Loco-motion

Some 17 year olds housesitting

Councilor Murphy is bringing forth a motion that, if approved, would allow 17 year olds to vote in municipal elections. While this is certainly a good-hearted concept, I don’t know if I agree with it. I’ve been considering both sides of the argument but remain inconclusive.

The way I see it is this: the right to vote signifies more than just having a choice. It also entails that you agree (with your consent coming from taking part in elections, paying taxes, etc.) to partially bear the burdens of society. In that vein, it’s worth it to consider that courts will most likely view somebody 17 or younger as a minor and not an adult, based at least in part on the idea that somebody who is not 18 is not yet fully capable of bearing the responsibilities of being an adult member of our society. And voting is one of the privileges of being an adult.

The motion raises another question: if you are not paying taxes, are you entitled to representation? This is one of the stronger arguments against granting certain rights to illegal immigrants. Of course it is most likely that a 17 year old voter will be a citizen of the United States, but still, they are not paying taxes (necessarily) and they are not considered entirely capable of the rational thoughts of an adult in the legal realm (mostly). Passing such a motion could be seen as counter-productive to those who seek to bar the undocumented living in the area from such privileges. It’s a stretch but all things should be considered when making policy decisions.

Local 17 year old examines town sidewalks

On the other hand, one might ask, “what is the difference between a 17 year old kid living at home and a 21 year old college student still considered a dependent for tax purposes?” A 21 year old is certainly an adult by all legal means, but quite possibly having all expenses paid by their parents or from loan refunds from the Feds. Such a student might not be working either, and generating no tax revenue for the state. So is there a difference in the value of their vote?

Voting on this motion asks the question “what does it mean to be a voter?” To me, voting in any election, whether it be municipal or statewide or Federal, is the role of a responsible adult who adheres to the full restriction or burden of society. It means you are accepting responsibility for overseeing your government while simultaneously accepting that voting means you are part of the system. I feel that if a 17 year old is capable of making rational decisions in voting, by necessity, he must be capable of bearing the burden of being an adult by law.

At the same time, there are many 17 year old high school students who could arguably make a better voting decision than somebody who is 40 and for the sake of argument addicted to drugs? Would 17 year olds vote if given the option? The counter question is, how many 18 year olds do not vote? How many people who were 55 did not vote on November 2nd?

Altering the right to vote at 18 years old begins to obscure a philosophical line on adulthood and its consequences and I fear that beginning to change these traditions can lead to obscurity in many systems of government that are based on being above the age of 18. A person who is not granted the full rights and responsibilities of society most likely cannot make a decision that is not based on the bias experienced in being denied certain privileges or treated with harsher laws like those for junior operators. But maybe these traditions are the ones that are better suited to be revised? One way or the other, I’d like to see what the council thinks about the motion.