The Water Cooler – Should 17-Year-Old Kids Be Able To Vote?

February 15, 2019 12:00 pm · 48 comments

The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.

The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday at noon.

Today’s question:

QUESTION: California lawmakers are attempting to change the voting age in California from 18 to 17. Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea?

Talk about it….

S February 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM

no

Miss the Liner Notes February 15, 2019 at 12:09 PM

Desperate times call for desperate measures!

Namen February 15, 2019 at 12:10 PM

Why 17? Just make it 10 or 12, it’s a one party state anyway. Is the Democrat Party running out of illegal voters??

Nutcreek Frontier February 15, 2019 at 2:24 PM

Could not agree more Namen, an obvious ploy by the Democratic party in its quest to destroy our two-party system. It make me shudder when people state, “we should be led by the children” and tells me a lot about their critical thinking skills. I love teens, got some of my own, but until they have held a job, and taken an Econ 1 class, no voting for them.

What February 15, 2019 at 3:14 PM

Agreed!

Anon February 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM

NOPE. Most of them live at home until 29.

I understand the reasoning though, they are easy to sway and manipulate by whatever is promoted as being “hip” at the moment.

Lime Ridge Larry February 15, 2019 at 12:13 PM

It depends….

If for a Republican agenda then yes. If for AOC New Green Deal then no.

XJ February 15, 2019 at 4:33 PM

Most teens are in favor of idiocy such as the Green Deal. Why not right? I mean, after all, it’s appealing for the ‘guaranteed income’ crowd, the living wage crowd, the stay in your moms basement crowd.

Steve February 15, 2019 at 12:16 PM

NO. Dont need more uneducated votes when they barely pay taxes or contribute to society.

Sick of it February 15, 2019 at 12:17 PM

A big No. they are still in school and from I have seen are highly influenced by there liberal teachers They have no life experiance or political exposure to make a good decision at this point in there life. I see this from observation and my own life experiance from that age. And at that age we were a lot more in tune than this current generation

Roz February 15, 2019 at 1:17 PM

Totally Agree!!

stringer February 15, 2019 at 12:17 PM

Bad. Should be RAISED not lowered.

Jerry Mueller February 15, 2019 at 12:19 PM

California… The place where we tell children they aren’t old enough to make the decision to smoke cigarettes until they’re 21 but hey let’s go ahead and get them vote on important issues! Ghee I wonder if this has anything to do with keeping California liberal by letting the young newly manipulated minds (by the liberal teachers) vote and the liberals get all the votes they could ever need.

Max February 15, 2019 at 12:38 PM

No! Aren’t all the non citizens on the voting rolls enough for Liberal Ca, they want children too? Yes, they are still children, and should be in school.

XJ February 15, 2019 at 4:36 PM

Pretty soon they’ll be going after the votes of the just born. The baby will be kept comfortable, will vote their conscience and then the parents will decide whether or not the baby deserves to live or die.

Cornfed February 15, 2019 at 12:19 PM

Lower the voting age to conception, then vote on abortion.

RANDOM TASK February 15, 2019 at 12:25 PM

lol 30 year old’s cant even vote right …

70 billion dollar high speed train yeah right

legalize theft ….yeah

bringing brown back as gov ….ummm yeah

newscum now ….hes worse than brown because he only panders to you if your designated by a letter ….

de slacker again wow yeah

keep taxes on like measure Q that goes no where …yeah

and they will vote to separate the state ….yeah

a 17 year old just want someone to buy them beer and show them where the party is …and that’s about it

WC Resident February 15, 2019 at 12:29 PM

Only if the drinking age is increased to 100.

Dawg February 15, 2019 at 12:40 PM

Silly question, of course not. Besides being unconstitutional, they’re too impressionable at that age and believe too much of what is not fact of truth.
At the rate California is going, I won’t be surprised to see children running for office and being elected.

rolling wheels February 15, 2019 at 12:43 PM

No keep it at 18 or raise it back to 21. Why 17 why not 13, after all teens know it all anyway, if parents will not do what they want maybe the govt will

Bedazzled February 15, 2019 at 12:53 PM

Which California lawmakers are trying to do this?
since all the kids in high schools in California are being brainwashed into Democrat socialist it’s no wonder they want to try and do this.

Ricardoh February 15, 2019 at 12:54 PM

Obviously no however they probably wouldn’t make any dumber decisions a good percentage of voters make.

DrinksLiberalTears February 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM

WTF…! Lawmakers just stripped legal adults of their right to buy a handgun before 21. Now they want juveniles to vote? Might as well just lower the age to consent to sex while we are at it. Sacramento has lost their minds.

Giddyup February 15, 2019 at 1:04 PM

No. They should raise it to 50. With age comes wisdom which appears to be sorely lacking in the elected representatives of the day.

Jim R February 15, 2019 at 1:20 PM

17 year olds were all born after 9.11.
17 year olds were all born after Columbine.
17 year olds will be forced to live with the consequences of climate change longer than any other voter.

It will probably only apply to state and local elections. States are supposed to be the laboratories of democracy, let them vote.

By the way, young voters in CA showed up at about 27% in 2018 compared to about 8% in 2016. The times they are a changin’ (again)

Cyn February 15, 2019 at 5:25 PM

10 year olds and 2 year olds were also born, doesn’t mean they should vote.

KenInConcord February 15, 2019 at 1:47 PM

Only after Parents
1.) allow their children unrestricted access to the family’s checking and savings accounts

2.) relinquish all control of the household budget to their children

jon s February 15, 2019 at 2:09 PM

Should be 30 or older,libs seem to be mostly children or child like

G. February 15, 2019 at 2:11 PM

No, they need to take it the other direction. 25+

Just thinkin' February 15, 2019 at 2:11 PM

They are still minors at 17. Seems like there must be some kind of legal issue with a minor participating in an official government activity like that without consent from a parent.

Also, an average 18 year old really doesn’t have a good idea about how “life” works – a 17 year old would be even worse. They just don’t have the exposure to the responsibilities that you are affected by when you pass from being a student to having to start managing finances and making sure you have all of your necessities taken care of. Some don’t even learn that until after college or later. I don’t think a 17 year old would be very qualified to make decisions that will affect their entire city/county/state/country.

RANDOM TASK February 15, 2019 at 2:13 PM

Here’s a number since that is what we go by now

Since the needles came in unemployment is down to 3 percent
Including all the letter designations and anti fa

They are all gainfully employed and free to tear apart and riot
As well as defamation of potus and our country

More numbers well during oscama
He helped a number of the countries that hate us and defaced the United States to allies
Opened up assets to Iran…a country who despised the US
WATCHED CLINTON GIVE PLUTONIUM TO RUSSIA
YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT A GOV shutdown
The dems did that for 2 years stomping and pointing and throwing tantrums

You want a 17 year old to vote who by the way we’re the age range of rioters during the 2 year tantrum of dems

Times are a changing
Your freedoms are being taken away
Your state is being taken away
Your country is being taken away
And your voting for it to happen
Stand up and raise your hand if you voted for the high speed train scam
Come on I mean all dems did of course right
Feel proud you got taken
Now we all paid for 4 years of engineers salary and cal trans retirement for absolutely nothing but a waste of time
I have a bridge from SF TO LA TO SELL YOU
LOL

Kirkwood February 15, 2019 at 2:50 PM

Wait ’til Saturday Night Live hears about this. 🙂

Rob February 15, 2019 at 2:51 PM

I guess if they are old enough to have the government make them pay taxes when they work…..

They are old enough to vote…

Didn’t we have a whole thing about Taxation and Representation….

RSD February 15, 2019 at 2:55 PM

Most dems have the logic of 17 year olds. It appears they only want to add to their existing pool of naive voters. That’s all we need is more of these strategic geniuses destroying America.

Rollo Tomasi February 15, 2019 at 3:28 PM

No. Often voting is about having to make the hard or unpopular choice, and the teenagers I’ve known, including my own, are NOT about that.

WC February 15, 2019 at 3:37 PM

17 year olds. Smart enough to vote. Too immature to own guns. Another Democrat created oxymoron.

Say what? February 15, 2019 at 4:06 PM

I cannot believe how out of touch with reality the politicians for this country are. First of all, still learning about how the politics works in high school. Second why dont they just encourage us to sign up to vote under our alias’ since we have to show no documentation to vote anyway. And last but not least, why is it so important for them to get the vote? So they can line their pockets some more. When is enough enough. I say we all revolt. Surprise them all and every employer stop sending them money and all of us tax payers stop paying our taxes. Let’s see what happens then lol

Nunya February 15, 2019 at 4:44 PM

it is the only way to guarantee the democrats stay in power

Cyn February 15, 2019 at 5:27 PM

Terrible idea. The freaking liberal lawmakers are continuing to ruin this state.

ClayDen February 15, 2019 at 9:33 PM

Absolutely not. I think they should raise the voting age back to 21 unless you are in the military, and then make if 18 for them.

I also think they should make it a requirement that you cannot vote in a federal election unless you pay federal income taxes at some minimum level, maybe 2%? If you don’t “have skin in the game” you shouldn’t be able to to vote people into office that will “play Robin Hood” with your money.

No representation without taxation!

jjshawk February 15, 2019 at 11:04 PM

I think the legal voting age should be raised to (at least) 21. You need a few years of adult experience (paying bills, taxes, and taste of the pain they cause) before making adult decisions such as, who to vote into office.

Cautiously Informed February 16, 2019 at 8:06 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised if the democrats purpose that dogs and cats be allowed to vote, so that they can get more votes.

Itsme February 16, 2019 at 9:21 AM

Well we know how the Mayor feels because of the way he frames the question, calling them “kids”. I would not like to know how he’d pose a similar question about emancipation if this were a newspaper in 1863.

These “kids” are legally allowed to work and pay State and Federal taxes on their earnings. Isn’t that taxation without representation?

If they commit serious crimes they’re tried as adults. Maybe we should eliminate the “gray” area.

They have regular “lockdown drills”. Most other people, unless you’re a “liberal loser teacher” don’t have those. Most people commenting here are afraid of what they’d do to the gun debate in this country.

As far as the current electorate’s ability to make adult decisions, the results speak for themselves.

Rollo Tomasi February 16, 2019 at 3:23 PM

Nobody is holding you at gunpoint forcing you to read comments, much less comment yourself. If you don’t like the way Claycord frames questions, start your own blog.

Rollo Tomasi February 16, 2019 at 3:28 PM

Upon reflection, it won’t be long until the leftists extend abortion rights to the 54th trimester, so maybe we should let them vote while they have the chance.

Dr. Jellyfinger February 16, 2019 at 9:28 AM

17 ? …..No way!
Raise the age back to 21….. in fact, there should be a cognitive reasoning test required to determine an acceptable level of basic intelligence before a person is allowed to even apply for voter registration, which should be approved only after conducting a background check to determine if the applicant is indeed a legal citizen of the USA and is ONLY a US citizen (none of this dual citizenship BS) and is not wanted for any crime.

Maybe all these lackadaisical pot smokers will get weeded out of the voting process and intelligent citizens can vote in some sober leadership for California.

ClayDen February 16, 2019 at 4:40 PM

Agree!

A cognitive reasoning test would eliminate most liberals from being able to vote. Mission accomplished.

THE BLACK KNIGHT February 16, 2019 at 7:51 PM

Ballots should also not list candidate occupation or candidate party affiliation. Listing candidate occupation only gives incumbents an advantage in elections and the removal of candidate party affiliation would require voters to know something about who they’re voting for.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: