Daytona Beach News Journal Editorial

By MARK LANE
FOOTNOTE
Last updated: Feb 27, 07:24 PM

Does being old enough to drive a car mean you're old enough to steer the state?
It's not a hypothetical question. Among the close to 30 proposed constitutional amendments now listed as active by the state Division of Elections is a call to lower the Florida voting age to 16.

A West Palm Beach teenager, Miranda Rosenberg, is behind the campaign and I wish her luck. (See her Web page at http://www.voteat16.com/.) In a state with a pregnant pig amendment, I would rule out no ballot initiative.

Sure, some will object. They'll say those teens won't know what they're doing. They'll mess up when they try to mark the ballots. They'll vote for whomever they see on television the most. They'll vote the same way as their parents. They'll change their minds for no apparent reason. They'll have short attention spans. They'll have no idea what happened only a year or two ago.

All probably true.

And this would make them different from current Florida voters in what way?

The sad thing is that even if this did pass, it wouldn't make much of a difference. It is an age-old demographic rule of thumb that the younger somebody is, the less likely they are to vote.

According to the Census Bureau, only 32 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds voted in the 2000 elections and only 45 percent got around to registering. What's more, those numbers are based on survey results that always significantly overstate actual voting. Probably because people are embarrassed to admit they didn't vote.

Still, I don't think lowering the voting age would be a bad idea.

Suddenly, a state Legislature that is always anxious to crack down on teens and unwilling to spend any money to help them would have a reason to think twice. The debate about high-stakes FCAT testing would certainly change dramatically if the people who actually have to take the tests have any say.

And teens are very media-savvy. Teens believe virtually nothing they see on television. They'd laugh at call-Senator-Smith-and-tell-him-you've-had-enough ads. And that's even assuming they'd pay attention all the way through. Thirty seconds is a long, long time to these young people. All of which would make them impervious to negative advertising.

Benefit: Campaign commercials would need to be a lot cooler and punchier to get through to the kids. Possible downside: unseemly interparty bidding for Avril Levigne endorsement.

And as we move to electronic voting, it would be most useful to have 16-year-olds standing around for directions.

Lest this all sound too strange, it is already possible to vote at 16 in Brazil, as long as you have a job. If you work, the thinking is, you are paying taxes and there should be no taxation without representation. (Catchy slogan, that.)

In Great Britain, where Tony Blair's government is looking for ways to increase voter turnout, a 16-year-old voting age is one of the measures being discussed.

It is an odd quirk in human development that the things we discover at 16 stay with us passionately. It alarms me how many people my age listen to the same musicians they listened to when they were 16.

So if we value rock 'n' roll because we discovered it at this magic time of life, would those who discover democracy at the same age become avid, lifelong fans?

I could not begin to guess. But it sure would be worth a try. It certainly couldn't make voter interest any worse.

I bet campaign T-shirts would start looking far flashier, too.

mark.lane@news-jrnl.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------