the picture.

*dodges creampuffs*
That's a good point. I just want to still be able to vote even though I don't pay taxes. (By the way, I'm in my twenties.)

Eddie G.

03-12-2004, 07:15 PM

Honestly I'm all for the lowering of the voting age. I don't see it as fair that because I'm seventeen I cannot vote for my President, the President who will be in charge of the nation I am a citizen of for the first four years of my adulthood. I agree that there are problems with letting teens vote, that's why I find the half a vote idea to be a very good one. Teens have opinions, we are not all liberals, and we should have a say.

SlyBoy

03-12-2004, 09:02 PM

Teens have opinions, we are not all liberals, and we should have a say.
Exactly. In fact, one of my friends is a Republican.

Hal Lee Mark

03-12-2004, 11:15 PM

This is the kind of idea that is usually dismissed immediately, as anyone with common sense knows that even the most astute teenager has no interest or real knowledge in politics, and giving mostly disaffected, ignorant people the arbitrary right to vote is dangerous and dumb.

SlyBoy

03-12-2004, 11:51 PM

Hal Lee Mark

03-12-2004, 11:59 PM

No. I understand that the incoming generation is more conservative than expected. That doesn't mean that they're qualified to vote yet.

SlyBoy

03-13-2004, 12:02 AM

No. I understand that the incoming generation is more conservative than expected.
No, that's not what I said. I said that not all teens aren't aware of the issues.

Hal Lee Mark

03-13-2004, 12:05 AM

Yeah, and? Most teens neither have the inclination to understand politics nor the capacity to understand politics. Most teens are easily swayed by the simplest of propaganda. They do not make a decent voting bloc.

SlyBoy

03-13-2004, 12:06 AM

Hal Lee Mark

03-13-2004, 12:11 AM

So then you want a reinstatement of poll tests? You want to start building an elitist form of democracy?

Come on now. There's no reason for minors to vote.

Bud 'n Lou

03-13-2004, 09:50 AM

So as soon as I saw this article, I knew the Senator in question had to be a Democrat
LOL, when I heard the news, I had assumed it was a Republican. They say that young people are more liberal, but I think that's more in college-aged people than in 14-year-olds, who are more likely to let their parents do most of their thinking. And maybe it's a crude, crude stereotype, but I think conservatives generally have more children than liberals, so by sending their pint-sized armies to the voting booths, they'd be the party to prosper from the lowered voting age.

By the way, I think the proposal is a terrible idea too.

Mynd Hed

03-14-2004, 02:57 PM

Most teens neither have the inclination to understand politics nor the capacity to understand politics. Most teens are easily swayed by the simplest of propaganda.
The same could be said of most people in general, assuming the speaker is sufficiently cynical. (-:

wonderfly

03-14-2004, 03:21 PM

I think that you shouldn't be allowed to vote unless you serve in the military.

The future from "Starship Troopers" is almost here! Let's go kill some bugs!!! :D

Prism

03-16-2004, 03:40 PM

I've got mixed feelings about this. For one thing, teens are aware of the world around them and most definitely have their own opinions about it! Sometimes they're more aware of it then most legal adults. And I really think that it's hypocritical to prosecute 14yearolds as adults then say that they're not mature enough to understand politics. If they know right from wrong then they can understand politics to a degree. But then again, I think a lot of what the government does is hypocritical. And there is always gonna be different levels of maturity. I'v known of 8 year-olds who were more mature then some 21-yearolds.

Tanooki

03-16-2004, 03:43 PM

if anything, government should once again lower the drinking age to 18. 18 would be the great all around number! old enough to vote, old enough to smoke (don't smoke, kids. it's bad for you), old enough to drink, and old enough to get into certain dance clubs ;) 18 would be an ideal number to get this society back on track

Hero

Pilmedium

03-16-2004, 05:53 PM

The main problem I see with allowing people under 18 to vote would be that they might not vote for who they want to. (Take my sibling, who is in that age range, for example. That person switched sides on an issue in one minute after hearing a piece of Republican propaganda from my father.) The "1/4 vote" and "1/2 vote" idea is completely inappropriate. Besides the constitutional issue, that might cause people in the age range in question to think that adults consider them inferior, more so than if they could not vote. Not caring about politics does not seem like a valid piece of criticism against the idea, as some adults do not care about who they vote for in some elections, even if they claim to prefer some political viewpoints over others. Even if a lower percentage of people in the age range (14-17) care about that stuff than adults, it does not change the fact that many people who do not care currently have the right to vote.