Local Elections In San Francisco Could Permit 16 and 17-Year-Olds To Vote

OPINION | This article contains political commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

Ahh, yes, California back at it with the wise decisions.

I’m not saying that minors don’t know what’s going on in the political realm because they could very well be doing their research. However, seeing the current state of the adult population that is voting and deciding on important matters in California… the bar is pretty low for age being a significant determinant of knowledge. Aren’t they deciding on allowing adults to have sex with consenting minors? I digress.

On Saturday, NBC news reported that the residents of San Francisco are deciding whether or not they would like to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the local elections by November.

One of my many worries is that, since these minors (more often than not) are not very well-versed about even finances or the real world, they’ll hear the left yelling “GET EVERYTHING FOR FREE” and want to vote that in, without having a full scope and understanding as to how damaging the repercussions of such an outcome would be.

I mean, Kamala Harris said herself… she thinks young people are stupid, and that was in reference to the age bracket between 18-24. She said they make “really bad decisions.” Do you really think her opinion of younger people’s intelligence is going to be any better UNDER the age of 18?

Don’t believe me? Don’t worry, I gotchu.

Breitbart reported:

“I really think that Vote 16 will help youth of color in San Francisco establish the habit of voting at an earlier age, and really provide them with the support and the resources that they need to continue building on that habit as they grow older,” said 18-year-old Vote 16 SF organizer Crystal Chan.

Vote 16 SF’s website said teens have a “stake in the game” and demanded local officials “treat them as equal constituents.”

They’re not equal constituents. They literally are not legally (or neurologically) able to be equal constituents. If not of legal age, they should be looked after and taught, even just based on the grounds of neurological development.

The site continued:

Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are affected by local political issues as much as anyone. They also work without limits on hours, and pay taxes on their income, can drive, and in some cases are tried in adult courts.

— Advertisement —

Sixteen- and 17-year-olds deserve the right to vote on issues that affect them on the local level. Further, voting is the most reliable way for ordinary citizens to influence the government.

Lowering the voting age would make sure local politicians to listen to sixteen- and 17-year-olds and address their needs.

Sorry, not sorry, but if you’re not even old enough to sign your own lease or to take out a loan on your own vehicle, you don’t have any business making decisions on matters that you’re not even old enough to be a part of.

At least have established credit, for goodness sake.

Even Nancy Pelosi advocated for the voting age to be reduced to 16, as she said in March 2019. If that isn’t your biggest indicator that this is another democratic scheme, then I don’t know what is.

Lowering the voting age would allow students to “directly apply what they’re learning in the classroom in their communities [and] would add a crucial level of relevance to civics courses,” the site added.

Again, definitely something that should be LIVED and LEARNED once they are of age before they have a say in the outcome of these matters. What they’re learning in the classroom is up to the teachers, which the left so loves to advocate for and simultaneously bail out of basic responsibilities.