The franchise, the ability to vote, is a heavy responsibility. It should be exercised wisely, ideally by well-informed, serious people. The problem is that it all too often isn't; there is a growing dependency class that regularly votes for the candidates that promise them the most of other people's stuff, and there are also those who admit, "My grandparents voted (party), my parents voted (party), and I've always voted (party)" as though nothing else mattered.
Personally, I've always thought the franchise should be restricted a tad more than it is. For instance: If you're on public assistance - welfare - you lose the franchise until you are self-sufficient. No skin in the game, no vote; that would eliminate a lot of the tendency of some (leftist) pols to play Santa Claus with other people's money. Non-citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote, either, whether they are here legally or illegally.
And, of course, minors shouldn't be allowed to vote. We don't allow them to sign contracts, to get married, to buy guns, booze, or tobacco. We preclude them from doing these things because they lack judgment and experience, and that's why we shouldn't let them vote. Unless, that is, you are in Britain, where 16-year-olds are being banned from social media - but not from helping chart the course of their nation.
The problem is not that politicians worry about the effect of social media on young people. The problem is that they worry about it selectively.
The same political class that increasingly tells us young people must be protected from online manipulation is also very keen to tell us that those same young people are mature enough to vote.
This is where the argument begins to wobble like a drunk on a paddleboard.
Apparently, a teenager may not have the judgement to scroll through Instagram without state supervision, but does have the judgement to help choose the next government.
This is not a principle. It is a convenience.
That's precisely what it is; principals, not principles. Youths are generally seen (correctly, in most cases) as leaning left, politically; there's an apocryphal quote generally attributed to Sir Winston Churchill that applies: "If at age 20 a man is not a liberal, he has no heart. If at age 40 a man is not a conservative, then he has no brain." And, honestly, there is no brain-power involved in giving minors the franchise, except that it helps boost the political left. This is also overweening hypocrisy, on steroids. This push to let children vote isn't being done as any statement of principle. It's a purely partisan move, intended to help leftist candidates win elections, even as the proponents tacitly admit that these kids aren't competent to navigate TikTok.
Defenders of the idea will say social media and voting are entirely different activities. One involves psychological harm. The other involves civic empowerment.
Up to a point. But both depend on the same basic faculties. Judgement, emotional maturity, resistance to manipulation, the ability to process information and some capacity to distinguish truth from nonsense.
These are precisely the faculties politicians tell us young people lack when the topic is social media. Yet they mysteriously reappear when the topic is extending the franchise.
If a 16 year-old is too impressionable to cope with Andrew Tate videos, dieting influencers or Chinese-owned dopamine dispensers, why is he or she suddenly immune to political propaganda?
Ay, that's the rub.
Read More: Not Content With the Current Pace of National Destruction, the UK Lowers the Voting Age to 16
Here's the thing: This isn't just a British problem. There is a movement right here, in the United States, to push the voting age down to 16, and for precisely the same reasons: It is roundly seen as a way to tip the scales to the left. It's a stupid idea, here and in the United Kingdom.
Of course, here in the United States, we have an even dumber policy based on age. It's our lunatic "graduated age of majority" policy, in which one turns to an adult at age 18 - but not really. Our society seems to have arrived at the conclusion that kids from 18 to 21 years of age are in some ways, fundamentally irresponsible, but not in others. We don’t allow them to drink, to gamble, to purchase handguns; we don’t allow them to adopt children or (in most states) rent cars. But at 18, we allow these kids to sign contracts. We allow them to drive; we allow them to join the military. We allow them to vote, for the luvva Pete. The stage, then, is already set; the graduated age of majority policy is in place, and why, the left may think, not play with it a little more?
There should be just one age of majority, and that should apply to the franchise, as much as anything else.
So, the answer is obvious. The age of majority should be regularized. Teenage drivers are dangerous, it seems. Obviously, between the ages of 18 and 21, young American skulls full of mush can’t handle rifles or shotguns, or a glass of beer. Good, then; take this to its obvious conclusion. Congress should immediately act to raise the age of majority overall to 21. Before that age, youths will not be allowed to drink, to drive, to sign contracts, to join the military, to purchase firearms, and, most important of all, to vote.
Elements in Britain seem to have determined that 16-year-olds are now mature enough to vote. Fine. We should, once again, look to Britain as an example; what the left does there, the left here is watching, with envy, and with malice aforethought.
