Think of the children!

September 27, 2002 8:14 AM

Think of the children! Is the crayon-toting lobbyist the next big thing in politics? Is this a legitimate political strategy or despicable behaviour on the part of the teacher? Charles Helwig at the University of Toronto has some evidence that elementary school age children have some understanding of democracy and freedom of speech and "can use those concepts to evaluate political systems". How old does a person need to be to voice an opinion? (via plastic)
posted by snarfodox (23 comments total)

Ummm, 7...no, WAIT, I mean 8!
posted by byort at 8:18 AM on September 27, 2002

Old enough to know better than to vote for Batman or Kermit the Frog?
posted by picea at 8:41 AM on September 27, 2002

"They walked the kids through the pros and cons (of cutting the fire engine)," said Moynihan. "They discussed the City Council's dilemma on how to cut the budget while maintaining the level of service. It was a great educational opportunity for the kids."

8th Grade Final Exam: Seattle, WA - 2002

1. Discuss the City Council's dilemma on how to cut the budget while maintaining the level of service.

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE

HELP, I'M ON FIRE
posted by rory at 8:48 AM on September 27, 2002

How old does a person need to be to voice an opinion?
Well, judging from some of the stuff going on around here lately...
posted by Fabulon7 at 9:04 AM on September 27, 2002

Seriously, though: this reeks of bad taste. It's like when anti-abortionists get children to march around with them by saying things like "Do you want to be in a parade? We'll give tyou a shirt to wear and a sign to carry. It will be fun." (Happened in my home town several times.)
Kids may understand freedom/politics to some degree, but I'll bet they don't understand accounting.
posted by Fabulon7 at 9:07 AM on September 27, 2002

I've been wondering lately what would be the difference if we opened up voting to anyone who wants to vote. If you're seven and want to vote, why shouldn't you? I mean, yes, there is the possibility of abuse, but considering the system is abused now, would children voting make it any worse?

(and as for the actual story, teachers have been assigning "letters to the editor" projects for years now. This doesn't seem that different.)
posted by GhostintheMachine at 9:07 AM on September 27, 2002

Seems to me the kids were mainly influenced by the fireman who came in to class.

They walked the kids through the pros and cons (of cutting the fire engine)," Ummm yeah I'm sure they spent a lot of time on the Pros: "Well let's see kids the big mean rich mayor will get a new car...."
posted by jeblis at 9:23 AM on September 27, 2002

That picture could use a few more tie fighters.
posted by rory at 9:56 AM on September 27, 2002

The Military would would then get all the money they wanted to start building their Voltron Defense Systems.
posted by stifford at 10:16 AM on September 27, 2002

Of course, at any age, you have the basic rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, 5th amendment rights, freedom from having soldiers shack up in your house... (I never fully understood that one...)

But some rights, you have to wait on. The right to bear arms, you have to be older. The right to serve in political office... older. And the right to vote -- changed by Tricky Dick -- you have to be 18.

Writing to the editor is an example of first amendment rights. Voting for who will send me to war is one of those things that should be left up to the older folks.
posted by mychai at 10:35 AM on September 27, 2002

Go Voltron Defense Systems! Those would be tax dollars well spent.
posted by snarfodox at 10:42 AM on September 27, 2002

But some rights, you have to wait on.

Can you give me a reason why a 5 year old shouldn't vote, assuming the 5 year old had a desire to do so? Why exactly do we allow mentally challenged adults (not to mention the just plain stupid) to vote, simply because they've survived 18 years? Competency is not a requirement for enfranchisement (nor for holding office, but I digress).
(NB: please don't turn this around on me - I'm *not* suggesting we deny mentally challenged people the right to vote. I mean, if I deserve enfranchisement, so do they.)

In other words, why are "older folk" inherently better suited for choosing who will send you to war?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 10:49 AM on September 27, 2002

I always thought the voting age should be changed to 16 years old.
posted by PoliticalJunkie at 11:31 AM on September 27, 2002

I wouldn't mind raising the voting age to 25, or slightly lower for those who aren't college students financially dependent on their parents. I think it is essential not only to have an opinion, but an opinion which has been shaped by your experiences living in the society you are hoping to shape by your vote.

This is not to day that those who are dependent on their parents do not live in society, but it is indirect in many ways if they have never had to work, pay taxes, attempt to pay for thier own health care, or directly interact with the governmental systems that would be affected by their vote.
posted by 4easypayments at 12:30 PM on September 27, 2002

"This is not to day" = "This is not to say"
posted by 4easypayments at 12:32 PM on September 27, 2002

or directly interact with the governmental systems that would be affected by their vote

...such as the public school system, child welfare agencies, etc.? I would say there are plenty of ways children directly interact with the government.

I think it is essential not only to have an opinion, but an opinion which has been shaped by your experiences

And how does being 25 automatically confer such experiences? What of people who continue to live in their parent's basement until they're 35? Or someone who is homeless - paying no taxes and receiving no benefits?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:51 PM on September 27, 2002

I've always thought that anyone who can supply a decent reason (in a comment box on your ballot paper, natch) for their choice should get a say. At least it would fob off the "i'm voting for this guy 'cause he said he build us a big stadium, like in France" demograph. Or perhaps i'm being a bit élitist?
A set voting age will never please everyone, it'll just be too general
posted by Celery at 1:15 PM on September 27, 2002

Ghostinthemachine, et. al. ...(Amazon.com link)


Escape from Childhood: The Needs and Rights of Children
posted by jaronson at 2:38 PM on September 27, 2002

GhostintheMachine: We don't allow children to vote in the home. The home is not a place for democracy (more like a benign dictatorship) because children are self-centered and in the process of learning about consequences. Imagine letting your child vote on the dinner menu- ugh! it would be chicken McNuggets every single day and no vegetables. It takes maturity, experience, and information to envision the future. I realize that not all voters have maturity, experience and information but that doesn't mean we should open the vote to a larger group lacking these fundamentals.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:09 PM on September 27, 2002

Think of the children? Please, think of the kittens!
posted by Wet Spot at 3:36 PM on September 27, 2002

But, Secret Life of Gravy, are there not children who are capable of reason and envisioning the future? The argument that since some (most?) children cannot or will not be able to make what we deem as sound judgement none of them should be able to have certain rights just does not hold water. As GhostintheMachine has been putting forth, it seems that we are discriminating little people just because of their age. Just because a person has reached a seemingly arbitary age, they automatically have good judgement?

I think the argument should be something along the lines of why should a reasonable 17-year-old (16, 15, 14...) not be able to participate?
posted by jaronson at 3:57 PM on September 27, 2002

And how does being 25 automatically confer such experiences? What of people who continue to live in their parent's basement until they're 35? Or someone who is homeless - paying no taxes and receiving no benefits?

Nothing automatic about it, but a good estimation of an age at which a majority of people have had to deal with society on a first-person basis.

As for the homeless, I'd say they've gotten quite an extensive amount of experiece dealing with the workings of society.
posted by 4easypayments at 5:38 PM on September 27, 2002

I've been wondering lately what would be the difference if we opened up voting to anyone who wants to vote. If you're seven and want to vote, why shouldn't you?

At least a six-year-old probably could work a butterfly ballot properly. Actually, Ghost/Machine, there's one group of people who think you're exactly right. I've pretty much agreed since reading an article in The Nation 11 years ago that unfortunately doesn't seem to be posted online.

One of the slimiest things around (and unfortunately one of the most plentiful) is a politican going on and on about how sacred the family is, and how precious the children, who then votes all the budget money to special interests because kids have no legislative power.

If every kid had a vote -- or if that's too much for you, maybe their parents could vote for them until they turned 16 or so, by proxy -- children (and their priorities) might not get left in the dust so often.

p.s. Old enough to know better than to vote for Batman or Kermit the Frog?

picea, Kermit the Frog probably would do a much better job than some of our elected officials.
posted by LeLiLo at 1:21 AM on September 28, 2002