Thread by @JoshuaADouglas

Interesting but woefully incomplete @nytimes article by @MaggieAstor on the current push to lower the voting age to 16. A thread on this article: nytimes.com/2019/05/19/us/… 1/

First, the article highlights up front a recent survey showing little support for lowering the voting age. But that survey apparently didn't let respondents know that 17-year-olds *already vote* in many state's primaries if they will be 18 by the general election. 2/

And, of course, many people are surprised to learn that 16- and 17-year-olds already vote in about a half dozen cities in local or school board elections. Democracy hasn't seemed to fail in those places. 3/

The article talks about "skin in the game" but fails to mention that the survey showing little support also showed that the 18-34 crowd favors it a lot more than the over 65 crowd. Who will have to suffer the consequences of today's policy choices? 🤔 4/

Advocates in San Francisco found that knee-jerk attitudes change once people hear the merits of lowering the voting age. It went from about 1/3 support to 48% in a span of months. Instead of just reporting the knee-jerk reaction, how about highlighting the changed views? 4/

The article repeats the myth that lowering the voting age to 16 would just add Democratic voters and is thus a partisan power grab. Not so. That's always been an arg when people try to expand the electorate. But this is about democratic engagement, not politics 6/

As a Republican who voted for the measure said, "If what we are afraid of is they’ll vote Democratic, then that’s on us. We need to talk to people. We have better ideas. We’re the party of emancipation.” 7/ thehill.com/homenews/media…

"But they'll just vote the way their parents tell them to." Again, not so. A study in Scotland showed that this isn't true. bbc.com/news/uk-scotla…

Plus, shouldn't our election rules be about creating an inclusive democracy? Let's let the best ideas and candidates win. 8/

Next, the @nytimes piece fails to mention at all the important studies of cognitive brain development: brains are developed for "cold cognition"--the very kind of reasoning necessary for voting, by age 16. It wouldn't be hard to find this info. nytimes.com/2018/03/02/opi… 9/

The article also failed to mention that voting is habit forming and that if you miss the first election when you are eligible, that can lead to lifelong nonvoters. Yet here we are, when we celebrate 50% turnout as "strong." jstor.org/stable/3186114 10/

Now let's talk about civics education. Cities that have lowered the voting age have also improved civics education. They have moved to a model called action civics. This is sorely needed--and the debate on lowering the voting age is the catalyst. 11/ generationcitizen.org/about-us/the-s…

I could go on, of course. But I wish the @nytimes and @MaggieAstor had talked to some experts/academics who have actually studied this issue. It's a lot more complex and nuanced than she makes it out to be. Let's not focus on knee-jerk reactions and instead look at evidence. 12/

The evidence shows that lowering the voting age can create a new generation of engaged, informed voters. And that this is an issue where people's minds can change. 13/

Want more? Check out chapter 1 of my book, Vote for US. amazon.com/Vote-US-Electi…. Also my essay, "In Defense of Lowering the Voting Age": papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…. Maybe @MaggieAstor will read them for her follow-up piece? 😀 /end