@@iarocks44 you are a bigger fan than I if you can get through that 5th season. Once Sorkin left in lost interest. Outside of first couple episodes of season 5 wrapping up cliffhanger and indo enjoy season 7.
My sister, friends and I protested the Viet Nam War, we also fought to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18 with the logic that if an elected official can draft an 18 year old citizen to go to war, then they should have the right to vote. We were able to get the voting age dropped to 18 and the first time I voted for a President I was 19. I'm now soon to be 68 and I listen to our youth.
Yes, same here. The argument against 18 year olds voting was that, as 21 was the age of majority, that 18 year olds could be coerced by parents to vote a certain way. First, 18 yo's are not easily coerced by parents and, second, voting is private. Anyway, that's when 18 also became the new age of majority.
What makes you think we didn't think of getting rid of the draft? Is there a draft today? Actually our youth today have greater concerns like gun violence in their schools or public environments. Climate change and pollution, well just to name a few. SOD this 70 yr old still does her best to make this Earth the best place for all living entities to exist. Be well and vote!
@@JumpingTuna The crazy thing is this scene was filmed over 20 years ago. In the fictional West Wing universe Cody is now in his mid 30s to late 30s, he could be working in the White House now if the show was still on TV.
When I was 13 I, and the rest of my class, were invited to the Houses of Parliament in London by our local MP. He hosted us for the day and we got to sit in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and various other areas that are not usually open to the public. We were shown how the MPs vote and we were given a briefing by some other MPs and then asked to vote on the issue. I'm now 59 and it remains one of the most interesting days of my life. I've never NOT voted since I turned 18. Politics is too important to ignore or leave to other people.
I'm from Scotland, 22, and feel exactly the same way. My high-school always made sure young people felt involved in politics through regular mock referendums and votes, and regular visits to the Scottish Parliament for debates etc. I've always been very happy that for SMP elections the voting age is 16.
I struggle to get through season 5 of this show because it just felt so different with the cast changes and Sorkin leaving. But they still had a few momentary gems like this scattered throughout. What a great show.
Getting kids and teenagers interested in voting and politics is good, but that's not the problem I have with them in this scene. The problem is that the children want the voting age to be abolished. They want the constitutional right for children to be able to vote at any age they decide. However, we see later in the scene that the kid isn't onboard with anything else that comes with being a grownup. They want children to have special treatments because they're children, and that's fine to say, but they also want to be allowed to change the course of the country by voting. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that you want to be a grownup in one way and you want to be a child in another.
@Rich Vela: The Crusades were fought by the Church, not churches. Don't confuse the broader Catholic mindset with the much smaller, individual churches of today. It's not the same thing. And if you need to understand that better, just look at the Spanish Inquisition, where under any view the Church was attacking itself. @Lonelydartplayer M: If you don't believe in any of it, why do you care that you didn't consent to...water? Don't get me wrong. As a Christian, I find the idea of infant baptism theologically unsound, but in terms of implication, being dunked in or sprayed with water, it isn't exactly waterboarding. Besides, it's not for the kids, it's for the parents. @Jim Dandy: Having said all that, there's a world of difference between sending kids off to war at 18 (where they can also vote, btw), and the discussion of "churches get kids at birth." I do think it's a bit weird to send kids to war but tell them they can't drink for another three years, but much like the original comment that started all this, it's a false equivalency. And I'd say the inability to see that there are both quantitative and qualitative differences between "churches get kids" and "government gets kids" is the root of the problem. It's a line I can only buy because it was said by a child.
@@richvela706 The Crusades were (1) Initially defensive in nature, (2) completely voluntary, and (3) undermined by political authority. The Crusaders in the first two, the two that were supported by the Church, were both justified and necessary.
@@Goldnfoxx The Crusades were fought by individuals who sought to preserve Christian holdings and the lives of those in the Holy Land from an intolerant and violent aggressor. While the first two were supported by the Church, they were not "fought by the Church," and the last few were completely the creation of the European nobility of the time.
Really gotta say this kid makes better points than most of the pundits on both sides of the aisle do in this entire series. I think this could work if they issued a citizenship test to minors to acquire their right to vote early similar to how they let them get their driver's permit and the kids that take the initiative would be a great sample study to see if younger voters continue to make educated decisions and participate in democracy throughout their lifetimes.
I like the idea of a citizenship-style test, although your analogy of a driver's permit test is faulty. While comparable in that youths partake in a test in exchange for a massive privilege (or with voting, a right), driver's permits (and later the test itself, at least the written portion) are typically pretty easy to complete. And if you fail, there is a pity system that allows one to try again in 30 minutes. For something like voting at an earlier age, the standard for passing said test should be higher. Not exactly on the level of emancipation (which is where I think we could begin with something like early age voting -- if you're legally emancipated, you should be allowed to vote) and probably not on the level of an SAT but something that reflects the weight of a voter's responsibility.
@@TheMeditorEditor agreed, though I was using the example of the driver's permit test because it can be taken sooner than the license test, not because of its difficulty. I also agree that emancipated minors should be able to vote. Perhaps kids who get their GED or graduate high school early should be given the opportunity to vote as well, because they're preparing to enter the work force or higher education full time?
@@TheMeditorEditor the fact that representation in one's government is a right - in fact, the most fundamental right under our social contract - means the barrier to entry must be lower than for a mere privilege like driving on the public roads. In fact, the barrier to entry must be zero. No democracy has the right to restrict suffrage based on any test of supposed fitness, because fitness is not the basis of that right. If it were, then what's to stop the government from restricting your right to vote based on its own assessment of your "fitness"? Literally anyone capable of forming the intent to vote must be allowed the right to vote, as a matter of principle. Also, as a practical matter, the right to drive a 2000 lb hunk of steel is a weightier responsibility than the right to vote is, since one person's vote will literally never shift an election - an election close enough to be decided by one vote will instead be decided by the vote counters.
why would you impose a citizenship test on young people that you aren't imposing on the rest of the electorate? either voting's a right or it isn't, in which case it's inappropriate to let the voting rights of adults who have the right to vote be diluted by granting the vote to others as a mere privilege. consider this: any minor who cannot pass a citizenship test is presumptively unfit in your scheme - until the calendar turns over? why would that arbitrary time increment make them suddenly fit to vote?
People in the comments are complaining that Cody is arrogant or obnoxious. Of course he's arrogant, so? He's literally looking to change the world. Nice well-behaved people rarely make history.
+rockit730 I think the problem is more with his advanced reasoning and underdeveloped voice. He has the right logic and the right sensibilities, but not the right tone when making his point. Perfect for sounding immature, but being highly intelligent. Quite typical in young gifted children.
+DrownedInExile Well besides the fact that "Cody" is an actor reading lines... but let's say he is real person, I want him to vote when he becomes a teenager because he's well informed, well read and obviously has a patriotic attitude that would preserve the country. Like all young/youth, they want changes over night and usually high strung Zealots.
As a former teacher, I was always impressed by the simple, yet uncorrupt thought process of our youth. One would be surprised how some huge issues could be solved by implementing simple procedures. Children tend to keep things simple......an example of a simple solution for a challenging issue - you can't spend more than you have. Use this simple rule and the governmental deficit issue could be eliminated tommorrow.
Except of course that power indeed _does_ affect people's brains, the very neurology, in quite significant ways - and in quite a few ways that tend to be called "corrupted". It's nowhere near the only problem of course, another main one is that power attracts the corruptible, i.e. people with a more or less strong motivation to seek that power for their own benefit (or the benefit of people they favour, which is essentially the same). I actually have no idea what meaning of "weakness" is intended here. A weak "willpower"? Very unlikely, it doesn't fit at all. So what "weakness" is meant?
I would personally supplant "more outspoken" with "less jaded" purely because I think there is an obvious similarity between both characters. Cody is understandably more idealistic than Toby, whom lost every campaign he was ever part of based on his tilting at windmills idealogy, until the big one. And I think that's brilliant. Fantastic scene, and the respect Toby appears to feel is well portrayed.
"allowing children to vote is worthy of consideration" THAT is the type of leader I want. someone who listens, regardless of age or anything else. wish we could have that in reality
Toby was always logically, even in saving his the Astronauts. He was always receptive to a well laid out argument whomever it came from, this is just the highlight.
Thanks so much for this clip. I have used this in my 8th grade civics class for years, on a edited VHS tape. My VCR just finally died this year and I was sad b/c I wasn't going to be able to show it. I googled it, and there it was! Thanks so much!
Honestly, I think that it shouldn't be about age, but about being informed. There are people who are under the voting age who would make better decisions than the people who are legal voters.
And the corollary is that there are people who are of legal age but should not be allowed to vote because they are 'uninformed'. That is a very slippery slope and one which leads to tyranny. Cody's points are well made, but the minimum voting age is an arbitrary choice (like the age at which one can legally have sex or get married). It is effectively tied to the age at which we (society as a whole) considers the individual to be an adult. It used to be 21 (at least here in the UK) and was lowered to 18 in the early '70s. It could have been lowered further; to 16, say. But would YOU want a 16 year-old to have voting rights? Or a 12 year-old; a 6 year-old. Hardly. But the line has to be drawn somewhere and 18 is as good as any. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.
I think the large question concerns how to tell if a voter is informed or not. The problem is that in the past African Americans were prevented from voting because the lacked "competency", even though they were the only ones required to take an unfair test that most other white Americans couldn't pass.
That's a pretty stupid argument for letting children vote-- that some adults are too stupid to vote. You could apply the same argument to the family dog.
In any state where a minor can be tried as an adult, hold a job, or be emancipated, they should have the right to vote, including on the federal level.
@@savagedragon79 why is allowing more people to vote "stupid"? was it stupid to allow women, or black people, or men without property, to vote? Please define "Fair" for me. My idea of "fair" includes not drawing arbitrary distinctions between things. Young people are affected by government decisions just as much as those over; many people under 18 pay taxes (nor does everyone over 18 pay them); people under 18 can be charged with crimes so they are still expected to obey laws they have no say in; many high school students actually have more knowledge about civics then many registered voters. many states do not bar people who have been declared senile by a court from voting for context. we allow many low IQ; alcoholic; ignorant; hateful; drug addicted; falsely informed; crazy; or just plain thoughtless adults to vote. we no longer bar adults with mental retardation from voting. also, I think old enough to fight old enough to vote does not go far enough; people should have been eligible voters for at least long enough that there is guaranteed to have been an election they could vote in before a draft is ethical. I should add that in particular if you support a minimum voting age in school board elections your preferred form of government is oligarchy or colonialism, not true democracy, as you want the people most effected by the decisions of those bodies to be the only ones unable to vote for them. in the case of school board elections, a reasonable case (albeit one I am on the fence on if I actually agree with it) can be made for a Maximum Voting Age in those elections; that there is a point where you are so old that they do not effect you at all.
Years later I still always love this clip. My high-school here in Scotland had a major program for making sure young people were invested in voting through mock elections and referendums, and our voting age for the Scottish Parliament is 16, allowing young people to get involved at a younger age.
One of my favorite scenes and my argument that the writing didn't always suffer after Sorkin left. There weren't any Mandy's, Ainsley's or Sam's for that matter - characters who just dropped off the ace of the earth - once Sorkin was gone.
There was Joe Quincy (Matthew Perry). Not nearly as commonly used as Ainsley, but a good example that Republicans were not intrinsically evil, even if the Administration considered him to be wrong on many matters. Also, ex-Speaker Glenallen Walken, who was created by Sorkin for his final episode of season 5 and season 6 until the recovery of kidnapped daughter Zoe Bartlett, and later the Presidential trip to the funeral of the oldest member of the club.
I live in the UK and have one more argument to add: Mary Queen of Scots became ruler of Scotland at just 6 days old. The country was governed by regents for her entire childhood, including by her mother. If the answer to the problem of child monarchs is "just let the parents rule the country" then letting parents vote on behalf of their kids from the moment of birth is nothing by comparison!
It's such a great scene!! Also --- consider this: competency exams in the 20th century were absolutely a problem for race and sex because of the concern for restricting voter access for bigoted reasons. But race and sex don't change (without considerable surgery, at least) ... so the concern for abuse was PERMANENT. With age, that is not the case... and I think we all agree that having a competency exam in place for voting rights before age 18 is better than having no route to youth voting at all. I'd absolutely be in favor of an exam that tests a kids' general knowledge of problems facing the country (or state) and critical thinking skills on solutions to those problems. Let any child who can pass the test vote. It accomplishes a lot of things. 1) it is a worthy goal and an immediate reward for hard working intelligent young students; 2) it instills the idea that voting is an INDEPENDENT right that should be taken seriously; 3) it encourages civic engagement EARLY (as the kid was arguing); 4) it encourages voting with an actual understanding of issues and positions (as opposed to the party loyalty vote that many adults display) 5) it instills a sense of responsibility in youth that they take an active role in holding their government accountable 6) it can be accomplished through schools as a part of the high school social studies curriculum to avoid "parental manipulation" (can likewise be administered at the voting booths themselves for the same purpose. )
I like the idea of a citizenship-style test, although your analogy of a driver's permit test is faulty. While comparable in that youths partake in a test in exchange for a massive privilege (or with voting, a right), driver's permits (and later the test itself, at least the written portion) are typically pretty easy to complete. And if you fail, there is a pity system that allows one to try again in 30 minutes. For something like voting at an earlier age, the standard for passing said test should be higher. Not exactly on the level of emancipation (which is where I think we could begin with something like early age voting -- if you're legally emancipated, you should be allowed to vote) and probably not on the level of an SAT but something that reflects the weight of a voter's responsibility.
@Christopher Weber they're saying you don't get two votes just cause you had a child and were too controlling to let them come to their own conclusions about the world
During the Scottish Independence Referendum, turnout among 16 and 17 year olds was 75%, whilst among 18-24 year olds it was just 54%. Moreover, 74% of 16 and 17 year olds told pollsters they felt sufficiently informed to make their decision, set against 79% of adults generally. There is little evidence that people in this age bracket are either too immature, ignorant or politically disengaged to not be allowed to vote. I agree with Cody that lowering the voting age might kindle and nurture a voting habit that would serve people for life; at age 18, people's lives are often in flux, they may not be resident in their family home due to University and they are encumbered with many other rights and responsibilities upon reaching that age, so voting may fall by the wayside.
Not necessarily, but teenagers in that bracket are often engaged in some form of civic education so are by no means completely ignorant, unless they choose to be (not unlike many adults).
@@fastman69001 Not necessarily, but wouldn't that concern affect adults as well as children? How would you determine if adults were sufficiently informed, other than simply asking them? Why apply a burden of proof to children you don't take on yourself?
@@benlowe1701 _"Not necessarily, but wouldn't that concern affect adults as well as children? [..] Why apply a burden of proof to children you don't take on yourself?"_ Why don't we allow 12 year olds to get married? Why don't we allow 12 year olds to get married to 30 year olds? I'm serious here - the answers to those two question hold the core of the answer to the question about voting age.
@@Wolf-ln1ml You're changing the argument, or else have misread what I said. The person I was replying to, disputed the claim that 16 year olds were capable of voting because: "[Just] because some felt sufficiently informed means they actually were informed." The idea being that teenagers will overestimate their intelligence and understanding of certain topics. I simply commented that that had no bearing on the issue of whether or not 16 Year old should vote, because there are plenty of people *over* the age of 18 who **Also** suffer from the same delusions: falsely believing they are educated on topics that they are exercising their democratic right on. There is no competency test to vote. You don't *need* to know anything about a topic, in order to have your vote count. People will routinely express political opinions on the economy, on migration, on the court of human rights or on foreign affairs, with no understanding of those topics whatsoever. But for some reason, if they are over 18, we don't consider this a liability. So the idea that a 16 year old is too ignorant to vote, simply doesn't hold water. Plenty of people are too ignorant to vote. There are good reasons to say "You have to be 18" to vote. But the idea that being 18 equates to some knowledge or experience or understanding, is not much of an argument. Plenty of british voters are dumber than plenty of 16 year olds.
I don't think that age determines how informed you are: it's how much you value being informed that matters. If you do care, then you do your research, regardless of age. Everyone's mental and social capacities are largely developed by 14-16, so we know it's not a matter of intelligence or maturity. 15 year old me cared and knew more about economics than the millions of Adult Americans who blow 1k every year on a new IPhone. Furthermore, Toby and Cody are right: I have a job, pay taxes, own and drive a car, and have to pay for college. It's only right that I have a say in the policies which affect all those aspects of my life. It's true most teenages probably don't care enough to vote, but that shouldn't disqualify those that do
Let me ask you this then, should a 14 year old girl be allowed to have sex with a 40 year old man? Should a child be charged the same as an adult for a crime? Should a student in high school be hauled off to jail for tax evasion, because he was busy in high school? Teenagers and adults are NOT the same. We as a society recognize that, until 17-21, the average teenager and young child cannot often make conscious, informed decisions, and often lack the maturity and intelligence a adult would. Yes, a lot of adults make stupid choices, a lot of times decisions most teenagers wouldn't. However, scientist and law makers recognize that there is a level of intelligence and maturity that constitute consent, consent being the fundamental aspect of voting. If the child doesn't have the capacity to give consent, or is not fully developed, then that child is st high risk for making bad and often times irreversible decisions. This is why a lot of parents are tasked with taking care and raising a child. The voting age is not meant just to protect the political world from dumb, Ill-informed, teens and kids, but also to protect those children from making serious decisions they are not prepared to make and have others manipulate them into making that decisions.
@@raspherion Valid points, but it's worth mentioning the age of consent in my state is 16, but the voting age is 18. Not like my vote would have mattered at the federal level anyway, but I wouldn't have able to change that either. (It's also cap that I can get drafted to go kill people in a war before I can have a beer or smoke a joint)
@@raspherion the idea of "protecting" people by taking their rights away is always dubious, but the idea that you are "protecting" kids by keeping them out of the voting booth is so absurd it means you just aren't even trying to reality-test your rationalizations. And suffrage is the most fundamental right there is in our social contract, so rationalizations for the restrictions of privileges or even lesser rights do not hold here.
@@prospero4183 Because laws are equal but not always fair. The only way for true fairness is for a god-like entity that understands us each, with perfect knowledge, discipline and compassion, to dispense laws according to every possible circumstance. That didn't exist, so the next best thing is to draw the line somewhere so that all are treated equally (if not always fairly). To imitate such an entity would result in neither equality nor fairness, for politicians are not omniscient/omnipotent gods. All that would be left is inconsistency and malign discrimination.
@@prospero4183 We choose numbers like these because they are the best average (according to our current understands and research). Why can't girls do porn at 17, but just 1 day later they can at 18? Some girls clearly fully developed by 16, while others are late bloomers until as late as 21. We have such laws because we choose to have standards that are consistent and equal, if not always fair.
Well this was interesting. We can't allow children to vote. Or at any rate, like one character says, voting age could only be lowered incrementally, starting at the local level. But how well have 'adults' been handling things? Writing this comment makes me think of the Parkland students. I sure am proud of those kids.
Or that Swedish girl that protests on Fridays and told world leaders to panic - or else nothing gets done to counter climate change on time. The way some purpoted "adults" disparaged her and questioned her mental faculties and dismissed her because "she's just a kid who has no clue" is apalling!
Smart kids are still kids. There is no way that the voting age should be lowered. As for the Parkland students, where were their walkouts before it happened to them? Nowhere. So all the other shootings didn't matter enough? Also, students walking out of class does absolutely nothing for anyone.
I think if you compare the literacy rates to the portion of voters who vote along party lines their entire lives you'd think twice about age being the end all measure of a citizen's ability to make educated voting decisions.
@@su-rv2uq considering walking out is a conditionally protected way of peacefully protesting in this country and the likelihood of kids being shot in a given public school any day of the year I'd say mass walk outs might be the only way to ensure their bodily safety and actually get some attention to fixing our broken schools.
@@su-rv2uq They are right tho everything that todays governments decide impact our kids doubly or more, and whilst I agree that kids are more susceptible to coersion or indeed force something needs to be done to force governments to take that into account. My personable opinion is that our leaders should be able to be held criminally negligent for poor governance.
3:07 Well nowadays there is Sunrise, youth party groups like HSDA and teen republicans, and other groups... though they aren't really like the AARP in terms of lobbying clout or specificity.
If a naturalized 16 year old is willing to study for, take, and *pass* the citizenship test that enfranchises immigrants, then take the oath of citizenship along with newly christened citizens, they should be granted the right to vote two years early. In exceptional and rare occasions, perhaps even 14 year olds should be able to take the citizenship test for early voting. But I'm not down with abolishing the voting age entirely. Sub-18-year-olds DO need better representation, though. Perhaps even a Constitutional Amendment.
And why, then, would you not require this same citizen test in order for adults to vote? We have adults who are cognitively impaired to some degree as the *candidates* of both parties this time around, and a LOT of adults (dare I suggest a majority?) who treat the practice like supporting their favorite sports team. Why should youth be required to be intelligent about exercising the franchise when their older counterparts clearly have no such obligation?
@@dipperjc Because voting is a privilege granted with the acknowledgement of adulthood. Filing with Selective Service is a requirement of all 18 year olds. That is an implicit agreement to defend this country, even if very few take it seriously. Requiring adult citizens to take the citizenship test to qualify to vote opens up a rather large Pandora's Box that harkens back to some rather dark practices that were used to *disenfranchise* voters in the past.
@@pbdye1607 ...So? My point was that you can't have it both ways - either voting is an inherent right of citizenship and excluding minors from voting is just as unfairly discriminatory as denying voting rights based on sex or skin color, or voting is something that requires a certain amount of cognitive ability and expertise and all citizens, regardless of age, should test into it. It's grossly unreasonable to make under18s prove they can be "smart enough" to vote while people in their 70s unabashedly cast their votes based on which candidate they'd rather bang. I don't really have a horse in the race, either is fine with me, but it needs to be consistent and not age-based. Side note, though, voting should absolutely NEVER be described as a "privilege". You wanna talk Pandora's Box, that word opens up more than anything else ever could. I have no problem with the right needing to be earned in some objective way, but it is still a RIGHT.
1:54 is where Cody's argument slips up. The charge he makes against Toby's point of immature logic is that the same point was used to disenfranchise women and people of colour. While true, just because a point is unsound in one context doesn't mean it holds unsound in all contexts. The "immature logic" point was unfair to use against women and people of colour because neither women nor people of colour have inferior powers of reasoning. Children, however, DO have inferior powers of reasoning, and neuroscience backs this claim up.
+ticklish Can we be sure that all people above the age 18 have "adequate powers of reasoning"? The follow up to that question; can we be sure that EVERY person under the age of 18 lacks the "adequate powers of reasoning"?
justin bartelen The answer to both is of course we cannot, and as evidenced by this year's primary season, many voters over the age of 18 DO lack adequate powers of reasoning. But how exactly do you pre-determine someone's reasoning powers to allow them to vote? An IQ test? Furthermore, how do we define "adequate" powers of reasoning? Is an IQ of 90 OK, or is that too low a bar? Neurological facts are that barring truly exceptional cases, the brains of children are less developed in all aspects when compared with those of adults: logical, social, emotional. Of course there is a grey area once puberty hits when one should be considered an adult as adulthood is not so much a binary state as it is a series of developments. Cultural definitions of adolescence and maturity have set this bar at 18. It could be 15, when most people have hit puberty. It could be 25, when most people have finished the majority of their neurological development. It could be 3, because that girl on Ellen knew the whole periodic table. But then we open the floodgates to all 3 year olds. Where is the line, and why is 18 not as good as any?
Idiomatick Executive dysfunction, logic/reasoning and empathy are all different things. My partner is autistic and has severe problems with executive function but displays normal if not heightened powers of logic and empathy.
I agree. It is common to see as arrogant someone we perceive as weaker or powerless. "How dare they?" we say, not understanding that is is our flaw which allows us to see other as arrogant. The young man pushed only after being ignored and fobbed off. His was not only a reasonable argument, but an important one given how we adults have made their future, a toxic one. Know what I mean? ;-)
Poverty among children is high because they are just starting out. The old folks had their chance and now time is of the essence. There is no tie left for compounding interest to help them.
I smacked my forehead at that one. "The young are the poorest" No shit, you're starting out and have a whole lifetime to build equity. "The old get 10x more money from the government, while the young get nothing" Because they put in the time and taxes, and the young are healthy while the old are going through expensive deteriorating health.... wait, you want to vote at 14 and gain all the privileges but none of the responsibilities like financial independence? You want to start out with the government giving you money (ie, welfare)? Oh wait, you said you want age limits completely abolished! So any single mother can tell her 5 year-old spawn whom to vote for (pro more-welfare candidates); go ahead and pilfer the government coffers! That's showing responsibility! "Arguments of being coerced is a fallacy because slavery" Yeah, I'm pretty damn sure children are much more susceptible to coercion. See above. And then literally look around you at any university, recruiter, police officer, etc Oh, and don't forget "argue that 18 is the worst age to start voting. you're all worried about college or paying rent for the first time or falling in love" Some lovely stereotypes/projections there. I'm certain most people have gone through finding their first love by 12-14. Many people start paying rent (to their parents) by 16. The only reason college is an issue is because they're transitioning into full adulthood; figuring out finances and responsibilities, stressing about their futures that they are planning at that time (which is still a BS point considering all the political activists). And finally, like 14 year olds are better what with their goldfish attention spans, consumed by tiktok and instagram, desperate for likes and upvotes; obsessed with the latest video games and favorite superhero movies. Some of the most vapid, attention-seeking, trend-chasing children. Oh, I'm sorry, did I stereotype you and generalize your age group? I guess it's okay when you do it to others. Funny how those that demand "equality" now don't treat others equally.
meh. the dialogue here is merely a show, to make the kids feel better about the reality that their interests will not be actually considered. if there's value in such a farce, it's not much.
He's not arrogant or obnoxious. He's overwhelmed that he's in the White House faced with a real senior advisor to the President and now's his chance to ask a question yet he has so many questions to ask he's confused on which one makes more sense if asked. Young people should have more active roles in talking and asking their government what is being done and especially regarding their own welfare.
It is interesting that in 2021 that states are allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. We will probably never see the voting age lowered at the national level and it might just be increased back to 21.
no chance of 21 being the voting age again. If we require you (and me in my day) to register for draft at 18, you should be able to vote. I would be very opposed to that raise in age, think most would as well.
@@scottmatheson3346^ This. If someone proposed a constitutional amendment to affirm that the sky was blue, it would never be ratified. Probably because red states would see it as a tacit endorsement of democrats. :P Same logic, in reverse, if the amendment were to affirm that apples are red.
Part of me thinks you should have to pass a test to vote, but I wouldn't know how to administer that test. How design an unbiased test to determine someone's ability to reason on a political level?
+DH1986 --The most immediately available test would be the written test that applicants for citizenship must take, since most of it is about government structure and function.
+DH1986 I thought about that as well. Not only would designing the test to be non-biased be an issue, but having to be able to have the time and means to get an appointment to take the test is another potential discrimination tool. Availability of what language you take the test in is a potential discrimination tool. Being literate is a potential discrimination tool.
Jason Guy You could have the test administered at the local court house on a computer. You could have the instructor read the test to people who are deaf or unable to use the computer due to some other ailment.
That still discriminates against people of lower income. If someone is living paycheck to paycheck, they probably can't afford to spend the time at a local court house. Not to mention that it would be a massive cluster fuck to have every potential voting citizen come to one place, even if it is spread out over the course of one year.
Jason Guy It's no different than requiring someone to have a drivers license and there would be no need to have individuals take the test every year. I think we have different definitions of the word discriminate.
This scene always makes me think of those other kids looking back and remembering the super boring day they had at the White House silently eating pizza while two of their classmates talked about politics with some guy in a suit that worked for the president
I'm not sure that voting should EVER have been about age. There are plenty of accidentally-misinformed or even willfully-ignorant adult voters, and the lack of a maximum voting age opens the door for the caretakers of elderly citizens with dementia/Alzheimers' to commit small acts of voter fraud. Additionally, the ability to vote for a single party erases the nuances within issues and any real discussion of each politicians' integrity; a pre-vote test about the issues (available in every necessary language so as to avoid discrimination) might be an asset to our democracy.
This is extremely true, and I say this as someone who "benefits" as the caretaker of an elderly parent who can no longer identify kitchen appliances by name. I do my absolute best to be impartial when I take her to town hall to help her vote, but I can't really be sure I'm 100% effective at that, because she often asks me, "Which one are you picking" with a clear eye to copying me. And it's not hard to imagine people with lesser ethics taking advantage. If we're going to lose our pure democracy, and there's every indication that we might, I'm going to push for a meritocracy when the smoke clears.
The children from the massacre in Florida this week have shown far greater maturity than many of those who have the ability to vote but who cast away their votes or who vote carelessly. I remember when this episode was aired and thought at the time it was perhaps a little wistful but ultimately naive... after listening to the schoolchildren of Florida, I think I may have been mistaken...
@@BuzzLightyear9999 you HAVE to base policy based on the general population, making laws based on exceptions in every group leads to issues all over. If legislative law is based on nothing but special cases then you have a special class created and allowed special privileges by law, only places where that happen are in dictatorships where the "party" members are granted special privileges by law while everyone else is below them. Like it or not, general laws keep the gifted and exceptional grounded in reality and reinforce the fact that they are not anyone special in the grand scheme of things.
@@Baldeagle-tw2nv the point wasn’t about the concept of legislative generality (and wasn’t to be taken literally…) it was to say there is a sad reality when children are speaking greater truths and wisdoms than their elders - particularly around gun laws and restrictions. If you want to get literal, then I would point to countries where gun violence on the scale (ratio-wise) of the United States has been categorically solved and it has been done legislatively. The solution to the problem unequivocally exists, but [American] adults are willing to sacrifice lives of children [amongst others] in order to cling to a fetish for ‘sticks that go boom…’ Legislators are supposed to be the wiser heads and in America, they quite clearly aren’t. The solution is straightforward, but Americans are unwilling to take the leap - it’s no different to America’s dug-in refusal to accept the metric system - “…we don’t do metric, we’re MURICAN… yee haw…!” except in this case it’s “we don’t do sensible… we darn-well shoot first and give thoughts and prayers after… YEE HAW…! Bang, bang!” ……… normally you’d expect such childish and cartoonish attitudes to come from children and ironically, children are the ones giving the nuanced and rational response to such silliness coming from people who are tasked with looking out for their interests…🤷♂️
@@BuzzLightyear9999 America didn't go with the metric system because we didn't plan on getting involved all over the world, plus we didn't like Europeans. As for the gun issue, we believe in the right to defend ourselves from ALL possible danger. Relying on the government for your protection is a huge mistake because the government is always one step away from becoming tyrannical. Counties that have lower gun violence than the US have the unique ability to do so because of a homogenous population, and I bet those nations have a history of strong central authority. The US was born out of a rebellion against strong central authority, so it's only natural for US citizens to want to be able to keep government in check, and that check is the possibility of an armed populace uprising. As for children speaking "honest truth", it's easy to think the solution is simple when they have no actual world experience. By creating "gun free" zones you're inviting cowards who obtained their weapon illegally in a vast majority of cases to go there, because they know no one is going to stop them. Here's an idea, give legal immunity to someone who kills someone in self-defense, and I mean from criminal and civil suits. If people weren't so hesitant to defend themselves without fear of legal reprisal you'd find that crime would be significantly lower. You protecting yourself and your neighbors is a better crime deterrent than calling the cops. Personal responsibility is a foreign thing in today's age because everyone expects a large, slow moving, lumbering, unless beauracracy to solve their problems for them.
I think at best some sort of system should be put in place that say at 13 years old you could apply to take a test that gives you an opportunity to qualify for voting privileges. But theres another problem with voting for juveniles is most of them aren't as likely to have a picture ID. But I guess that could be avoided by requiring any kids who qualify to take the test and then pass the test to get a non driver picture ID and/or a drivers license if they're over 16 years old.
Opponents will say that children will just vote the way their parents tell them to vote. Well, don't some adults just vote the way Fox News tells them to vote?
@@zoch9797 The stupid is strong in you. As it is with all you trumptards you have no idea how economics and the world economy works so do yourself a favor and stop acting like you know what you're talking about because it makes you look even more fucking stupid then you already do. And believe me, you trumptards take stupidity to a whole new level.
In Australia voting is compulsory for every Australian citizen when we hit 18yrs old. But to the rest of the world, if you don't vote then don't complain about the Government because you didn't vote.
I’m British but I think that only teenagers aged 16-17 should be allowed to vote and only in a referendum. General elections are frequent and can be called at any time if the current prime minster so chooses. But, a referendum on a certain issue could only happen once in a life time and said referendum will effect the lives of the future generations to come.
The USofA is not a parliamentary democracy with snap elections like the UK is. Over 99% of our elections are done according to a regular calender schedule mandated by our federal and state constitutions.
My proposal: Automatic right to vote still begins at 18, but a test is administered to 16 year olds designed to check that they're competent to vote. If they pass they can vote from 16 onwards but if they don't they have to wait until they are 18 just like before. The test could possibly be administered earlier, sixteen just seems like the most sensible age as it is when you can get a drivers licence/consent to sex etc. What do people think?
IAMTheNerdHerd That would be illegal. There used to be literacy tests during the Jim Crow era to keep black people in the south from voting. There is already a precedent for that sort of thing.
IAMTheNerdHerd In any proposal about this issues, you should replace age with blacks and see if the proposal makes sense. If it doesn't that it's probably not a good idea.
Why on earth? I am aware of the Jim Crow Laws, but the problem with the tests in that era was that they were completely impossible and applied only to black people. What I propose would apply equally to all and wouldn't prevent voting at 18 if you failed at 16! not everything has to be about race you know...
There used to be a place... called the center. Lib.Republicans and conservative democrats both know their party's have lost their minds... I'm ashamed of both. Its sad.
I feel like most kids would just vote the way their parents want them to. Or they would simply vote based on one issue where the parties are highly polarized like abortion. I've voted in still just a small handful of elections since I turned 18 and every time another election rolls around, I feel like I've learned a little about how our government works, how our country works, how business works. Did I always make the best choices when I was in front of electronic voting machine (and my first election, at the levers that I pulled--yes, I go back that far, just barely)? That's a matter of opinion. But I always do as much research as I can, I try to stay as open minded as I can and listen to both sides and make the best choice I can with the information I have available.
+minstrel1184 That is actually a good point it is as this kid said in the video about religion. Parents just create little copies of themselves just as informed or misinformed. There are a few people that will move from their parents shadows at some point in their life but it takes awhile.
The argument against children, I will say between 16 to 18 voting is that they are still at an age where they are influenced by parents and teachers, it is a form of coercion and they don't think independently. My question is aren't adults influenced by the surroundings too, friends, partners, colleagues, media we just pretend like it is our own thinking but no one lives in a bubble. Independent thinking doesn't necessarily mean thinking is right, and what if influence is positive why should it be discounted just because your teacher told you so other than when you are an adult you saw it on Fox news. I guess for better or for worst we see Voting and Sex as the same thing, but coerced into Voting for the wrong person isn't going to psychologically damage you as much as coerced into having sex, maybe it does who knows.
That's how a lot of adults vote as well though. Isn't "tradition" one of the reasons you have blue and red states? That argument would have been more convincing if the current president wasn't Donald Trump. A lot of people only voted for him because of his stance on immigration. Adults are as immature as teenagers. We just don't like to admit it.
lots of adults are single issue voters too. and as the kid said, we don't check adult voters to see if they are informed enough to vote, nor should we. besides, a lot of kids don't bother informing themselves about the government because they can't vote anyway. if they were able to vote, they would be more likely to read up on the issues. and also, regarding the coercion, unless we're talking about a local election in a small town, there's no reason that a kid can't vote one way, and say they voted the other way if that is what their parents wanted them to do. you could say that a kid lying to their parents is not good behavior, but I consider lying in that instance justified because the parent has no business inquiring how their kid voted, especially if they are doing so in an attempt to coerce that kid into voting a certain way.
I wasn’t voting until I was voting… I was politically aware about two or three years before I was of age to vote. Sure, it might have been slanted slightly to my parents or grandparents viewpoints, however it would have likely matured faster too. That vested interest… By age 25/28 I had essentially flipped from one party to another, only to flip back yet again. Children with a right to vote. At least on the lesser levels of government is a great idea. Even if you need to write a small test to ensure your “aware” enough to tell what’s going on…
Ideally, you should be able to flip between parties without worrying about it bringing the end of the world. They're not sports teams; they're meant to be earning your vote each election cycle. The problem with the US two-party system is it has resulted in two behemoths thats' extremes overshadow their comonalities, to the point where no common ground exists. You could argue which side's extremes are better or worse than the other (though only one side has tried to overthrow democracy,) but there are many left in the middle who want nothing to do with the fringes, and are being forced to one way or the other.
@@nicholassmith7984 I know a few countries have more than the big two. Hell, Israel alone I think has had a number of coalition governments because it’s hard to get over that barrier for power. I can just imagine how much smack would go down if America had the same and Trump had managed a coalition government that put him in the 60%win column… even tho he only had say 35% of the electoral count…
@@thomask70 I actually think it'd be an idea for the US to get rid of parties altogether. Their politicians are already voted for on an individual basis, so let them all run as Independents.
I tried using a West Wing clip in a video and youtube blocked it because of WBTV copyright (even though I cited them as the owners)...how did this stay up?
Honestly, I think the fact that his proposal is ridiculously stupid should not detract from what he's trying to do. I don't find him arrogant or obnoxious at all - I like the kid, and it's nice to see someone trying to change the world. Again, the proposal is ridiculous (honestly, even 18 is a bit young to vote), but we often see kids with ridiculous causes and encourage them, because at least they're being active and fighting for the change they want to see.
Having people who bear none of the tax burden, cannot serve in the military and lack any life experience decide the fate of the nation? You don't find that illogical?
You are claiming that everyone who is 18 or older has "adequate" life experience (by whatever standard your using)? I find that illogical. You only have to be 17 to join the military, but then I would argue that if you are saying "you must be able to serve in the military to vote" and to serve in the military you have to be 17 because of physical requirements, then you are actually saying you can only vote when you meet certain physical requirements, and I would say that is illogical. About 45% of the US population doesn't pay income tax, should half of the population lose their right to vote? I would say that is illogical. You would say that the 23% of the population under 18 (remember that's all ages under 18) will be enough to"decide the fate of the nation"? I find that illogical.
Just because someone doesn't pay income tax does not mean they are not subject to it (and there are plenty of taxes that go beyond income tax) and just because someon isn't serving in the military doesn't mean they are not subject to being drafted. And no, a kid in high school has no life experience. At most he may have worked a part-time job at the bottom of the ladder, he has no true education beyond being set-up for what he will learn in college or during his time in the field and will basically be voting for whoever his parents tell him to vote for. Frankly, in a society where the average teen spends four years at a sheltered university before entering the workforce, I'd actually argue that 18 is too young, but the trouble there is that it would also ban some of those in the workforce or the military who must have a voice in order to be subject to the nation's decrees. Still, it should be noted that the 18-22 demographic is often the least informed and most gullible voting block.
Ahh so if someone is suppose to pay taxes but doesn't for whatever reason, then they should still vote? Reward those who break the rules rather then those whom the rules don't apply to. Still illogical. There is no legal draft in the US, your point is invalid even if there were. What metric are you using to measure experience? A sand pounder in Texas or Alabama who has never gone to school and never been outside their swamp/trailer park, must have less experience by your measure then someone who has some education. I'm seeing a common theme here, but lets continue. If the US had people who were in university for four years and were still teens they would be a lot more intelligent, that is not the case as you show. Theres that theme again, "education isn't worth spit". This is the anti-intellectualism that the rest of the developed world laughs at the US for, a worship of the blue collar sector not seen since communism, and a sneering condescension for anyone with a higher education. Well, least informed I'll agree with but thinking theres a conspiracy doesn't make you not gullible (I'm talking about older conservatives here). In any case the video covered that by suggesting that if they had reason to be involved in politics earlier, they would care more, if they cared more they would be inclined to be more informed.
"I am allowed to face sentencing but not allowed to vote" - I think if a kid performs a crime, their parents should face sentencing. In any case, when do you allow someone to vote, 18, 16, 10, 5? Has to be a cutoff somewhere.
Back in the day, children didn't first become teenagers then adults, they went straight from child to man/woman (around the age of 16). "Teenager" (originally teen-age) was a marketing gimmick to sell more shit. 16-year-olds are old enough to be capable to work the fields, think logically (if not always rationally), bear children, start their first jobs, operate heavily machinery (cars), CAN fight & lead in wars (but do you believe they should have to register for the draft at that age though?), and commit murders with full knowledge of their consequences (ergo suffer the full punishment). However, should they also be held to the same responsibility of signing contracts and maintaining financial independence (ie, NOT getting put on welfare)? Allowed to drink, smoke, take narcotics, film pornography, or buy/own firearms? Expected to own and operate businesses? The human brain does not fully develop until around 24; before that time, people can still act like with maturity, but is it right or healthy to foist just burdens on them so early? Personally, I think 18 should be the limit. If it's lowered to 16, then I think drinking and smoking should still be restricted until at least 18 (read: developing brains), but all other responsibilities should be expected of them if they want to vote at 16. With great power comes great responsibility.
Problem stems from the fact that these children are an exception not the rule! Yet, it seems many want to pretend that they are representative of all and would allow an all encompassing rule that only a hand full could handle with the chance of devastating results! You are equating these children with same rights and impact as those same children when they become adults! By the way, if they are allowed, wouldn't most children be swayed by the same parents that you think are unfit!
At the end of this clip, the President said, "Allowing children to vote is worthy of consideration". What an awesome statement and a noteworthy acknowledgement. The sooner the better I always say.
I personally think the voting age should be raised to 30 and that an IQ test should be mandatory. No one not at least 10 points above average should be allowed to vote.
Lising contestants on the show "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth.Grader" were old enough to vote. And rem Leno's "Jay Walking" segments (like on Jimmy Kimmel) where on the street Americans are asked "what country borders the US?" And have no clue.
@@AegisNova I would push the military age, drinking age and voting age all to 25 because these are some serious decisions to make. Just because the kid in the video (with a movie script) sounds smart; that doesn't mean that in reality kids his age know what is best for the country. Democrats would love kids to vote, because it would be easier for their teachers to indoctrinate them. I used to be a democrat 16 - 23. Now I am 27 and Republican.
I don't really think much changes. They lowered it to 16 for like city council and mayoral elections. The main reason it's 18 in the US is because of the Vietnam War.
Really great actually. Check out this case study of the cites of Takoma Park and Hyattsville, Maryland. vote16usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Final-MD-Case-Study.pdf
This would have been a really good episode, except the premise was that a GROUP of young kids visit the White House and talk with Toby. Not one single kid except for that one "I'm all that" boy got to say a word, for the entire episode. They may as well not have been there. If it is going to show a group of kids with intelligent things to say, they should have had all the kids speak.
We're pushing a crushing debt to our children, doesnt bartlet have lots of policies which increase this crushing debt. Love the show but my god it loves itself aswell
The looks on those kids face when Toby invites them to sit down.
This show is my comfort food right now.
Where can one watch it?
@@shubhamdugar6178 You can get it on Netflix. I just finished my 5th time through all 7 seasons.
Netflix or your local library probably has it.
Did you know that Richard Shift directed this
@@iarocks44 you are a bigger fan than I if you can get through that 5th season. Once Sorkin left in lost interest. Outside of first couple episodes of season 5 wrapping up cliffhanger and indo enjoy season 7.
My sister, friends and I protested the Viet Nam War, we also fought to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18 with the logic that if an elected official can draft an 18 year old citizen to go to war, then they should have the right to vote. We were able to get the voting age dropped to 18 and the first time I voted for a President I was 19. I'm now soon to be 68 and I listen to our youth.
So you protested a war and didn't think to get rid of the draft instead?
Yes, same here. The argument against 18 year olds voting was that, as 21 was the age of majority, that 18 year olds could be coerced by parents to vote a certain way. First, 18 yo's are not easily coerced by parents and, second, voting is private. Anyway, that's when 18 also became the new age of majority.
@@ofcourse7357That's not why. It was because men could be drafted at 18 but not vote until 21.
What makes you think we didn't think of getting rid of the draft? Is there a draft today? Actually our youth today have greater concerns like gun violence in their schools or public environments. Climate change and pollution, well just to name a few. SOD this 70 yr old still does her best to make this Earth the best place for all living entities to exist. Be well and vote!
@@lauriebolles3149Well they should take a statistics class before they think those concerns are well informed.
Love Toby saying “pull up a chair, it’s your meeting.”
I believe Cody earned Toby's respect at that point.
@@JumpingTuna The crazy thing is this scene was filmed over 20 years ago. In the fictional West Wing universe Cody is now in his mid 30s to late 30s, he could be working in the White House now if the show was still on TV.
When I was 13 I, and the rest of my class, were invited to the Houses of Parliament in London by our local MP. He hosted us for the day and we got to sit in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and various other areas that are not usually open to the public. We were shown how the MPs vote and we were given a briefing by some other MPs and then asked to vote on the issue. I'm now 59 and it remains one of the most interesting days of my life. I've never NOT voted since I turned 18.
Politics is too important to ignore or leave to other people.
I'm from Scotland, 22, and feel exactly the same way. My high-school always made sure young people felt involved in politics through regular mock referendums and votes, and regular visits to the Scottish Parliament for debates etc. I've always been very happy that for SMP elections the voting age is 16.
"Decisions are made by people who show up."
I struggle to get through season 5 of this show because it just felt so different with the cast changes and Sorkin leaving. But they still had a few momentary gems like this scattered throughout. What a great show.
Sorkin leaving made for some poor television.
The Supremes would disagree with you.
The look on cody's face when he's told to pull up a chair...
I was 16 when I first saw this and it was one of the biggest 'fuck yeah' moments in a show full of them
I love this scene so much. Guess this is how 'ideal' democracies work.
A good point is brought up that something had to be done to make kids want to vote in future elections when they're older
We fix that in Australia with compulsory voting.
Getting kids and teenagers interested in voting and politics is good, but that's not the problem I have with them in this scene.
The problem is that the children want the voting age to be abolished. They want the constitutional right for children to be able to vote at any age they decide. However, we see later in the scene that the kid isn't onboard with anything else that comes with being a grownup.
They want children to have special treatments because they're children, and that's fine to say, but they also want to be allowed to change the course of the country by voting.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that you want to be a grownup in one way and you want to be a child in another.
Scene quote - "Church's don't wait, they get kids at birth" Very sad fact.
Jim Dandy the crusades >
Jim Dandy cause I had to sign consent release to be baptized at 6 months. You’re a moron!
@Rich Vela: The Crusades were fought by the Church, not churches. Don't confuse the broader Catholic mindset with the much smaller, individual churches of today. It's not the same thing. And if you need to understand that better, just look at the Spanish Inquisition, where under any view the Church was attacking itself.
@Lonelydartplayer M: If you don't believe in any of it, why do you care that you didn't consent to...water? Don't get me wrong. As a Christian, I find the idea of infant baptism theologically unsound, but in terms of implication, being dunked in or sprayed with water, it isn't exactly waterboarding. Besides, it's not for the kids, it's for the parents.
@Jim Dandy: Having said all that, there's a world of difference between sending kids off to war at 18 (where they can also vote, btw), and the discussion of "churches get kids at birth." I do think it's a bit weird to send kids to war but tell them they can't drink for another three years, but much like the original comment that started all this, it's a false equivalency. And I'd say the inability to see that there are both quantitative and qualitative differences between "churches get kids" and "government gets kids" is the root of the problem. It's a line I can only buy because it was said by a child.
@@richvela706 The Crusades were (1) Initially defensive in nature, (2) completely voluntary, and (3) undermined by political authority.
The Crusaders in the first two, the two that were supported by the Church, were both justified and necessary.
@@Goldnfoxx The Crusades were fought by individuals who sought to preserve Christian holdings and the lives of those in the Holy Land from an intolerant and violent aggressor. While the first two were supported by the Church, they were not "fought by the Church," and the last few were completely the creation of the European nobility of the time.
This is the best show of all time. I've binged watched the whole series a few times. Toby Ziegler is my favorite character of any show.
Yes
The smirk by Toby at 2:14 like he’s seeing himself 30 years ago
Really gotta say this kid makes better points than most of the pundits on both sides of the aisle do in this entire series. I think this could work if they issued a citizenship test to minors to acquire their right to vote early similar to how they let them get their driver's permit and the kids that take the initiative would be a great sample study to see if younger voters continue to make educated decisions and participate in democracy throughout their lifetimes.
I like the idea of a citizenship-style test, although your analogy of a driver's permit test is faulty. While comparable in that youths partake in a test in exchange for a massive privilege (or with voting, a right), driver's permits (and later the test itself, at least the written portion) are typically pretty easy to complete. And if you fail, there is a pity system that allows one to try again in 30 minutes. For something like voting at an earlier age, the standard for passing said test should be higher. Not exactly on the level of emancipation (which is where I think we could begin with something like early age voting -- if you're legally emancipated, you should be allowed to vote) and probably not on the level of an SAT but something that reflects the weight of a voter's responsibility.
@@TheMeditorEditor agreed, though I was using the example of the driver's permit test because it can be taken sooner than the license test, not because of its difficulty. I also agree that emancipated minors should be able to vote. Perhaps kids who get their GED or graduate high school early should be given the opportunity to vote as well, because they're preparing to enter the work force or higher education full time?
"minor " is itself a bad term for young people. It carries connotations of insignificance
@@TheMeditorEditor the fact that representation in one's government is a right - in fact, the most fundamental right under our social contract - means the barrier to entry must be lower than for a mere privilege like driving on the public roads. In fact, the barrier to entry must be zero. No democracy has the right to restrict suffrage based on any test of supposed fitness, because fitness is not the basis of that right. If it were, then what's to stop the government from restricting your right to vote based on its own assessment of your "fitness"? Literally anyone capable of forming the intent to vote must be allowed the right to vote, as a matter of principle.
Also, as a practical matter, the right to drive a 2000 lb hunk of steel is a weightier responsibility than the right to vote is, since one person's vote will literally never shift an election - an election close enough to be decided by one vote will instead be decided by the vote counters.
why would you impose a citizenship test on young people that you aren't imposing on the rest of the electorate? either voting's a right or it isn't, in which case it's inappropriate to let the voting rights of adults who have the right to vote be diluted by granting the vote to others as a mere privilege.
consider this: any minor who cannot pass a citizenship test is presumptively unfit in your scheme - until the calendar turns over? why would that arbitrary time increment make them suddenly fit to vote?
Ok when I clicked this I was all ready to be a cynical asshole, but this was genuinely heartwarming.
People in the comments are complaining that Cody is arrogant or obnoxious. Of course he's arrogant, so?
He's literally looking to change the world. Nice well-behaved people rarely make history.
+rockit730 I think the problem is more with his advanced reasoning and underdeveloped voice. He has the right logic and the right sensibilities, but not the right tone when making his point. Perfect for sounding immature, but being highly intelligent. Quite typical in young gifted children.
+mariomguy Nicely put.
+DrownedInExile
Well besides the fact that "Cody" is an actor reading lines... but let's say he is real person, I want him to vote when he becomes a teenager because he's well informed, well read and obviously has a patriotic attitude that would preserve the country. Like all young/youth, they want changes over night and usually high strung Zealots.
Good point and I would argue both sides though his was the passion of youth, politically worthy though hopefully no trumpilism hehe.
As a former teacher, I was always impressed by the simple, yet uncorrupt thought process of our youth. One would be surprised how some huge issues could be solved by implementing simple procedures. Children tend to keep things simple......an example of a simple solution for a challenging issue - you can't spend more than you have. Use this simple rule and the governmental deficit issue could be eliminated tommorrow.
"Power doesn't corrupt - WEAKNESS corrupts". Well said youngster!
Except of course that power indeed _does_ affect people's brains, the very neurology, in quite significant ways - and in quite a few ways that tend to be called "corrupted".
It's nowhere near the only problem of course, another main one is that power attracts the corruptible, i.e. people with a more or less strong motivation to seek that power for their own benefit (or the benefit of people they favour, which is essentially the same).
I actually have no idea what meaning of "weakness" is intended here. A weak "willpower"? Very unlikely, it doesn't fit at all. So what "weakness" is meant?
Cody Zucker is such a great character; a younger more outspoken Toby Ziegler
I would personally supplant "more outspoken" with "less jaded" purely because I think there is an obvious similarity between both characters. Cody is understandably more idealistic than Toby, whom lost every campaign he was ever part of based on his tilting at windmills idealogy, until the big one. And I think that's brilliant. Fantastic scene, and the respect Toby appears to feel is well portrayed.
Even the names are similar.
"allowing children to vote is worthy of consideration"
THAT is the type of leader I want. someone who listens, regardless of age or anything else. wish we could have that in reality
Toby was always logically, even in saving his the Astronauts. He was always receptive to a well laid out argument whomever it came from, this is just the highlight.
This scene says so much more than most people realize, its really about how people just want to be heard and not ignored.
No matter what age we are, We ALL want to be heard.
One of my favorite episodes. Great writing and great acting to bring out an issue most adults would not even raise on their own.
I had forgotten about this superb scene. I was interested in politics when I was 12 and I had to wait until I was 18 to vote.
This show was so damn good
Thanks so much for this clip. I have used this in my 8th grade civics class for years, on a edited VHS tape. My VCR just finally died this year and I was sad b/c I wasn't going to be able to show it. I googled it, and there it was! Thanks so much!
Honestly, I think that it shouldn't be about age, but about being informed. There are people who are under the voting age who would make better decisions than the people who are legal voters.
And the corollary is that there are people who are of legal age but should not be allowed to vote because they are 'uninformed'. That is a very slippery slope and one which leads to tyranny. Cody's points are well made, but the minimum voting age is an arbitrary choice (like the age at which one can legally have sex or get married). It is effectively tied to the age at which we (society as a whole) considers the individual to be an adult. It used to be 21 (at least here in the UK) and was lowered to 18 in the early '70s. It could have been lowered further; to 16, say. But would YOU want a 16 year-old to have voting rights? Or a 12 year-old; a 6 year-old. Hardly. But the line has to be drawn somewhere and 18 is as good as any. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.
I think the large question concerns how to tell if a voter is informed or not. The problem is that in the past African Americans were prevented from voting because the lacked "competency", even though they were the only ones required to take an unfair test that most other white Americans couldn't pass.
That's a pretty stupid argument for letting children vote-- that some adults are too stupid to vote. You could apply the same argument to the family dog.
Moaadovich Alwakil And exactly who would you put in charge of making that determination?
How would you judge "informed" and who would have that enormous authority.
"Worthy of consideration" Code for we won't do anything.
And right he his. Children are annoying.
MrGruffteddybear kid wanted his voice heard, he a chance to say it nationwide
Actually a brilliant episode.
This is my favorite show of all time. These might be my favorite scenes
In any state where a minor can be tried as an adult, hold a job, or be emancipated, they should have the right to vote, including on the federal level.
"In any state.... on the federal level." You do see the contradiction there, I hope.
I love this, and I think it may be the most mainstream attention this issue has gotten so far
It's moronic. It's something only a libtard would support.
It's a stupid idea. 18 is a fair age.
@@savagedragon79 why is allowing more people to vote "stupid"? was it stupid to allow women, or black people, or men without property, to vote? Please define "Fair" for me. My idea of "fair" includes not drawing arbitrary distinctions between things. Young people are affected by government decisions just as much as those over; many people under 18 pay taxes (nor does everyone over 18 pay them); people under 18 can be charged with crimes so they are still expected to obey laws they have no say in; many high school students actually have more knowledge about civics then many registered voters. many states do not bar people who have been declared senile by a court from voting for context. we allow many low IQ; alcoholic; ignorant; hateful; drug addicted; falsely informed; crazy; or just plain thoughtless adults to vote. we no longer bar adults with mental retardation from voting. also, I think old enough to fight old enough to vote does not go far enough; people should have been eligible voters for at least long enough that there is guaranteed to have been an election they could vote in before a draft is ethical. I should add that in particular if you support a minimum voting age in school board elections your preferred form of government is oligarchy or colonialism, not true democracy, as you want the people most effected by the decisions of those bodies to be the only ones unable to vote for them. in the case of school board elections, a reasonable case (albeit one I am on the fence on if I actually agree with it) can be made for a Maximum Voting Age in those elections; that there is a point where you are so old that they do not effect you at all.
Toby. What a legend.
Years later I still always love this clip. My high-school here in Scotland had a major program for making sure young people were invested in voting through mock elections and referendums, and our voting age for the Scottish Parliament is 16, allowing young people to get involved at a younger age.
Cody Zucker. Where are you?….I want you to run for President. What An amazing kid.
One of my favorite scenes and my argument that the writing didn't always suffer after Sorkin left. There weren't any Mandy's, Ainsley's or Sam's for that matter - characters who just dropped off the ace of the earth - once Sorkin was gone.
There was Joe Quincy (Matthew Perry). Not nearly as commonly used as Ainsley, but a good example that Republicans were not intrinsically evil, even if the Administration considered him to be wrong on many matters.
Also, ex-Speaker Glenallen Walken, who was created by Sorkin for his final episode of season 5 and season 6 until the recovery of kidnapped daughter Zoe Bartlett, and later the Presidential trip to the funeral of the oldest member of the club.
I live in the UK and have one more argument to add: Mary Queen of Scots became ruler of Scotland at just 6 days old. The country was governed by regents for her entire childhood, including by her mother. If the answer to the problem of child monarchs is "just let the parents rule the country" then letting parents vote on behalf of their kids from the moment of birth is nothing by comparison!
It's such a great scene!! Also --- consider this: competency exams in the 20th century were absolutely a problem for race and sex because of the concern for restricting voter access for bigoted reasons. But race and sex don't change (without considerable surgery, at least) ... so the concern for abuse was PERMANENT. With age, that is not the case... and I think we all agree that having a competency exam in place for voting rights before age 18 is better than having no route to youth voting at all. I'd absolutely be in favor of an exam that tests a kids' general knowledge of problems facing the country (or state) and critical thinking skills on solutions to those problems. Let any child who can pass the test vote. It accomplishes a lot of things. 1) it is a worthy goal and an immediate reward for hard working intelligent young students; 2) it instills the idea that voting is an INDEPENDENT right that should be taken seriously; 3) it encourages civic engagement EARLY (as the kid was arguing); 4) it encourages voting with an actual understanding of issues and positions (as opposed to the party loyalty vote that many adults display) 5) it instills a sense of responsibility in youth that they take an active role in holding their government accountable 6) it can be accomplished through schools as a part of the high school social studies curriculum to avoid "parental manipulation" (can likewise be administered at the voting booths themselves for the same purpose. )
Your comments is not getting the likes it deserves!!!
"parental manipulation" are you telling me that I cannot politically raise my children as I see fit?
I like the idea of a citizenship-style test, although your analogy of a driver's permit test is faulty. While comparable in that youths partake in a test in exchange for a massive privilege (or with voting, a right), driver's permits (and later the test itself, at least the written portion) are typically pretty easy to complete. And if you fail, there is a pity system that allows one to try again in 30 minutes. For something like voting at an earlier age, the standard for passing said test should be higher. Not exactly on the level of emancipation (which is where I think we could begin with something like early age voting -- if you're legally emancipated, you should be allowed to vote) and probably not on the level of an SAT but something that reflects the weight of a voter's responsibility.
@Christopher Weber they're saying you don't get two votes just cause you had a child and were too controlling to let them come to their own conclusions about the world
correct
This is how democracy should function. Debate.
During the Scottish Independence Referendum, turnout among 16 and 17 year olds was 75%, whilst among 18-24 year olds it was just 54%. Moreover, 74% of 16 and 17 year olds told pollsters they felt sufficiently informed to make their decision, set against 79% of adults generally.
There is little evidence that people in this age bracket are either too immature, ignorant or politically disengaged to not be allowed to vote. I agree with Cody that lowering the voting age might kindle and nurture a voting habit that would serve people for life; at age 18, people's lives are often in flux, they may not be resident in their family home due to University and they are encumbered with many other rights and responsibilities upon reaching that age, so voting may fall by the wayside.
So because some felt sufficiently informed means they actually were informed?
Not necessarily, but teenagers in that bracket are often engaged in some form of civic education so are by no means completely ignorant, unless they choose to be (not unlike many adults).
@@fastman69001 Not necessarily, but wouldn't that concern affect adults as well as children? How would you determine if adults were sufficiently informed, other than simply asking them? Why apply a burden of proof to children you don't take on yourself?
@@benlowe1701 _"Not necessarily, but wouldn't that concern affect adults as well as children? [..] Why apply a burden of proof to children you don't take on yourself?"_
Why don't we allow 12 year olds to get married? Why don't we allow 12 year olds to get married to 30 year olds?
I'm serious here - the answers to those two question hold the core of the answer to the question about voting age.
@@Wolf-ln1ml
You're changing the argument, or else have misread what I said.
The person I was replying to, disputed the claim that 16 year olds were capable of voting because: "[Just] because some felt sufficiently informed means they actually were informed."
The idea being that teenagers will overestimate their intelligence and understanding of certain topics.
I simply commented that that had no bearing on the issue of whether or not 16 Year old should vote, because there are plenty of people *over* the age of 18 who **Also** suffer from the same delusions: falsely believing they are educated on topics that they are exercising their democratic right on.
There is no competency test to vote. You don't *need* to know anything about a topic, in order to have your vote count. People will routinely express political opinions on the economy, on migration, on the court of human rights or on foreign affairs, with no understanding of those topics whatsoever. But for some reason, if they are over 18, we don't consider this a liability.
So the idea that a 16 year old is too ignorant to vote, simply doesn't hold water. Plenty of people are too ignorant to vote.
There are good reasons to say "You have to be 18" to vote. But the idea that being 18 equates to some knowledge or experience or understanding, is not much of an argument. Plenty of british voters are dumber than plenty of 16 year olds.
I don't think that age determines how informed you are: it's how much you value being informed that matters. If you do care, then you do your research, regardless of age. Everyone's mental and social capacities are largely developed by 14-16, so we know it's not a matter of intelligence or maturity. 15 year old me cared and knew more about economics than the millions of Adult Americans who blow 1k every year on a new IPhone. Furthermore, Toby and Cody are right: I have a job, pay taxes, own and drive a car, and have to pay for college. It's only right that I have a say in the policies which affect all those aspects of my life. It's true most teenages probably don't care enough to vote, but that shouldn't disqualify those that do
Let me ask you this then, should a 14 year old girl be allowed to have sex with a 40 year old man?
Should a child be charged the same as an adult for a crime?
Should a student in high school be hauled off to jail for tax evasion, because he was busy in high school?
Teenagers and adults are NOT the same. We as a society recognize that, until 17-21, the average teenager and young child cannot often make conscious, informed decisions, and often lack the maturity and intelligence a adult would. Yes, a lot of adults make stupid choices, a lot of times decisions most teenagers wouldn't. However, scientist and law makers recognize that there is a level of intelligence and maturity that constitute consent, consent being the fundamental aspect of voting. If the child doesn't have the capacity to give consent, or is not fully developed, then that child is st high risk for making bad and often times irreversible decisions. This is why a lot of parents are tasked with taking care and raising a child.
The voting age is not meant just to protect the political world from dumb, Ill-informed, teens and kids, but also to protect those children from making serious decisions they are not prepared to make and have others manipulate them into making that decisions.
@@raspherion Valid points, but it's worth mentioning the age of consent in my state is 16, but the voting age is 18. Not like my vote would have mattered at the federal level anyway, but I wouldn't have able to change that either. (It's also cap that I can get drafted to go kill people in a war before I can have a beer or smoke a joint)
@@raspherion the idea of "protecting" people by taking their rights away is always dubious, but the idea that you are "protecting" kids by keeping them out of the voting booth is so absurd it means you just aren't even trying to reality-test your rationalizations. And suffrage is the most fundamental right there is in our social contract, so rationalizations for the restrictions of privileges or even lesser rights do not hold here.
research is overrated, as it generally only fuels and entrenches confirmation bias.
Goddamn, I love this show.
Second that!
This feels even more relevant now than ever.
25, when the brain fully develops.
Why 25 and not 30 or 20. Its always going to be a number that society has chosen that doesn't fit everyone.
@@prospero4183 Because laws are equal but not always fair. The only way for true fairness is for a god-like entity that understands us each, with perfect knowledge, discipline and compassion, to dispense laws according to every possible circumstance.
That didn't exist, so the next best thing is to draw the line somewhere so that all are treated equally (if not always fairly).
To imitate such an entity would result in neither equality nor fairness, for politicians are not omniscient/omnipotent gods.
All that would be left is inconsistency and malign discrimination.
@@prospero4183 We choose numbers like these because they are the best average (according to our current understands and research).
Why can't girls do porn at 17, but just 1 day later they can at 18? Some girls clearly fully developed by 16, while others are late bloomers until as late as 21.
We have such laws because we choose to have standards that are consistent and equal, if not always fair.
@@balshb4064 psudoscience
Well this was interesting. We can't allow children to vote. Or at any rate, like one character says, voting age could only be lowered incrementally, starting at the local level. But how well have 'adults' been handling things? Writing this comment makes me think of the Parkland students. I sure am proud of those kids.
Or that Swedish girl that protests on Fridays and told world leaders to panic - or else nothing gets done to counter climate change on time. The way some purpoted "adults" disparaged her and questioned her mental faculties and dismissed her because "she's just a kid who has no clue" is apalling!
Smart kids are still kids. There is no way that the voting age should be lowered. As for the Parkland students, where were their walkouts before it happened to them? Nowhere. So all the other shootings didn't matter enough? Also, students walking out of class does absolutely nothing for anyone.
I think if you compare the literacy rates to the portion of voters who vote along party lines their entire lives you'd think twice about age being the end all measure of a citizen's ability to make educated voting decisions.
@@su-rv2uq considering walking out is a conditionally protected way of peacefully protesting in this country and the likelihood of kids being shot in a given public school any day of the year I'd say mass walk outs might be the only way to ensure their bodily safety and actually get some attention to fixing our broken schools.
@@su-rv2uq They are right tho everything that todays governments decide impact our kids doubly or more, and whilst I agree that kids are more susceptible to coersion or indeed force something needs to be done to force governments to take that into account. My personable opinion is that our leaders should be able to be held criminally negligent for poor governance.
3:07 Well nowadays there is Sunrise, youth party groups like HSDA and teen republicans, and other groups... though they aren't really like the AARP in terms of lobbying clout or specificity.
Makes me cry every time.
If a naturalized 16 year old is willing to study for, take, and *pass* the citizenship test that enfranchises immigrants, then take the oath of citizenship along with newly christened citizens, they should be granted the right to vote two years early. In exceptional and rare occasions, perhaps even 14 year olds should be able to take the citizenship test for early voting. But I'm not down with abolishing the voting age entirely. Sub-18-year-olds DO need better representation, though. Perhaps even a Constitutional Amendment.
And why, then, would you not require this same citizen test in order for adults to vote? We have adults who are cognitively impaired to some degree as the *candidates* of both parties this time around, and a LOT of adults (dare I suggest a majority?) who treat the practice like supporting their favorite sports team. Why should youth be required to be intelligent about exercising the franchise when their older counterparts clearly have no such obligation?
@@dipperjc Because voting is a privilege granted with the acknowledgement of adulthood. Filing with Selective Service is a requirement of all 18 year olds. That is an implicit agreement to defend this country, even if very few take it seriously. Requiring adult citizens to take the citizenship test to qualify to vote opens up a rather large Pandora's Box that harkens back to some rather dark practices that were used to *disenfranchise* voters in the past.
@@pbdye1607 ...So?
My point was that you can't have it both ways - either voting is an inherent right of citizenship and excluding minors from voting is just as unfairly discriminatory as denying voting rights based on sex or skin color, or voting is something that requires a certain amount of cognitive ability and expertise and all citizens, regardless of age, should test into it. It's grossly unreasonable to make under18s prove they can be "smart enough" to vote while people in their 70s unabashedly cast their votes based on which candidate they'd rather bang.
I don't really have a horse in the race, either is fine with me, but it needs to be consistent and not age-based.
Side note, though, voting should absolutely NEVER be described as a "privilege". You wanna talk Pandora's Box, that word opens up more than anything else ever could. I have no problem with the right needing to be earned in some objective way, but it is still a RIGHT.
1:54 is where Cody's argument slips up. The charge he makes against Toby's point of immature logic is that the same point was used to disenfranchise women and people of colour. While true, just because a point is unsound in one context doesn't mean it holds unsound in all contexts. The "immature logic" point was unfair to use against women and people of colour because neither women nor people of colour have inferior powers of reasoning. Children, however, DO have inferior powers of reasoning, and neuroscience backs this claim up.
+ticklish Can we be sure that all people above the age 18 have "adequate powers of reasoning"? The follow up to that question; can we be sure that EVERY person under the age of 18 lacks the "adequate powers of reasoning"?
+justin bartelen The immature logic argument does indeed have certain eugenic implications, which, as Cody points out, has been its legacy.
justin bartelen The answer to both is of course we cannot, and as evidenced by this year's primary season, many voters over the age of 18 DO lack adequate powers of reasoning.
But how exactly do you pre-determine someone's reasoning powers to allow them to vote? An IQ test? Furthermore, how do we define "adequate" powers of reasoning? Is an IQ of 90 OK, or is that too low a bar?
Neurological facts are that barring truly exceptional cases, the brains of children are less developed in all aspects when compared with those of adults: logical, social, emotional. Of course there is a grey area once puberty hits when one should be considered an adult as adulthood is not so much a binary state as it is a series of developments. Cultural definitions of adolescence and maturity have set this bar at 18. It could be 15, when most people have hit puberty. It could be 25, when most people have finished the majority of their neurological development. It could be 3, because that girl on Ellen knew the whole periodic table. But then we open the floodgates to all 3 year olds. Where is the line, and why is 18 not as good as any?
+ticklish People with diagnosed executive function disorders can still vote.
Idiomatick Executive dysfunction, logic/reasoning and empathy are all different things. My partner is autistic and has severe problems with executive function but displays normal if not heightened powers of logic and empathy.
This show was so wonderfully optimistic.
Absolutely the best show of all time. Just this short clip and there are so many great little bits you can focus on.
This was a great scene. Not only idealistic, but filled with actually thoughtful arguments. As of 2024, the voting age in Scotland is 16.
If it wasn't for the Vietiem War the voting age would still be 21.
How could a merciful and loving God permit "Godfather Part III", huh?
Did you cut out random frames? Why would you do that?
+Seth Falstein I dont think he made that on purpose, it looks like a rendering problem.
The child suffrage story was a number of segments interspersed with other segments on other story lines. They have no relevance here.
to avoid copyright crackdowns.
I agree. It is common to see as arrogant someone we perceive as weaker or powerless. "How dare they?" we say, not understanding that is is our flaw which allows us to see other as arrogant. The young man pushed only after being ignored and fobbed off. His was not only a reasonable argument, but an important one given how we adults have made their future, a toxic one. Know what I mean? ;-)
Poverty among children is high because they are just starting out. The old folks had their chance and now time is of the essence. There is no tie left for compounding interest to help them.
I smacked my forehead at that one.
"The young are the poorest"
No shit, you're starting out and have a whole lifetime to build equity.
"The old get 10x more money from the government, while the young get nothing"
Because they put in the time and taxes, and the young are healthy while the old are going through expensive deteriorating health.... wait, you want to vote at 14 and gain all the privileges but none of the responsibilities like financial independence? You want to start out with the government giving you money (ie, welfare)?
Oh wait, you said you want age limits completely abolished! So any single mother can tell her 5 year-old spawn whom to vote for (pro more-welfare candidates); go ahead and pilfer the government coffers! That's showing responsibility!
"Arguments of being coerced is a fallacy because slavery"
Yeah, I'm pretty damn sure children are much more susceptible to coercion. See above. And then literally look around you at any university, recruiter, police officer, etc
Oh, and don't forget
"argue that 18 is the worst age to start voting. you're all worried about college or paying rent for the first time or falling in love" Some lovely stereotypes/projections there.
I'm certain most people have gone through finding their first love by 12-14. Many people start paying rent (to their parents) by 16.
The only reason college is an issue is because they're transitioning into full adulthood; figuring out finances and responsibilities, stressing about their futures that they are planning at that time (which is still a BS point considering all the political activists).
And finally, like 14 year olds are better what with their goldfish attention spans, consumed by tiktok and instagram, desperate for likes and upvotes; obsessed with the latest video games and favorite superhero movies. Some of the most vapid, attention-seeking, trend-chasing children.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I stereotype you and generalize your age group? I guess it's okay when you do it to others. Funny how those that demand "equality" now don't treat others equally.
The only issue I had with this upload was the minor skips 🤣 otherwise a moving scene
The skips are because this actually is a number of scenes interspersed in the episode.
The world would be a much better place of we could disagree with each other constructively, and be willing to hear other's opinions.
meh. the dialogue here is merely a show, to make the kids feel better about the reality that their interests will not be actually considered. if there's value in such a farce, it's not much.
They should do a follow show on Cody’s character!
He's not arrogant or obnoxious. He's overwhelmed that he's in the White House faced with a real senior advisor to the President and now's his chance to ask a question yet he has so many questions to ask he's confused on which one makes more sense if asked. Young people should have more active roles in talking and asking their government what is being done and especially regarding their own welfare.
How about restricting the voting age? Everyone above 80 is not allowed to vote
I don't support that generally; but i actually think it would be a good idea in school board elections
Good on, Aaron Sorkin, reasoning, what makes you think adults are fully, equally equipped with reasoning though Lord help us
It is interesting that in 2021 that states are allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. We will probably never see the voting age lowered at the national level and it might just be increased back to 21.
no chance of 21 being the voting age again. If we require you (and me in my day) to register for draft at 18, you should be able to vote. I would be very opposed to that raise in age, think most would as well.
the partisan divide is such that no measure that would require a supermajority will be passed in the forseeable future.
@@scottmatheson3346^ This. If someone proposed a constitutional amendment to affirm that the sky was blue, it would never be ratified. Probably because red states would see it as a tacit endorsement of democrats. :P Same logic, in reverse, if the amendment were to affirm that apples are red.
I trust in my daughter’s generation being able to fix the error of my generation’s ways. We’re not making it easy.
Part of me thinks you should have to pass a test to vote, but I wouldn't know how to administer that test. How design an unbiased test to determine someone's ability to reason on a political level?
+DH1986 --The most immediately available test would be the written test that applicants for citizenship must take, since most of it is about government structure and function.
+DH1986 I thought about that as well. Not only would designing the test to be non-biased be an issue, but having to be able to have the time and means to get an appointment to take the test is another potential discrimination tool. Availability of what language you take the test in is a potential discrimination tool. Being literate is a potential discrimination tool.
Jason Guy You could have the test administered at the local court house on a computer.
You could have the instructor read the test to people who are deaf or unable to use the computer due to some other ailment.
That still discriminates against people of lower income. If someone is living paycheck to paycheck, they probably can't afford to spend the time at a local court house. Not to mention that it would be a massive cluster fuck to have every potential voting citizen come to one place, even if it is spread out over the course of one year.
Jason Guy It's no different than requiring someone to have a drivers license and there would be no need to have individuals take the test every year. I think we have different definitions of the word discriminate.
This scene always makes me think of those other kids looking back and remembering the super boring day they had at the White House silently eating pizza while two of their classmates talked about politics with some guy in a suit that worked for the president
I love this and have thought about this often.
I'm not sure that voting should EVER have been about age. There are plenty of accidentally-misinformed or even willfully-ignorant adult voters, and the lack of a maximum voting age opens the door for the caretakers of elderly citizens with dementia/Alzheimers' to commit small acts of voter fraud. Additionally, the ability to vote for a single party erases the nuances within issues and any real discussion of each politicians' integrity; a pre-vote test about the issues (available in every necessary language so as to avoid discrimination) might be an asset to our democracy.
This is extremely true, and I say this as someone who "benefits" as the caretaker of an elderly parent who can no longer identify kitchen appliances by name. I do my absolute best to be impartial when I take her to town hall to help her vote, but I can't really be sure I'm 100% effective at that, because she often asks me, "Which one are you picking" with a clear eye to copying me. And it's not hard to imagine people with lesser ethics taking advantage.
If we're going to lose our pure democracy, and there's every indication that we might, I'm going to push for a meritocracy when the smoke clears.
The children from the massacre in Florida this week have shown far greater maturity than many of those who have the ability to vote but who cast away their votes or who vote carelessly.
I remember when this episode was aired and thought at the time it was perhaps a little wistful but ultimately naive... after listening to the schoolchildren of Florida, I think I may have been mistaken...
There are always exceptions. Don’t fall astray just because a select few prove to be different.
Tad Tranclere ...and don’t hold back the exceptional due to the general ineptitude of the masses...
@@BuzzLightyear9999 you HAVE to base policy based on the general population, making laws based on exceptions in every group leads to issues all over. If legislative law is based on nothing but special cases then you have a special class created and allowed special privileges by law, only places where that happen are in dictatorships where the "party" members are granted special privileges by law while everyone else is below them. Like it or not, general laws keep the gifted and exceptional grounded in reality and reinforce the fact that they are not anyone special in the grand scheme of things.
@@Baldeagle-tw2nv the point wasn’t about the concept of legislative generality (and wasn’t to be taken literally…) it was to say there is a sad reality when children are speaking greater truths and wisdoms than their elders - particularly around gun laws and restrictions.
If you want to get literal, then I would point to countries where gun violence on the scale (ratio-wise) of the United States has been categorically solved and it has been done legislatively. The solution to the problem unequivocally exists, but [American] adults are willing to sacrifice lives of children [amongst others] in order to cling to a fetish for ‘sticks that go boom…’
Legislators are supposed to be the wiser heads and in America, they quite clearly aren’t. The solution is straightforward, but Americans are unwilling to take the leap - it’s no different to America’s dug-in refusal to accept the metric system - “…we don’t do metric, we’re MURICAN… yee haw…!” except in this case it’s “we don’t do sensible… we darn-well shoot first and give thoughts and prayers after… YEE HAW…! Bang, bang!” ……… normally you’d expect such childish and cartoonish attitudes to come from children and ironically, children are the ones giving the nuanced and rational response to such silliness coming from people who are tasked with looking out for their interests…🤷♂️
@@BuzzLightyear9999 America didn't go with the metric system because we didn't plan on getting involved all over the world, plus we didn't like Europeans. As for the gun issue, we believe in the right to defend ourselves from ALL possible danger. Relying on the government for your protection is a huge mistake because the government is always one step away from becoming tyrannical. Counties that have lower gun violence than the US have the unique ability to do so because of a homogenous population, and I bet those nations have a history of strong central authority. The US was born out of a rebellion against strong central authority, so it's only natural for US citizens to want to be able to keep government in check, and that check is the possibility of an armed populace uprising. As for children speaking "honest truth", it's easy to think the solution is simple when they have no actual world experience. By creating "gun free" zones you're inviting cowards who obtained their weapon illegally in a vast majority of cases to go there, because they know no one is going to stop them. Here's an idea, give legal immunity to someone who kills someone in self-defense, and I mean from criminal and civil suits. If people weren't so hesitant to defend themselves without fear of legal reprisal you'd find that crime would be significantly lower. You protecting yourself and your neighbors is a better crime deterrent than calling the cops. Personal responsibility is a foreign thing in today's age because everyone expects a large, slow moving, lumbering, unless beauracracy to solve their problems for them.
I think at best some sort of system should be put in place that say at 13 years old you could apply to take a test that gives you an opportunity to qualify for voting privileges.
But theres another problem with voting for juveniles is most of them aren't as likely to have a picture ID. But I guess that could be avoided by requiring any kids who qualify to take the test and then pass the test to get a non driver picture ID and/or a drivers license if they're over 16 years old.
Any kid in a public school has a picture ID issued by a government agency. That's what my students use when we take them on field trips.
Opponents will say that children will just vote the way their parents tell them to vote. Well, don't some adults just vote the way Fox News tells them to vote?
I think the voting age should be RAISED!
I agree, to 90. My grandmother knows more than all you punks put together.
adults have the right to vote, but apart from in election campaigns nobody cares about it neither politics nor most voters themselves
God, I miss this show. Especially in the age of the five-time draft dodging coward.
Don't forget all the bankruptcies (moral and financial)
Yes, I've been watching it and weeping from the difference.
I would gladly take the "coward" and more purchasing over the senile and rapid inflation.
@@zoch9797 The stupid is strong in you. As it is with all you trumptards you have no idea how economics and the world economy works so do yourself a favor and stop acting like you know what you're talking about because it makes you look even more fucking stupid then you already do. And believe me, you trumptards take stupidity to a whole new level.
In Australia voting is compulsory for every Australian citizen when we hit 18yrs old. But to the rest of the world, if you don't vote then don't complain about the Government because you didn't vote.
nonsense. You can still complain.
@@I_dont_want_an_at Yeah that is true because it goes all the way back to the convicts days.
@@I_dont_want_an_at Yeah but not at the election we don't, we just get in there and get out no complain.
Forcing people to vote isn't really democratic.
@@WVRSpenceWestVirginiaRebel WE Aussie's doin't complain at all. And If you don't vote, then don't complain.
I’m British but I think that only teenagers aged 16-17 should be allowed to vote and only in a referendum. General elections are frequent and can be called at any time if the current prime minster so chooses. But, a referendum on a certain issue could only happen once in a life time and said referendum will effect the lives of the future generations to come.
The USofA is not a parliamentary democracy with snap elections like the UK is. Over 99% of our elections are done according to a regular calender schedule mandated by our federal and state constitutions.
My proposal:
Automatic right to vote still begins at 18, but a test is administered to 16 year olds designed to check that they're competent to vote. If they pass they can vote from 16 onwards but if they don't they have to wait until they are 18 just like before. The test could possibly be administered earlier, sixteen just seems like the most sensible age as it is when you can get a drivers licence/consent to sex etc.
What do people think?
IAMTheNerdHerd against the law...
IAMTheNerdHerd That would be illegal. There used to be literacy tests during the Jim Crow era to keep black people in the south from voting. There is already a precedent for that sort of thing.
IAMTheNerdHerd In any proposal about this issues, you should replace age with blacks and see if the proposal makes sense. If it doesn't that it's probably not a good idea.
rjh00 bwahahahaha
Why on earth? I am aware of the Jim Crow Laws, but the problem with the tests in that era was that they were completely impossible and applied only to black people. What I propose would apply equally to all and wouldn't prevent voting at 18 if you failed at 16!
not everything has to be about race you know...
Hello 9h pupils. Well done for doing Homework.
Anyone else watching this for social studies?
There used to be a place... called the center. Lib.Republicans and conservative democrats both know their party's have lost their minds... I'm ashamed of both. Its sad.
Reminds me of the scene with Sam and Ainsley "we play with live ammo".
I feel like most kids would just vote the way their parents want them to. Or they would simply vote based on one issue where the parties are highly polarized like abortion. I've voted in still just a small handful of elections since I turned 18 and every time another election rolls around, I feel like I've learned a little about how our government works, how our country works, how business works. Did I always make the best choices when I was in front of electronic voting machine (and my first election, at the levers that I pulled--yes, I go back that far, just barely)? That's a matter of opinion. But I always do as much research as I can, I try to stay as open minded as I can and listen to both sides and make the best choice I can with the information I have available.
+minstrel1184 That is actually a good point it is as this kid said in the video about religion. Parents just create little copies of themselves just as informed or misinformed. There are a few people that will move from their parents shadows at some point in their life but it takes awhile.
The argument against children, I will say between 16 to 18 voting is that they are still at an age where they are influenced by parents and teachers, it is a form of coercion and they don't think independently. My question is aren't adults influenced by the surroundings too, friends, partners, colleagues, media we just pretend like it is our own thinking but no one lives in a bubble. Independent thinking doesn't necessarily mean thinking is right, and what if influence is positive why should it be discounted just because your teacher told you so other than when you are an adult you saw it on Fox news. I guess for better or for worst we see Voting and Sex as the same thing, but coerced into Voting for the wrong person isn't going to psychologically damage you as much as coerced into having sex, maybe it does who knows.
That's how a lot of adults vote as well though.
Isn't "tradition" one of the reasons you have blue and red states?
That argument would have been more convincing if the current president wasn't Donald Trump. A lot of people only voted for him because of his stance on immigration.
Adults are as immature as teenagers. We just don't like to admit it.
lots of adults are single issue voters too. and as the kid said, we don't check adult voters to see if they are informed enough to vote, nor should we. besides, a lot of kids don't bother informing themselves about the government because they can't vote anyway. if they were able to vote, they would be more likely to read up on the issues. and also, regarding the coercion, unless we're talking about a local election in a small town, there's no reason that a kid can't vote one way, and say they voted the other way if that is what their parents wanted them to do. you could say that a kid lying to their parents is not good behavior, but I consider lying in that instance justified because the parent has no business inquiring how their kid voted, especially if they are doing so in an attempt to coerce that kid into voting a certain way.
That's pretty much the same argument they used against women voting back in the day, "They'll just vote the same as their husbands..."
I wasn’t voting until I was voting… I was politically aware about two or three years before I was of age to vote.
Sure, it might have been slanted slightly to my parents or grandparents viewpoints, however it would have likely matured faster too. That vested interest…
By age 25/28 I had essentially flipped from one party to another, only to flip back yet again.
Children with a right to vote. At least on the lesser levels of government is a great idea. Even if you need to write a small test to ensure your “aware” enough to tell what’s going on…
Ideally, you should be able to flip between parties without worrying about it bringing the end of the world. They're not sports teams; they're meant to be earning your vote each election cycle.
The problem with the US two-party system is it has resulted in two behemoths thats' extremes overshadow their comonalities, to the point where no common ground exists. You could argue which side's extremes are better or worse than the other (though only one side has tried to overthrow democracy,) but there are many left in the middle who want nothing to do with the fringes, and are being forced to one way or the other.
@@nicholassmith7984 luckily I’m Canadian… we have more than the two big parties. That said, it comes with its own challenges…
@@thomask70 Yes, we have a similar system.
@@nicholassmith7984 I know a few countries have more than the big two. Hell, Israel alone I think has had a number of coalition governments because it’s hard to get over that barrier for power.
I can just imagine how much smack would go down if America had the same and Trump had managed a coalition government that put him in the 60%win column… even tho he only had say 35% of the electoral count…
@@thomask70 I actually think it'd be an idea for the US to get rid of parties altogether. Their politicians are already voted for on an individual basis, so let them all run as Independents.
I tried using a West Wing clip in a video and youtube blocked it because of WBTV copyright (even though I cited them as the owners)...how did this stay up?
It has cuts
Yea let's let kids vote...People need to realize this is a great show based in a FANTASY WORLD!
Honestly, I think the fact that his proposal is ridiculously stupid should not detract from what he's trying to do. I don't find him arrogant or obnoxious at all - I like the kid, and it's nice to see someone trying to change the world.
Again, the proposal is ridiculous (honestly, even 18 is a bit young to vote), but we often see kids with ridiculous causes and encourage them, because at least they're being active and fighting for the change they want to see.
+SLagonia Ridiculous how? Which part do you find illogical?
Having people who bear none of the tax burden, cannot serve in the military and lack any life experience decide the fate of the nation? You don't find that illogical?
You are claiming that everyone who is 18 or older has "adequate" life experience (by whatever standard your using)? I find that illogical. You only have to be 17 to join the military, but then I would argue that if you are saying "you must be able to serve in the military to vote" and to serve in the military you have to be 17 because of physical requirements, then you are actually saying you can only vote when you meet certain physical requirements, and I would say that is illogical. About 45% of the US population doesn't pay income tax, should half of the population lose their right to vote? I would say that is illogical. You would say that the 23% of the population under 18 (remember that's all ages under 18) will be enough to"decide the fate of the nation"? I find that illogical.
Just because someone doesn't pay income tax does not mean they are not subject to it (and there are plenty of taxes that go beyond income tax) and just because someon isn't serving in the military doesn't mean they are not subject to being drafted.
And no, a kid in high school has no life experience. At most he may have worked a part-time job at the bottom of the ladder, he has no true education beyond being set-up for what he will learn in college or during his time in the field and will basically be voting for whoever his parents tell him to vote for.
Frankly, in a society where the average teen spends four years at a sheltered university before entering the workforce, I'd actually argue that 18 is too young, but the trouble there is that it would also ban some of those in the workforce or the military who must have a voice in order to be subject to the nation's decrees.
Still, it should be noted that the 18-22 demographic is often the least informed and most gullible voting block.
Ahh so if someone is suppose to pay taxes but doesn't for whatever reason, then they should still vote? Reward those who break the rules rather then those whom the rules don't apply to. Still illogical.
There is no legal draft in the US, your point is invalid even if there were.
What metric are you using to measure experience? A sand pounder in Texas or Alabama who has never gone to school and never been outside their swamp/trailer park, must have less experience by your measure then someone who has some education. I'm seeing a common theme here, but lets continue.
If the US had people who were in university for four years and were still teens they would be a lot more intelligent, that is not the case as you show. Theres that theme again, "education isn't worth spit". This is the anti-intellectualism that the rest of the developed world laughs at the US for, a worship of the blue collar sector not seen since communism, and a sneering condescension for anyone with a higher education.
Well, least informed I'll agree with but thinking theres a conspiracy doesn't make you not gullible (I'm talking about older conservatives here). In any case the video covered that by suggesting that if they had reason to be involved in politics earlier, they would care more, if they cared more they would be inclined to be more informed.
i wanted to be that kid so bad when i was his age
"I am allowed to face sentencing but not allowed to vote" - I think if a kid performs a crime, their parents should face sentencing. In any case, when do you allow someone to vote, 18, 16, 10, 5? Has to be a cutoff somewhere.
why does there have to be a cutoff? let anyone who's capable of voting vote.
im convinced children should be allowed to vote after watching this. certainly 16 and 17 year olds
Back in the day, children didn't first become teenagers then adults, they went straight from child to man/woman (around the age of 16). "Teenager" (originally teen-age) was a marketing gimmick to sell more shit.
16-year-olds are old enough to be capable to work the fields,
think logically (if not always rationally),
bear children,
start their first jobs,
operate heavily machinery (cars),
CAN fight & lead in wars (but do you believe they should have to register for the draft at that age though?),
and commit murders with full knowledge of their consequences (ergo suffer the full punishment).
However, should they also be held to the same responsibility of signing contracts and maintaining financial independence (ie, NOT getting put on welfare)?
Allowed to drink, smoke, take narcotics, film pornography, or buy/own firearms?
Expected to own and operate businesses?
The human brain does not fully develop until around 24; before that time, people can still act like with maturity, but is it right or healthy to foist just burdens on them so early?
Personally, I think 18 should be the limit.
If it's lowered to 16, then I think drinking and smoking should still be restricted until at least 18 (read: developing brains), but all other responsibilities should be expected of them if they want to vote at 16.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Problem stems from the fact that these children are an exception not the rule! Yet, it seems many want to pretend that they are representative of all and would allow an all encompassing rule that only a hand full could handle with the chance of devastating results! You are equating these children with same rights and impact as those same children when they become adults! By the way, if they are allowed, wouldn't most children be swayed by the same parents that you think are unfit!
When the writing is so good and it's executed so well by the actors,I cannot help but be moved to the point of choking up.
Glad I'm not the only one.
I love Toby!
At the end of this clip, the President said, "Allowing children to vote is worthy of consideration". What an awesome statement and a noteworthy acknowledgement. The sooner the better I always say.
How old are you? 12?
I personally think the voting age should be raised to 30 and that an IQ test should be mandatory. No one not at least 10 points above average should be allowed to vote.
you moron.
yes, allowing governments to choose their constituencies, in this case by writing "IQ tests" always goes well.
Treating a group like this with respect is good politics - they grow up and vote, after all.
Lising contestants on the show "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth.Grader" were old enough to vote. And rem Leno's "Jay Walking" segments (like on Jimmy Kimmel) where on the street Americans are asked "what country borders the US?" And have no clue.
25, when the brain fully develops.
Fully develops what?
@@AegisNova the brain fully develops by the age 25
@@balshb4064 Then we oughtn't drive or perform a whole host of tasks until 25?
@@AegisNova I would push the military age, drinking age and voting age all to 25 because these are some serious decisions to make.
Just because the kid in the video (with a movie script) sounds smart; that doesn't mean that in reality kids his age know what is best for the country.
Democrats would love kids to vote, because it would be easier for their teachers to indoctrinate them.
I used to be a democrat 16 - 23. Now I am 27 and Republican.
@@balshb4064 Thank You
Certain localities have tried lowering the age to 16. How has that turned out?
+pedonbio im from malaysia... where the voting age is 21. i would really like to know what lowering the voting age to 16 has turned out. thanks =)
I don't really think much changes. They lowered it to 16 for like city council and mayoral elections. The main reason it's 18 in the US is because of the Vietnam War.
Really great actually. Check out this case study of the cites of Takoma Park and Hyattsville, Maryland.
vote16usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Final-MD-Case-Study.pdf
I started watching the west wing when I was 16. I thought this was a terrible idea then. I’m now 21 and I’m even more convinced it is awful.
This would have been a really good episode, except the premise was that a GROUP of young kids visit the White House and talk with Toby. Not one single kid except for that one "I'm all that" boy got to say a word, for the entire episode. They may as well not have been there. If it is going to show a group of kids with intelligent things to say, they should have had all the kids speak.
We're pushing a crushing debt to our children, doesnt bartlet have lots of policies which increase this crushing debt. Love the show but my god it loves itself aswell
Omg how did it take me so much time to realise dr Aaron Glassman and Toby Zeigler are one and the same!!!!!!
Why didn’t these kids show up on big block of cheese day