It is axiomatic that in a democracy the People get the government they deserve. That's premised on the notion that they have a right to vote, whether they exercise it wisely, or at all, or not.
But the voting age in the U.S. used to be age 21, lowered to age 18 by President Nixon to defend against critics of Nixon's Vietnam War that citizens ages 18, 19, or 20, were old enough to be conscripted to fight in the War but not old enough to vote against it. Makes sense.
But 14 year old citizens have more to risk to anthropogenic climate change (ACC) aka "global warming" than their elders do. ACC might make it rough going for the grandparents of these pre-voters (non-voters). But ACC is potentially catastrophic, or even cataclysmic.
The U.S. was Founded on the premise of having a vote for their political representatives. Our 12 year olds have no such vote.
Surely pre-teens may lack the guile to avoid being duped by unscrupulous candidates making extraordinary claims & campaign promises.
So should these otherwise non-voters have access to a pool of candidates, perhaps chiefly retirees, candidates who have already accomplished enough in life, now more interesting in their own reputation than temptation.
Property crimes such as vandalism may be disproportionately perpetrated by youthful offenders, minors. Could that in part be because their society has disenfranchised them?
If this age-group were welcomed earlier, might the benefits be manifold?
But the voting age in the U.S. used to be age 21, lowered to age 18 by President Nixon to defend against critics of Nixon's Vietnam War that citizens ages 18, 19, or 20, were old enough to be conscripted to fight in the War but not old enough to vote against it. Makes sense.
But 14 year old citizens have more to risk to anthropogenic climate change (ACC) aka "global warming" than their elders do. ACC might make it rough going for the grandparents of these pre-voters (non-voters). But ACC is potentially catastrophic, or even cataclysmic.
The U.S. was Founded on the premise of having a vote for their political representatives. Our 12 year olds have no such vote.
Surely pre-teens may lack the guile to avoid being duped by unscrupulous candidates making extraordinary claims & campaign promises.
So should these otherwise non-voters have access to a pool of candidates, perhaps chiefly retirees, candidates who have already accomplished enough in life, now more interesting in their own reputation than temptation.
Property crimes such as vandalism may be disproportionately perpetrated by youthful offenders, minors. Could that in part be because their society has disenfranchised them?
If this age-group were welcomed earlier, might the benefits be manifold?
