House of Eratosthenes

Reflecting on what’s happened to our country here, I consult my archives and I can’t help noticing something. Every sixteen years, reliable as rain, we elect a guy President who happens to…

• …be the youngest out of all the guys running who actually have a chance;
• …talk a whole lot about “hope”;
• …be a democrat;
• …possess truckloads of “charisma” or whatever;
• …not say a single word about any of the policies he’ll enact after he’s elected, in such a way that the rest of us could actually participate in a reasoned, informed debate about them.

It is as regular as an object completing an orbit around a large star — sixteen years, right on the dot. I pointed it out here and here and here.

And then the guy gets in and doesn’t change squat. Except for two things: Spend unprecedented amounts of borrowed treasury money on bullshit; and do that idiot-schoolgirl thing where you behave exceptionally nicely to bad people and act like a royal bitch to whoever’s actually done some pretty decent things for you.

I would hope folks all across the ideological divide will agree with me, at least on the sixteen year thing. Call it smartening up, call it getting shafted, whatever you want to call it — I call it the “Heartbeat of Stupid” — we sure are punctual.

So since we can all agree that, for whatever reason, this is a sixteen-year thing let us then do this: It is contrary to the interests of the nation for people to vote before they have had a chance to see this happen. Right now, you get to vote when you’re eighteen. Eighteen is not much more than sixteen. Seems to me you should have seen a couple cycles of this, with your own two eyes. Not read it in the archived news stories, not learn about it from your history teacher who probably thinks FDR was the greatest President who ever lived. You should have seen it for yourself.

Two cycles.

Raise the voting age to thirty-two.

It is the very least that is needed to make an informed decision, about something that has turned into, for all the artificial drama we inject into it, an utterly-predictable merry-go-round ride.

It’s not how fast you’re maturing, son. It’s got to do with the country. And how quickly she forgets stuff. Something has to be done.

It won’t change anything. There are still too many “adults” that expect the government to do something for them, “for free”.

How do you fight that?

Limit the franchise to the productive (tax paying). That’ll exclude most of the younger irresponsible voters, would it not?
- pdwalker | 06/21/2009 @ 03:39
How about the model used by the First Thirteen, mature white men who owned property?
- Bob Sykes | 06/21/2009 @ 11:02
Between our ideas, yours makes more sense. That makes my idea a better fit for the times in which we live.

The problem that comes up with peeling the indigent layer off the voting rolls, is that when you consider issues that involve the spending of money you’re evaluating the idea in the climinate in which it makes the most sense and is most invulnerable to attack. A lot of our issues are disconnected from the spending of money, though. ~~Capitol~~ Capital punishment comes to mind. Can you imagine what the race pimps would do, the very first election in which we have a vote on whether ~~capitol~~ capital punishment is ethical, and we aren’t allowing anyone dependent on the state to have a vote in it because Paul Walker wanted to disenfranchise them? Obviously, it’s a racist plot to get rid of black people!

That shit works. Not because of black voters, so much as because of white politicians. Once race is part of the discussion logic takes a holiday.

Even in the realm of politics, though, my idea has the advantage that it cannot be effectively refuted. Not once you agree with the observation of the sixteen-year-cycle, which is all-fact. I say — let’s have an election decided by those who have been through the cycle a couple times. What exactly do you say to fight that? No? We’re afraid our ideas can only be sold to people who haven’t had a chance to see how they work already?

How would Main Street USA, chock full of parents of all different backgrounds coping with their childrens’ teenage years, cope with an argument of “The first year a child has a strong opinion, he or she has a civil right to voice it, and hopefully make important decisions with it”?

Also, the voting age hasn’t received widespread attention since the early 1970’s when it was lowered. There are those who’d like it lowered even further still; they receive passive credibility because their proposals aren’t being given a hearing. Let’s change that. Let’s put the attention on all these things; the sixteen year cycle, the way we keep falling for the same stupid crap over and over again, that none of it is really new. And most importantly, that in a democratic republic it is vital that the electorate possess, and use, a working memory.
- mkfreeberg | 06/21/2009 @ 11:32
Ever the pedant… capitol punishment is what we’re enduring from the asshats in Washington; capital punishment is executing convicted criminals. But I got your point, and I suppose that’s all that matters.

As to your proposal… it only points out the shortcomings of our educational system. If we truly educated our children they would be competent, informed voters at age 18. I’d rather reform the system, including shooting a bunch of educators, if need be, than raise the voting age. But we’re just indulging in mental masturbation here.
- bpenni | 06/21/2009 @ 12:38
I’d rather reform the system, including shooting a bunch of educators, if need be, than raise the voting age. But we’re just indulging in mental masturbation here.

Not entirely. This morphs into a rather worthy debate about which route is more futile. Is it futile to try to raise the voting age? Could be. But since no one’s seriously tried it, how can we be certain it’s such a lost cause, and what’s the harm in giving it a go? Seems to me it’s one of those things that depend on the poll questions being worded. What if you took a Goldilocks poll that said “We’ve got too many people voting, not enough people voting, or it’s juuuuuust right”? I’m pretty sure A would win out over B & C, by a landslide.

Reform the system is certainly a worthy goal. But it’s been tried…except for that last nugget you tacked on to the end. But you know, ammunition is getting hard to acquire lately.
- mkfreeberg | 06/21/2009 @ 14:28
Well, raise the voting age when you become king, but grant an exemption/allowance to those who’ve served or are serving in the armed forces. That was always a hot button with me back when both the voting and drinking ages were 21 (and I was 18. Self-serving, and all that.). And while we’re on the subject… one most definitely should be allowed to raise a glass if one is old enough to serve. (At the risk of digression, of course)
- bpenni | 06/21/2009 @ 17:24
Agreed.
- mkfreeberg | 06/21/2009 @ 18:14
Great minds think alike, Buck. I’ve often thought of raising it back to at least 21, unless you’re in the military. You join the military at 18, why you can vote. After boot camp. And you’re still in. Same with drinking age. 21. Unless you’re in the military. I’m good with it.
- philmon | 06/21/2009 @ 23:04
And the educational system bit, too, Buck. If it worked, there’d be no need.
- philmon | 06/21/2009 @ 23:08
Now … the comment I wanted to leave before I read the comments.

I saw this on Facebook today. Kind of innocuous. In a way.

Let’s break a Guinness Record! 90 Million facebook users in 1 group

Except for this … here’s the deal. All you have to do is join. And you can become a part of “this”. Click the “Join” button. That’s it. Check the box. You are a part of something big.

This is how we got Obama as President.
- philmon | 06/21/2009 @ 23:14

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Raise the Voting AgeSunday, June 21st, 2009

Raise the Voting Age
Sunday, June 21st, 2009