The City of Somerville is seeking a home rule petition to give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in municipal elections. Should Newton follow suit?
Last Night the #Somerville City Council unanimously passed a measure to extend voting to 16- & 17-year-olds. It's a recognition these students are engaged & active citizens, with the biggest possible stake in our collective future. #mapoli #TeenVoting 1/2
— Joseph A. Curtatone (@JoeCurtatone) May 10, 2019
Yes!
No.
No
This must be another April fools joke, right?
Seems to me a good reason to stop using Summervilles elected body decisions in our city councils deliberations
No they should not.
Yes!
The Senator I work for, Senator Chandler, has legislation to allow municipalities to make this decision without going to the state for approval. It is called the EMPOWER Act (https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/SD1949).
We absolutely should adopt it here in Newton. When you’re 18 and often going off to college, that is the worst time to be voting in your first election. If you can vote while you’re still in High School, about issues that affect you, you are far more likely to become a regular voter. And who is more impacted by local decisions than students, who understand the schools and the challenges of biking in Newton, among other things.
Understanding schools and the challenges of biking in Newton are not high on my list of reasons to let 16 and 17!year olds vote. Having kids in this age range, and knowing many more in Newton, for many of the kids in this age range their priorities revolve around Xbox, Snapchat, and anything on an iPhone. The one thing many in this age range don’t have is a grasp on fiscal responsibility, and for me at least that trumps understanding the challenges of riding a bike in Newton. I’m still educating my kids (who are in this range and above) about finances and they hopefully are starting to understand, but at 16 and 17 I wouldn’t want my kids to have voted for anything.
I’d be all for this if it could spur the introduction of a streamlined and nonpartisan civic course segment into the pubic school curriculum that would include a heavy dose of local government. I know it can be done without bias because we used to examine the way city government functions when I attended Weeks Junior High School during the early 1950s. I pretty well knew how City Hall, the various departments and the Board of Aldermen functioned when I was a kid. It’s not rocket science.
A bigger challenge than kids voting are most of the adults who live here and are otherwise registered. Most adults in Newton have absolutely no idea about what goes on in city government or the salient fiscal and development issues we face as a municipality. Most don’t even bother to show up for municipal elections even when a hotly contested mayoral race is on the agenda. I’m not blaming them. The lives of most adults, particularly those with kids and long hour jobs are infinitely more stressful than they were when I was in the prime of my professional work life. And the de facto loss of a single citywide newspaper really hurts. This is understandable, but it is clearly detrimental to the health of our democratic institutions at all levels of government. Maybe allowing kids to vote will juice things up a bit. They have gotten their elders to pay closer attention to climate change and other national and international issues. Perhaps the same could be true for local ones, as well. Regardless, the specter of kids heading to the polls in Newton frightens me a whole lot less than about two dozen other challenges that are really serious.
If 16 and 17 year olds could vote in Newton, high school would start times would change so fast it would make your head spin. That’s just one of many reasons young people should be able to vote. They are true stakeholders in the results. The argument against them voting seem to revolve around “maturity,” a standard we apply to no other class of voters.
Maturity should absolutely matter. 16 and 17 year olds are not a class of voters. They can’t vote. The question being asked is should they. We don’t let 14 and 15 year old kids vote either, so we are applying that standard to them, correct? They would definitely vote for things that they thought would benefit them. Should we allow them to vote too? I would again say absolutely not.
Things the ‘average’ 16 year old will want on the ballot
– lower the age of consent
– cellphone allowed in schools
– free college tuition (paid by someone who is over 18 and “not my parents”)
– subsidized uber to and from schools. Preferably free
– early end to school on friday and late starts on monday
Again, the typical 16 yr old…
Bugek, don’t be silly. They won’t vote on those items because they wouldn’t be on the ballot. Also there are lots of very civic-minded teenagers out there and giving them the opportunity to vote gives them more reason to become politically aware. It can’t be any worse than an octogenarian brainwashed by Fox News heading to the polls.
Bugek. I really think you are selling young people short in the priorities you list. And it’s also pointing the finger at things that are often more societal than generational in nature. The fact of the matter is that somewhere along the line too many Americans started thinking of themselves more as consumers than citizens.
I think it would be great if we had kids graduating from public schools that really understood local government, the striving for the common good and the intricacies of our tax structure and how budgets and priorities are set. Knowledge of city government, including the City Council Committee system, could also be a deterrent to several forms of errant behavior inside and outside the classroom. Can you imagine the terror a kid would feel from being sentenced to attend a dozen full meetings of either Land Use or ZAP. I’d add Finance to the list except I rather suspect Lenny is so uniquely himself that he would become an instant cult figure.
Do we want to be like Someville? Yes!
The bottom line is they have no skin in the game. They don’t own property and they don’t pay taxes. Now before everyone rips my head off… Yes, renters vote, as they should. But they pay rent and part of that rent is the property taxes related to the house or building, so they have skin in the game. Overrides do affect them firsthand. If you asked a 16 year old if they wanted a new school building how many are going to ask what its going to cost? They will want to know if it has good WiFi. I’m also not putting down 16 and 17 year olds, but without being tax payers firsthand, their priorities are different.
Perhaps we should let businesses vote? They pay huge taxes and get very little in return (Not using the schools, require private trash pickup, etc) and have no say in local issues, many of which do affect them. Plastic bags, Styrofoam, leaf blowers, taxes, smoking age, etc. Then maybe we should open voting up to the property owners who rent to those businesses… Just saying…
@all: Manipulating children for political gain is wrong and has a very bad historical trail! (research this) Organizations that have engaged in this activity in the past have never done so for positive reasons. Let children be children, life will hit them soon enough anyway. Let’s get the 18-20 year olds interested first.
Easy, yes.
Of course. It is their future so we should let them vote.
I feel more confident in their ability to define their future than a city councilor who can’t figure out how to get a picture as an avatar.
https://village14.com/2019/05/13/about-village-14-and-anonymous-comments/#axzz5o67UENJ2
Let them vote.
@Jack…it’s 14 and 15 year old kid’s future too. Should we let them vote too?
Perhaps there should be one Council seat and one School Committee seat allocated to a 16-17 year old, to be voted upon only by 16-17 year olds.
(Posted under my real name with an avatar for the distant past)