In humanities class this morning, we had a Socratic seminar based on an article that discussed whether sixteen year-olds should have the right to vote or not. Interestingly enough we were divided into two discussion groups based on gender, and listened to one another’s thoughts on the issue. Prior to the seminar itself, we had to prepare ourselves by reading and annotating the provided text. I personally used my own method of annotating, which includes color-coordinating sections of the text, depending on its significance, as well as breaking down the article by writing down comments and questions. I also prepared a handful of questions that I might have the opportunity to bring up in the conversation.
In the article itself, the author expressed her opinion that sixteen year olds should be ready to vote, as well as be given other responsibilities. The author brought up the idea of giving youth voters, civics exams and “voting permits” before they could be given the actual right to vote. She also brought upon this same idea and applied it to drinking and alcoholism. Teenagers would have to take an alcohol awareness test, and in turn be given a “drinking permit”. I agree with the author’s incentive and opinion, because I too believe that allowing teenagers to drink would neutralize the amount of illegal drinking and accidents due to alcohol. I personally believe that one of the sole reasons that teenagers do drink is because they aren’t allowed to. It’s teenage human nature to rebel against something that you can’t have. Studies also showed that teenagers whose families allow them to drink at home are less likely to sneak a drink with their friends. I also somewhat agree with the authors notion to allow sixteen year-olds credit cards. However, there should be precautions to this such as proving teenagers first with a financial test, and giving them a certain credit card limit depending on their age. Otherwise, I believe this to be a good decision because it prepares teenagers for later financial circumstances and provides them with experience.
During the seminar there were many different opinions and points brought up. Some of the ideas and points that I contributed to the discussion was that there is no real or specific way in which to measure one’s readiness to vote. Age and little tidbits of our country’s history do not entirely define someone to be ready to help make the decisions for our nation. While we were conversing about this, we were given a sample of questions on the citizenship test, and we all agreed that knowing all of these seemingly insignificant information about our country’s past do not justify someone to be ready to vote. But my real thought was that, how could the government really be able to “test” its citizens if they’re ready to not. I believe these tests to just be a compromise and one of the closest things we can use as a tool to differentiate competent and incompetent sixteen year-old voters. Although majority of people in the seminar believed that sixteen year-olds are not ready to vote, others believed that it all depends on the person. Dorothy brought up the point that the right to vote is a right that should be given regardless of age. If someone under the age of eighteen is very involved, passionate and aware of their political surroundings, then who is to say that they can’t vote? However, majority of the other participants in the discussion responded to that with the argument that most sixteen year-olds are not ready. Majority of teenagers sixteen-eighteen have not yet reached that maturity level.
I found the conversation itself to be quite entertaining and many people had a lot to say. However, there were times where it seemed that people were dominating the conversation, or we as a group didn’t stick enough to the content of the text. Even as the moderator, I sometimes found it hard to guide the conversation back into the text when people were having a heated debate on certain issues or topics. I wanted to give people enough personal space and freedom to express their thoughts and opinions. However, I think we all could have gotten more out of the conversation if we all were able to refer back to the text more successfully. There were times in the conversation where I wanted to speak out in response to one another’s comments, but I refrained from doing so, so that others could have the opportunity to speak. Something that I believe I could improve on, not only as a moderator, but as a seminar participant, is being able to present more thought provoking questions. In the Socratic seminars to come, I hope to get more people involved and raise provoking questions and ideas.
One of the most interesting points I found valuable that Allegra brought up, was whether it would be worth it to lower the voting age. How many teenagers would really take the time and dedication to take a test and show up the polls? Statistics show that the demographic of eighteen to twenty-nine year-olds are the lowest demographic in terms of voter turn out. What would be the real point in lowering the age? However, one of the most though provoking points, brought upon Cortney Golub herself, was that, even if statistics show that less than half of youth voters vote, wouldn’t it be great if even just a fraction of the youth had a say? I feel it to be very vital that the youth have a voice in their country, especially with issues that specifically regard the younger demographic. Although I believe this to be quite important, and Cortney’s point did shed some new light on the issue, I am still quite hesitant whether the youth are up for that challenge. Sixteen and seventeen year-olds must show enough dedication and determination before they could have my vote.
