You liberals are so desperate to stay in office after the damage you've done in Concord that you will do ANYTHING to keep in power, including getting gullible little students to vote Democrat.

I'm betting you know how much MORE biased 17 year olds are thanks to our UN-run educational system. And you love that agenda.

We need to take back Concord in '08.

There happen to be a lot of 17 year olds who support Republicans, too. Besides, this law would only authorize 17 year olds to vote in primaries -- there is a Republican primary and a Democratic primary, so it doesn't "help" either party.

What amazing me most about any oppostion to this idea is that we want 17 year olds to sign up for military service so they can be trained to fight in Iraq, BUT we won't give them the right to vote? In my current life, I don't have the kind of conscience that would do that.

And your "UN-run educational system" comment. I've never heard of that one. Can you further explain? I need a little humor today.

Glad to see democrats focusing on the REAL issues. After all 17.5% spending, funding education, budget deficits... nothing when compared to letting 17 year olds vote in primaries.

Quite frankly we already have enough uninformed voters showing up and casting a ballot, maybe we should look at ways to get people who vote to actually know who or what they are voting for instead of ways to get more of the clueless and uninformed to show up? Oh wait, your a democrat... never mind.

Ah yes, insightful commentary as always from Mr. Barnes.

I cannot understand why anyone would argue against allowing those, who would be 18 by the time of the General Election, from participating in the Primary selection process at age 17.

I agree with Rep Splaine that it is a good idea, and I think that those who are so anxious to prevent young adults from having a say in their government should re-examine their understanding of what our Republic stands for.

PSR, this is a waste of time and quite frankly trying to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.

In the 2000 presidential election only 35% of those 18 to 24 years old even voted at all (51% of those who even took the time to register). In 1972 when the voting age was first lowered only 50% voted.

ABC news even reported that only 47% of teens polled have even talked about politics in school.

But if you want a solid argument against lowering the voting age here's an article written by a PH.D. in History who's arguing that Nixon's lowering the age to 18 was by far the dumbest move of his presidency.

http://hnn.us/articles/8491.html

Dear Rep.Splaine,

I thank you for taking the time to serve our state.

I am wondering why Republicans -- in your opinion -- would oppose this bill. What are you hearing specifically? Moreover, I am wondering if there are any Democrats who oppose this bill. If there are, why?

Anyhow, I've posted these questions at Blue Hampshire, too. So I will keep an eye out for your answers.

Thank you,

Bill Gnade
NHIBlogger

Dear Mr. Barnes,

Greetings.

I see you oppose Mr. Splaine's bill. That's fine. But I am wondering if you would care to spell out all the reasons this should be opposed. I understand that you want a more informed electorate. But is that your only reason to oppose this relatively simple bill?

Anyhow, blessings to you,

Bill Gnade
NHIBlogger

Mr. Barnes:

If you believe the author of that essay is correct, then it would seem we need to raise the voting age to at least 30. Preferably 40.

Is that what you suggest? How far as you prepared to take the concern you have shared with us?

It has been my experience dealing with lots of different folks that it's not age that matters, it's whether you care that matters. Someone who does not care (and that's bothersome enough) is uninformed - and perhaps my your logic best left ineligible to vote - will not be informed regardless of their age. On the other hand, someone who does care, will be informed regardless of their age.

Perhaps we should eliminate the age barriers entirely and instead administer a brief quiz given to everyone as they enter the polling station that dealt with current events, etc. Those who pass, regardless of age can vote, those who do not - well - they go home.

For example: given John McCain's routine confusion re: the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, he would have to go home without voting. That seems fair.

"I understand that you want a more informed electorate. But is that your only reason to oppose this relatively simple bill?" - Bill

Yes, that's what it comes down to. Informed voters and I just don't see 17 year olds being informed. Heck most voters over all aren't even informed enough to vote yet they do anyway.

I've had an idea for a story but just haven't had time to try this on a large enough group of people to have true results by feel free to try this some time... Walk up to a car with a political bumper sticker, doesn't matter which party, and ask them detailed questions both pro and con about the candidate they are supporting or trashing in the bumper sticker. I've started trying this on a small number of people and it's out right scary how many people can't even answer basic questions about the politicians who's names are in the bumper stickers on their cars. Most of them can't even answer basic questions about our government. If I can get results of 100+ people I will write up the details of my findings.

It was for this reason the founding fathers made it harder for people to vote. Not just anyone could vote originally in this country and it wasn't just about color and sex.

Here's an interesting quote from James Madison regarding the right to vote and some of the questions the founding fathers wrestled with when writing the Constitution...

"The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property...."
(here's the text of his full speech: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s26.html )

That's why they were careful in originally writing the constitution so the ability to vote was not a "right" defined by the US Constitution but instead left to the states. Interesting is it not that they clearly put the right of the people to keep and bare arms right there in the bill of rights but said nothing regarding allowing all people to vote. Based on this logic it can be clear that the founders wanted to make it clear that certain right such as free speech or owning guns be protected and only striped after due process of the law (5th amendment) yet voting on the other hand was to be looked at as more of a privilege in which only those with enough knowledge to truly know who and what they are voting for should have. This is further supported by Jefferson's support for public education as he wanted informed citizens.

I could go on and on but simply put the answer to your question is yes, informed voters is the main reason I oppose this.

"Perhaps we should eliminate the age barriers entirely and instead administer a brief quiz given to everyone as they enter the polling station that dealt with current events, etc. Those who pass, regardless of age can vote, those who do not - well - they go home." - PSR

PSR, I would support that after all people must prove they know the rules of the road before they get the right to drive a car. Why not a drivers type test for voting to prove they know at least something about the positions they are voting to fill and the Constitution?

But it IS a silly little bill to address a non problem.

This is a recurring pattern with Splaine. Whenever he makes a big deal about something it's always something that nobody with a sense of proportion would think worth the time and effort.

It's not like there aren't important bills before him. But he never talks about important issues. He can't be bothered.

Ohhh Mr. Rowland, you are so uninformed about the things I do and the issues I've fought on and for, but I will leave you to swallow in your uninformedness. It's more fun that way.

Richard -- you bring up some good points, as usual. In my view, however, the right to vote is something that never should have been withheld from women, African-Americans,Catholics, or anyone else. And allowing 17 year olds to vote for NOMINEES in party primaries if by the time of the General Election those 17 year olds will be 18 year olds is a fair thing to do. After all, party primaries themselves don't "elect" a person; that's done in the November election.


And Bill, I see three core reasons why 17 year olds should be able to vote in primaries:

1. If one is to be 18 by the date of the General Election, it's only fair he/she be able to vote in party primaries when the candidates are being nominated. That makes sense.

2. The younger a person becomes involved in politics, the more likely he or she will continue being involved. There's lots of research on that, and has been presented in the testimony in favor of this legislation.

3. If one can join the military to train and be sent to Iraq at age 17, then she or he should be able to have the right to vote. I would personally favor lowing the age to vote in all elections to 17, but this legislation just does it for the September state primaries and the NH First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, which is something I certainly support.

Dear Rep. Splaine,

I thank you for answering my question. I think you raise some points that merit serious reflection. Of course, I am not certain what follows can be deemed "serious," but I will at least try to have a serious go at it.

You say "it's only fair he/she be able to vote." Now, this sort of appeal is utterly common; we talk about fairness all the time with such facility we might consider the expression a self-evident truth teetering on cliché. I say that things are "unfair" nearly daily.

But lately I have come to wonder what the expression not only means, but where it actually comes from in the human moral code (if there is such a thing). What is fair? How do we know fairness? From where does this notion of fairness arise? Most days, lately, I don't know how to answer such questions.

I ask: What is NOT fair about asking children to wait until they have reached a certain age to vote? Doesn't asking children to wait to -- in a sense -- "earn" the right to vote, actually honor voting, elevating it all the more to an honored status? Is not a child turned adult more likely to take the privilege -- it really is a privilege -- to vote more seriously if our country hedges voting with certain requirements, protecting it as the time-proven rite-of-passage it is?

Moreover, though a 17-year-old will turn 18 between the primary and general elections, and hence might feel disenfranchised if he or she can't vote for his or her party's nominee, it should be noted that those between the ages of 14 and 16 will turn 18 BEFORE they can vote in the next general election. Those children will be members of the electorate WITHOUT representation, so to speak: they will live under a president as persons subject to the rules of adulthood without having a chance to vote for the person who presides over them. Is this fair?

Of course, you can accuse me of reducing the aim of your bill to absurdity. That is not my intent. I am merely saying that if 17-year-olds might feel disenfranchised because they can't vote for the person who would be a particular party's nominee, it seems plausible that those kids who turn 18 in 2009, 2010, and 2011 would ALSO feel disenfranchised for the reason already stated: for example, if they were serving in the military in 2010 as 18-year-olds, they would be serving under a commander-in-chief they COULD NOT have chosen. Hence, staying with our military example, it follows that only OLDER soldiers could actually feel that fairness prevailed, as they would have had a chance to vote. Today's 15-year-olds are 2011's soldiers -- and they will not have had a voice in choosing their leader. Fair?

So I am wondering if allowing 17-year-olds to vote in the primaries ultimately leads to a slippery slope. It's one thing to want to get children involved in politics as soon as possible. It's another to do that the right way. Shouldn't we actually extend fairness consistently and just lower the voting age to 14?

Also, I wonder: Though children have to wait to be sixteen to drive a car on their own, does that age limit disenfranchise anyone? I mean, does any kid who is fourteen say that, because he's fourteen and capable of driving just fine, he would prefer NOT to participate in driving later, as an adult, because there's a minimum age requirement today? Does he REALLY think the requirement unfair and henceforth is disenfranchised from the driving process? Or does he actually appreciate that there is a built-in social expectation of competency and responsibility symbolized by that age requirement?

Just a few hasty thoughts. Again, thanks for the reply.

Bill Gnade

Dear Mr. Barnes,

I very much appreciate your reply to my query. Thank you.

Yes, I think it behooves us all to want the most well-informed electorate possible. Of course, I note that true partisans don't mind a dumb electorate at all as long as that electorate votes the "right way." But age, as we know, does not mean much these days, at least insofar as political wisdom is concerned. There are some pretty stupid members of our electorate who are in their 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's -- and beyond. Many, or so it seems, are even in public office or working as shapers of public policy and opinion. Adding a few 17-year-olds might not change a thing.

But democracies are what they are, and they are bastions of egalitarianism and leveling. Your position (one which I do not oppose) surely smacks of intellectual elitism: you believe in an intellectual hierarchy or aristocracy. Alas, democracies generally loathe what you deem important. That dope over in the corner raising his hand -- again! -- at town meeting? Well, his voice is no less important than yours. That vapid sap in the House who understands nothing but his own ego-driven needs? He's your equal. You get the picture.

Recall that George W. Bush was considered to be too stupid to be president by liberal critics committed to radical egalitarianism. Republican humorist P.J. O'Rourke noted the contradiction, calling such criticisms of our president anti-democratic. O'Rourke said (on NH Public Radio, mind you) that if we dismiss our president as a mediocrity, we are shattering the American Dream, for we are saying that the mediocre MUST NEVER be all they aspire to be, particularly president of the United States. Denigrating the president as dumb is to put limits on all dumb people. Hence, even all those commencement speeches we've heard are destroyed by such criticisms of Bush: You can't become whatever you want to become if you are a C student.

What Rep. Splaine suggests is that a 17-year-old voter is "equal" to a 40-year-old. You disagree, but only in a sense. You would not ignore the vote of a child if it was a deeply informed vote; and you'd reject a 40-year-old's vote if it was offered in imbecility. All this is a profound conflict inherent in democracies. What does it mean to be equal? Is such equality actually a social good? Is there no need for a sort of intellectual aristocracy? If we need one, who's in it?

Anyhow, I ramble. Forgive me.

Peace to you,

Bill Gnade

Jim,

Sounds like incremenatlism to me. When will you be introducing similar legislation to reduce deinition of minors to 6 or less to protect NAMBLA from unwarranted proscecution?

Bill, very good points and you are right that my views do smack of intellectual elitism but I think my views are very much in line with the ideals of the founders of this country.

It is that reason they did not list voting as a right. It wasn't until years later that the Constitution was amended that it classified voting as a right. They left it up to the states to set their own rules and guidelines as far as how to vote and who can vote.

Also if you read their words they made it clear the "democracy" was something bad. When a majority figures out that it could vote money into its pocket at the expense of a minority democracy fails. I believe it was Franklin who classified a pure democracy as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

It was their attempt to protect us from what many would argue we have devolved into, which is voting into our own pockets at the expense of others that caused them to be a bit hypocritical in their claims for equal representation yet at the same time not assuring that everyone being represented could get an equal vote.

So yes it is intellectual elitism but how is that different then say the democratic parties own elitism in holding back 40% of the delegates as super delegates to assure the party elders have say in close races as to who will represent that party? Or our limiting party's access to having equal representation on the ballot?

There are steps Jim could take to improving voting in NH but opening primary voting up to an uninformed and unmotivated small minority isn't it and I see this as doing nothing more then creating more problems then it solves.

Dear Mr. Barnes,

Thanks for continuing the conversation with a thoughtful comment.

There seems no escape of this dilemma: if we say all are equal then there can be no exceptions, or exceptional people, but if we say that there are voices that should prevail over others, then we have devolved into a stratified society, hierarchical and aristocratic.

Sadly, both parties vacillate between these two positions when convenient and expedient. However, I note that Democrats are much more interested in leveling our culture and society: they don't really want exceptionalism (though they do believe in a privileged leadership class). It's unarguable that much of what passes as social justice policies in Democratic practice are rooted in resentment -- the redistribution of wealth, discussed as "fairness," is rooted in a belief that everyone SHOULD be equal.

Ultimately, I am amazed at how Democrats loathe science. I am not advocating social Darwinism, but Darwinism at least means that inequality is nature's baseline. Democrats' policies generally abhor the essence of Darwin; though they present themselves as the party of "science," they actually demonstrate their animosity towards science at every turn.

Again, I am not a social Darwinist, but I am not a radical egalitarian either. What I am is a voter bewildered by the inherent and perennial difficulties in democracies, and the blatant contradictions of the Democratic Party.

Peace,

Bill Gnade

Bill,

You raise great points however the discussion is diverging from the original topic of whether or not 17 year olds should be allowed to vote.

You have raised some good points that I would like to address though so I may write a piece regarding "equality" when I have some time.