Browse > Home / Perspectives / Young voters need more exposure

Young voters need more exposure

February 8, 2008

By: Min Qiao <mqiao@hilite.org>

For as long as we have had the right to vote, there has been a fight to lower the age requirement attached to that right. Historically, 21 years was the amount of time regarded as necessary for one to become mature enough for suffrage. As early as the 20th century, the movement to lower the voting age began, which spread across the globe. Finally, by the end of the 20th century, the voting age was reduced to what we are familiar with today: 18. However, the movement to further reduce the voting age continues.

Around the turn of the 21st century, the push for having16-year-olds vote began. Like its predecessor, this movement has made quite an impact, especially on some of the European countries like Austria where it has met success. In America, this movement manifested in the form of teenagers urging for a constitutional amendment to update the one passed in 1971 that had lowered the voting age to 18.
For California, this goal might not be far from reach. In fact, according to The New York Times, several state senators in California have proposed a constitutional amendment to allow 17-year-olds a full vote, 16-year-olds half a vote and 14-year-olds a quarter of a vote.
Similar to the responses to the 1971 amendment, much of the controversy surrounding movements to lower the voting age today is caused by a concern involving the lack of competence, maturity and experience among teenagers. Other responses include comments that say 16-year-olds think in a shallow manner and that they will be emotionally driven.

And just like the critics of the 1971 amendment to reduce the voting age, many argue that 16-year-olds simply would not vote. As cited in an article in The New York Times, Amanda Carbonneau of Hopkinton, MA, who turned 16 in January said. “I think that a lot of kids around 15 or 16 aren’t really up to date on the current politics and wouldn’t really be able to make an informed decision. Most kids that I know would really vote based on something having to do with a silly reason.”

But the problem here is not with the actual age of 16. After all, 36 years ago, many had believed that 18-year-olds were too young to vote and their arguments were pretty much along the same lines as what some critics are saying about teens. No, the problem is that most teenagers just aren’t familiar with the political scene. And that stems from some fundamental issues with the infrastructure of how we are taught.

In all honesty, most teenagers do lack the experience and might not necessarily be able to make the most informed decision. After all, here at Carmel, as in other schools, students have to wait until their senior year, when most are either 18 or about to turn 18 to vote and learn about politics.

Taking government as a senior-only course means that kids have to wait until the last minute, until they are about to vote, to learn about what they are voting for. Of course they lack experience. Of course they can’t make the most informed decisions. It’s not necessarily a problem with maturity—there are plenty of adults who aren’t informed—it’s a problem, at least in part, with the way we’re taught. Or more precisely, the timing of our teaching.

The solution? Exposure. Teenagers should get exposed to government and politics years before they vote. Then they can go into their first election year with solid background knowledge about the current legislatures, bills and issues.

To a certain degree, casting a vote can mirror something we are all too acquainted with: taking a test. In order to do well on a test, we must have a good knowledge of what would be on the test, have a solid understanding of the material and have had some practice with the problems that might appear on the test. In an election, the same applies.

Young voters would be able to make a better decision if they had a good knowledge of the candidates running, have a solid understanding of the causes they are supporting through their vote and have followed the political scene for a while.

Let’s be honest here, how many students here will actually choose watching a one-hour program on the Democrats’ debate over one hour of Guitar Hero? How many of us would bypass the latest issue of People magazine with the headlines reading “Jamie-Lynn Spears Pregnant!” for a copy of Newsweek with Hillary Clinton saying that she “has found her political voice”?

In order to solve the issue with inexperienced, incompetent and poorly informed teenagers, we need to begin with baby steps. Since we spend over 40 hours at school every week, let’s begin the exposure here. Instead of limiting government to seniors, don’t wait until the last minute. Make it available for sophomores or even freshmen.

That way, if students already have a background understanding of government or politics, they are much more likely to tune in to the campaign trail once in a while or even watch a part of that one-hour program on the Democrats debate. Even if they can’t vote yet, they may be more likely to pay attention. It’s not much, but it’s a better start than what we would have had. Min Qiao is a reporter for the HiLite. Contact her at mqiao@hilite.org.

Updated by ychoi · Filed Under Perspectives 

Comments

Got something to say?





October 2008
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031