Children's right to vote

In the past, the advent of ‘universal’ [male] suffrage was often celebrated as the pinnacle of progress in representative democracy. Looking back, we now see that despite all the Enlightenment’s grand talk about human reason and equality, its thinkers couldn’t even acknowledge the basic moral and political status of women. But we shouldn’t be too quick to judge the past, because ‘universal’ suffrage is still a complete misnomer today. In every country on Earth, significant populations are legally restricted from voting. While they are not the only relevant group of people, I’ll focus here on one demographic: children, i.e., people under the age of 18 (or 16, depending on the country).

If we look at the common arguments for why people should be able to vote in general, most of them would apply to children. I’ll mention a few:

“Governments have power over people’s lives, so people should have a say in who governs them and what laws are made”: Governments have power over children’s lives.

“Voting reflects the idea that each person’s interests matter”: Children’s interests matter.

“Voting gives people a way to defend their needs, values, and freedoms by choosing leaders and policies that represent them”: Children have needs, values, and freedoms they would defend.

Even when people defend voting for adults, they use very broad rhetoric that would only make sense if, at the same time, they didn’t find it justified to exclude large parts of the population. For some examples, I’ll link this reddit post.

So, what do democracy advocates say? Who actually should have the right to vote and based on what principle? Can we defend the status quo? I’ll clarify that I am not advocating for children being able to vote myself. For all I know, voting doesn’t make any sense anyway. I want to know two things:

  1. Can the democracy advocate defend the status quo?
  2. Would a (good) principled way to determine who has the right to vote exclude children?

This discussion started in The Shoutbox, and the answer I got was that children would do what their parents tell them to do, leading to disproportionate power for people with children. But this is, at best, underspecified. There is no disproportionate power, as it’s still one person, one vote. Or there is, but that’s just a feature of democracy; if there are more white people, for example, then we can say white people have disproportionate power. And sure, children could get their ideas about who to vote for from their parents, just like adults can get their ideas about who to vote for from their parents, news sources, their friends, the politicians, etc.

1 Like

Infants are physically and mentally incapable of voting. They can’t even pull the lever, talk, understand language, or comprehend what they are voting for. So not allowing them to vote seems reasonable.

This being the case, the line demarcating suffrage will always be arbitrary. Three years old? Seven? Eighteen?

Since children under 18 are subject to juvenile courts, and are the legal responsibility of their parents, that seems like a reasonable age for suffrage.

If children are to be given full democratic rights, shouldn’t they have full responsibilities? Do you want (for example) to eliminate bans on statutory rape? If children are incapable of “consent”, perhaps they should not be allowed to vote. The law assumes children are not as fully responsible as adults, so the responsibility of voting is denied them.

No. You could give the right to vote to those infants. They won’t vote as they are incapable of voting, but that’s not an issue. Or you could not have an age limit but something more logical as a line.

It doesn’t to me.

That certainly doesn’t follow. They can have the right to vote but not full responsibilities and it could make perfect sense. They can lack consent to sexual activities and have the right to vote, I don’t see why not. But yes, statutory rape is mostly a nonsensical notion so eliminate it.

Please, I hope you are not appealing to the law to make your argument. The law assumed women were not as capable as men and voting was denied for them. You haven’t really given any argument for why the law should assume that and not give the right to vote to children.

Your hope is forlorn. Laws can be immoral or unreasonable – but if the law denying full responsibility to children is reasonable, then it might also be reasonable to deny them the right to vote. The identical principle of children’s lack of responsibility applies to both.

sure, but why should I accept that the law denying full responsibility to children is reasonable?

Because children aren’t as responsible as adults. Babies can’t even be responsible to use the toilet. This discussion (like our last) seems to be going nowhere. “It doesn’t to me,” is not an argument. It’s an unsupported opinion.

Also, since you appear to think sex with babies shouldn’t be illegal, I’d prefer not to discuss anything with you.

Ecurb already mentioned it, but it’s because children are lesser humans who are the responsibility of their parents or caretakers. The age cut off is arbitrary, because law is an arbitrary system designed as usable heuristic for maintaining of social order.

Explain in more detail, please.

Yes, babies can’t use the toilet. Is that the test? If the individual is able to use the toilet, they can vote?

That’s fast, but if you can’t argue anymore, that’s fine.

You said “18 seems like a reasonable age for suffrage because the law says X” and I responded to prompt you to justify your position. You are the one with the unsupported opinion.

How is that relevant?

How is that relevant? What’s the argument? It was certainly pretty arbitrary to exclude women, was that okay? I am asking if excluding children is okay so the law being arbitrary doesn’t matter.

We are discussing ethics here, i.e. what should/ought to be.

How is that relevant?

Because lesser humans are not the same as humans. And hence it’s consistent to apply different set of rules to them.

How is that relevant? What’s the argument? It was certainly pretty arbitrary to exclude women, was that okay? I am asking if excluding children is okay so the law being arbitrary doesn’t matter.

As anti-realist, yes it’s good. We have plenty uneducated people voting as is. I believe that all adults should have the right to vote, because that at least so far seems like the system that leads to best outcomes and minimizes the risk of me getting disenfranchised. As for age, it carries some of the same risk, but is less abusable because people tend to aggregate more on ideology and not age. But I would oppose increasing the age of voting because it does increase the risk of disenfranchisement even if to lesser degree.

Yes they are not the same as humans, why is this difference relevant for voting?

You are saying it was good to restrict vote for women?

No you don’t. At least if you support the status quo then not all adults have the right to vote.

Anyway, so you think the status quo is the right way because it seems that it leads to the best outcomes and minimizes the risk of you getting disenfranchised. I don’t understand the second part, so I’ll focus on the “best outcomes” claim.

What are those outcomes and what would be the worse outcomes if children were allowed to vote?

Yes they are not the same as humans, why is this difference relevant for voting?

Because undeveloped brains vote for stupid things. And them being not the same as me, means that there is far less risk of me being disenfranchised. But my position is that of a cost benefit analysis and can change if circumstances change.

You are saying it was good to restrict vote for women?

No. Women seem to vote more rationally than men at this point.

No you don’t. At least if you support the status quo then not all adults have the right to vote.

I support giving rights to vote to those adults who do not have them. I do not support taking away the adults right to vote. I can have different standards for kids and adults and remain consistent. If women as a group were mentally at the same level as the average kid, I would probably support taking their vote away though.

What are those outcomes and what would be the worse outcomes if children were allowed to vote?

The good outcomes are societies that are more stable than the historical alternatives. Social cohesion leads to stability and stability leads to prosperity. Kids do not have the capacity to cause the level of internal unrest that adult groups have. And they would either vote for something stupid like no school, more sugar, or be forced to vote the same as parents.

That’s interesting because there has never been a country where every adult had the right to vote; usually, non-citizens don’t.

So before going further, I’ll try to present how I see your position. You are presenting two principles. I am not sure how they are connected.

  1. The first is “the ones who should vote are people who would vote for non-stupid things”.

Where stupid means “what I don’t like”. Here, you say that kids will vote for stupid things because their brains are “undeveloped”. Adults vote for stupid things too but adults have the right to vote for stupid things for some reason. Moreover, there is no special brain upgrade that happens at 18 (or 16) so that’s not the whole reason for the age limit.

  1. The other is “the ones who should vote are the group of people who would lead to the most amount of stability”.

Or perhaps any group of people would be good as long as it leads to an acceptable amount of stability. I would ask for clarification on what is “stability”, how do you measure it?

You say current societies are more stable than historical ones but this isn’t the comparison that matters. You want to say that current societies will be more stable than societies where children have the right to vote but why?