In a recent New York Times op-ed, Temple University professor of psychology Laurence Steinberg argues that “the federal voting age in the United States should be lowered from 18 to 16.” The bulk of Steinberg’s piece is devoted to explaining why teenagers aren’t the empty-headed narcissistic doofuses they’re often assumed to be. “Studies of cold cognition,” he writes, “have shown that the skills necessary to make informed decisions are firmly in place by 16.”
Maybe so, maybe so. But when he insists that more teenagers voting is necessary for our civic virtue, we become a little dubious. “Why is higher turnout among 16- and 17-year-olds so important?” he asks. “Because there is evidence that people who don’t vote the first time they are eligible are less likely to vote regularly in the future.”
Huh? Assuming that’s true, how would merely changing the age of eligibility make people more likely to vote in the future? It wouldn’t. But of course that’s not the point. Well, then, why does Professor Steinberg think allowing 16-year-olds to vote is so vital for the future of our republic? The Scrapbook has enough respect for our readers to assume they know the answer without our explaining it.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, the Cook County Jail held its first-ever jail-wide, in-person voting process. Most of the inmates were eligible to vote, reports WLS, Chicago’s ABC affiliate, and Rev. Jesse Jackson was on hand to lend his moral support.
“The program,” we learn, “is part of an effort to give more people in the criminal justice system the ability to vote.” We’re certain that the effort to get more inmates to cast their votes has everything to do with the public spiritedness of Chicago-area public officials and nothing at all to do with any search for Democratic partisan advantage.
