Perhaps I'm crazy, but I'm not wrong: all 18 year old's should have six votes

It's a modest proposal

What’s an idea you believe but that you would never try to implement? Mine is that eighteen year old’s should have six votes.

Voting aggregates the judgments, self-interest and values of people. It is widely held that those under 18 should not be allowed to vote because they lack sufficient judgment. However, starting at about age 12 ( earlier for some, later for others) most kids have their own values. Moreover, they certainly have their own self-interest- a self interest which prioritizes the longer term more than most voters- because they will be alive longer.

But this creates a problem- how can we integrate the values and self-interest of kids 12-17 given that their judgment is thought to be too impaired to vote? Surely, given that they are bound by the democratic process, and helped and harmed by it, their needs and values should be recognized by it? A common proposal is to give their parents votes, but parents often have values wildly different from their kids.

Basically what we want is a way of simulating the election result we would get if all kids 12-17 were magically made into 18 year old versions of themselves, with the maturation in judgement that involves, but kept the same values, and were given a vote?

My answer is to give extra votes to the people who are most like them, and who, given their proximity in time, it is most likely they will grow up to be like: 18 year old’s. It’s hard to deny that, in expectation this is more likely to get us the result we’d get if everyone was allowed to vote and had the mental capacity necessary to do so. Giving them six votes will give them roughly the same numerical weight as the entire population 12 to 18.

Not only is this a better approximation in expectation than our current processes- I’d say that in practice, it’s probably a very good approximation of the voting result you’d get if magically everyone between 12 and 17 became 18.

Many people would reply that those 12 to 17 don’t deserve a voice, even in principle, because they have not contributed enough. I think that’s absurd because:

A) They’re bound by the law like everyone else. The law shouldn’t apply to anyone without needs and values being taken into account.

B) Contrary to the perception kids “don’t work”, they have substantial schoolwork (mandated by the government!) When you add homework, it’s more hours per week than many adults. Childhood is often portrayed as idyllic, but I found it a bit of a slog at times with plenty of labor to go around. I think a lot of kids do.

C) Aren’t we as a society meant to care deeply about children? Not giving their interests any numerical weight in the political process seems like a terrible way to care for them.

The more radical version of this proposal is to give 18 year old’s 18 votes, allowing them to represent everyone under 18. But out of respect for reasonable compromise, I make my more modest proposal which at least takes us closer to simulating the outcome we would get if everyone could participate in voting.

Of course it will never happen, and I would never push for it to happen because it would be nothing but a distraction. However I genuinely believe that, in theory at least, it would be more morally correct than the current system.

Sound off with your own modest proposals in the comments.

Edit: Other salubrious effects include: 1. Incentivizing young people to participate in their first election- thus promoting lifelong participation and 2. Encouraging politicians to reach out to people 16, 17 and especially 18.

Edit: A few comments on why I’m disinclined to give the votes to parents and why I don’t accept the argument parents are a better candidate because of their greater political understanding:

Suppose there are three things we want in a proxy:

1. Aligned Interests: Either the person should have personal interests aligned with the voter, or

2. Aligned Values: Voters differ on their moral perspectives beyond their self-interests.

3. Excellent Understanding: Roughly, knowledge of the degree to which different actions will achieve our values and interests.

18-year-olds are superior on 1 & 2 to parents considered as a group, and in my experience of politics, these are the most important features of a proxy vote. Understanding means little if it is on the other side of social struggles, indeed it might make things worse if your parents disagree with your values and are very good at knowing what vote will best reflect that.

If there is some concern about the understanding 18 year olds in particular, I suppose a compromise position might be, say, 25 year olds (based on the myth that the brain completes development at that age), but I would oppose it. It would still be superior to parents though..

There is a point to make about bias here, namely that what best captures the likely preferences of a group of voters may vary from what will be the best strategy to maximize the chances that each individual is very accurately represented. The maths here is that of a highly biased indicator versus a potentially less accurate but unbiased one, but no need to draw that out here.