This proposition essentially ensures that new voters – who are interested and engaged enough to bother – can have some say in the candidates they will vote on in a general election. The issue arises because of California’s primary system. In this system, the choice of candidates gets winnowed down in a primary vote and then the final two vote-getters face off in a general election. So, if one turns eighteen (the legal age for voting) just in time for the general vote, it will almost always be the case that the new voter must choose only between the two candidates that were selected by other voters. This proposal seeks to remedy that by allowing younger voters (those that will reach maturity by the time the general election is held) to also vote in the primary.
Do we think this will dramatically change voting habits of young persons? No. However, we do think this is a nice gesture and an effort to get younger voters more engaged in the civic process. That seems positive in light of the reality that historical electoral turnout in presidential election years hover around 50%, while off-year elections run around 20-40% — hardly stellar numbers. The “no” folks on this one do raise the valid concern that in a primary vote we often also decide other issues – for example propositions. That is true. It is equally true that if approved this proposition would mean a small number of younger voters would be newly empowered to lend a voice in deciding these important issues. Where we disagree though is with the assumption that 17 year olds are inherently dumb (our word not theirs). Electoral intelligence is does not turn on chronological age. Are these “kids” likely to possess less experience, to have paid fewer taxes, and to have seen less of life? Sure, but do those realities change magically when they turn 18? No. We do not have an experience, knowledge, or other litmus test for older voters; our belief – for better or worse – has always been that more voices make our democracy more robust.
Solid Yes.
PolitoMuse 