The Good, The Bad, And The Funny: Voting At 16 Years Old
The United Kingdom announced this week that it would lower the voting age to 16 in time for the next general election. We Americans and others seem somewhere between puzzled and put off by the idea, as this issue generates a wide range of reactions.
Voting at 16: A trend already under way
Not the first country to do this, the U.K. follows Scotland, Wales and the Channel Islands, where younger voters already cast ballots. Around the globe, Austria became the first European country in 2008 to lower its national voting age to 16, with Malta following suit a decade later. In South and Central America, Brazil, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Argentina have reset voting from age 16 for years.
When I cover a story, I decide, among other things, the approach – and go from there. This is a rare one, as it jumped at me from three positions: what's good, what's bad (maybe 'worrisome' is a better word), and what's funny (read: skeptical, cynical, sarcastic).
An opportunity to lift all ships
Although it is well known that many voters are not the most diligent about being responsible, and well-informed – and that this is not likely to change among teens – if we are interested in securing the future of democracy, this is the time to reconstruct our commitment to teaching civics and critical thinking from the early grades. Grade school education is where we can embed the idea that a rising tide lifts all shifts.
'Trouble ahead, trouble behind. Don't you know that notion just crossed my mind.'
Teenagers, despite our best efforts to educate them in open-minded ways, are gullible and therefore vulnerable. There is no limit to how much so, and recent history confirms that. Imagine the naïve mind of a 16-yer old being manipulated by the devious, nefarious, and exceptionally skillful political strategists who are backed by countless billions of bucks. No contest. And think back only to the Cambridge Analytica scandal of the 2016 campaign. Today, the average time spent on social media screens is 4.5 hours per day. Anyone see a problem ahead?
Sometimes, ya' just gotta laugh
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Redskins and Indians and Obama (Oh, my): How Trump is deflecting from his Epstein Files bungle using MAGA greatest hits
Donald Trump's efforts to shift his base's focus away from the so-called Epstein Files fallout continued over the weekend as the president dove headfirst back into the culture war and leaned into his own favorite topic: the supposed Deep State's efforts to persecute him. Ahead of a trip to Scotland this week, Trump is desperate to move the news cycle off of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and a declaration by the Justice Department that a list of the convicted pedophile's co-conspirators did not exist within the files of the DOJ's investigation — despite his dutiful Attorney General Pam Bondi having said she had such files 'sitting on my desk.' What happened next was a wildfire that engulfed the president's online MAGA base and even spread into the broader podcasting 'manosphere.' As explanations from his supporters ranged from confusion to outright accusations of a cover-up, the president fumed privately and in a since-deleted Truth Social post that his 'PAST' supporters refused to move on from the issue. Epstein was known to cultivate relationships with powerful men and institutions, and speculation has swirled online for years around whether any of those men (including Trump, former President Bill Clinton and Britain's Prince Andrew) knew of his crimes or participated themselves during excursions to his private island or other properties. Donald Trump reignited battles with Barack Obama, Rosie O'Donnell and the Washington Commanders to distract from his Epstein files flop (AFP via Getty Images) No public evidence exists definitively linking anyone besides Epstein and his society-girl lover Ghislaine Maxwell to the crimes, though evidence of his close friendships with Trump and others is extensive. Epstein's death was ruled a suicide after he was found in a New York City jail cell on Aug. 10, 2019, sparking further cries in MAGA circles of a mass conspiracy. On Thursday, the picture of that relationship between the president and a man who would later be found hanged in his jail cell awaiting trial for sex trafficking of minors and women changed considerably. The Wall Street Journal, a Rupert Murdoch-owned publication, published an article revealing the stomach-churning contents of a supposed 50th birthday card Maxwell curated for her boyfriend in 2003. The card included messages from friends of Epstein including, according to the WSJ, Donald Trump. The paper reports that Maxwell 'collected' a letter from Trump for the card, which alluded to a hidden 'secret' shared by the two men, concluding with Trump allegedly wishing Epstein a happy birthday — all done on top of a marker-drawn bawdy image of a naked woman. The White House and the president directly denied all parts of the Journal's report, including the authenticity of the note. But the president also redoubled his efforts at misdirection, and launched a slew of new efforts to that aim. Trial evidence image shows British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and financier Jeffrey Epstein aboard his private jet. Epstein was found to have died by suicide in a New York prison in 2019 -- during Trump's first term -- after being charged with child sex trafficking. Maxwell was later convicted of those crimes and is serving 20 years in prison. (US District Court for the Southern District of New York) First came the lawsuit against Murdoch and the Journal — as well as other independent reporters who circulated the story. This was unquestionably where the president saw the most success in the immediate term: turning the issue into a Trump vs. the media fight provides a unifying bogeyman for the right. Supporters including Steve Bannon dialed back their calls for Trump to provide transparency as the reaction to the Journal's reporting clarified that Democrats and Trump's critics see the issue as a political opportunity. Second was the resumption of Trump's war with Barack Obama, who more than any other Democrat has long held the president's political focus. His entrance into national politics during the Obama era began with a racist campaign aimed at questioning the birthplace of the nation's first Black president, and after his first election victory in 2016 Trump accused his predecessor of directing the FBI to spy on his campaign. Trump reignited those accusations this week, with the aid of Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence. Gabbard published a memo accusing the Obama administration of changing intelligence assessments to support political conclusions, but the crux of her own declaration was centered around a false conflation of the intelligence community's (IC) conclusion that Russia had not attempted to hack directly into voting systems with what the IC actually did conclude: that Russia used bot farms and other means including materials stolen during the verified hack of the Democratic National Committee's servers to influence public opinion. Not satisfied with picking one old fight, Trump picked two others. On Sunday, the president declared on Truth Social that he may attempt to gum up the approval process for the Washington Commanders stadium in the nation's capital if the team did not return to its old name, abandoned for its racist connotations about Native Americans in 2020. He likely does not have any power to actually carry out that threat, given that federal funding isn't involved in the stadium deal. The same could be said about his resumption of hostilities with another nemesis: comedian Rosie O'Donnell. Trump threatened in a separate Truth Social post to strip her citizenship, something the president legally cannot do. All of this is to say: Trump is throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks in a very obvious manner. On Monday, there were signs that many on the right were still unconvinced by the bluster. Donald Trump is seen at a party with Jeffrey Epstein in 1992. (NBC News) 'So…the Democrats left all the files implicating themselves in Russia Gate but destroyed all the Epstein Files?' one conservative influencer, Kelly McCarty, snidely asked on X. A number of Democrats have rallied behind a resolution with bipartisan support aimed at forcing the release of the DOJ's entire investigation into Epstein. Those members were undeterred on Friday when Attorney General Pam Bondi moved to ask a court to unseal grand jury testimony regarding Maxwell and Epstein, which they note is just a small part of the evidence collected by federal law enforcement. It also remains the case that much of the uproar was fueled by the Trump White House itself. MAGA supporters and others in the chorus of voices calling for evidence including the 'client list' to be released point to how right-wing influencers were summoned to the White House to receive 'phase 1' of 'The Epstein Files' in February. Vice President JD Vance, before that, fueled the speculation in repeated appearances on Theo Von's podcast, including during the 2024 election. Months later, no one else has faced accountability for associations with Epstein and the extent of his crimes remains unknown to the public.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Miami's decision to postpone 2025 election without voter approval unconstitutional, judge says
A Miami-Dade circuit judge has ruled that Miami's decision to postpone its 2025 election to 2026 without voter approval was unconstitutional. Earlier this year, former Miami City Manager Emilio Gonzalez filed a lawsuit against the City of Miami, claiming officials are unlawfully blocking his bid to run for mayor by postponing the scheduled November 2025 election and giving current elected officials an extra in office. González had asked the court to find the city's ordinance "unlawful and invalid." On Monday, Judge Valerie Manno Schurr issued a written opinion on his lawsuit. She noted in her opinion that the general law statutes do not grant the city the authority to enact the ordinance. Miami-Dade County Commissioner, and Miami mayoral candidate, Eileen Higgins praised the judge's decision to restore the November 2025 municipal election. "Today's court decision is a clear victory for democracy and for every Miami resident who believes elections should be decided by the people — not politicians. I've said from the start: moving elections must be done the right way, through a transparent process and with voter approval," she said in a statement.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump's trade war hits a new low with big tariffs on Brazil
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in late May that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority with the 'reciprocal tariffs' he imposed on dozens of countries in April. The court's temporary injunction was lifted, however, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will hear oral arguments in the case on July 31. That has allowed the president to continue imposing tariffs on any country for seemingly any reason. One of Trump's latest — and most troubling — tariff targets is Brazil. Trump has announced his intention to impose 50 percent tariffs on the world's fourth-largest democracy beginning Aug. 1. That could drive up the cost of coffee and orange juice for U.S. consumers: Brazil is America's largest foreign supplier of both breakfast staples. And he's tariffing Brazil for what purpose? The letter Trump posted on July 9, addressed to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, offered multiple rationales. Echoing language in similar letters addressed to other countries, Trump wrote: 'These Tariffs are necessary to correct the many years of Brazil's Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers, causing these unsustainable Trade Deficits against the United States. This Deficit is a major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!' There's only one problem: The United States has not had a trade deficit with Brazil in 18 years. The United States, in fact, ran a trade goods surplus of $7.4 billion with Brazil last year. Trump tried to buttress his shaky legal standing by ordering the Commerce Department to launch an investigation of supposedly unfair Brazilian trade practices under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. But the charade of a fact-finding probe is undercut by the reality that Trump already announced his intention to impose the tariffs. Verdict first, investigation later. Trump made clear in his letter that his real grievances with Brazil lie elsewhere, outside the trade arena. In the opening paragraph, he wrote: 'The way that Brazil has treated former President [Jair] Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World … is an international disgrace. This Trial should not be taking place.' In other words, Trump is slapping tariffs on Brazil in large part because he objects to the Brazilian legal system trying Bolsonaro, his right-wing ally, on charges of attempting to overturn by force his loss in the 2022 election. In Brazil's version of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, Bolsonaro's supporters stormed the legislature, Supreme Court and presidential palace in Brasília. Obviously, Trump does not like the idea of holding a leader to account for trying to overthrow an election, and he is willing to use his trade powers to see if he can bludgeon the Brazilian courts into submission. Because Bolsonaro's son Eduardo is in the United States lobbying the Trump administration to help his father, Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes accused the former president of plotting with foreign powers against Brazil and ordered him on Friday to cut off all contact with foreign governments and to wear an ankle monitor. Secretary of State Marco Rubio retaliated the same day by imposing visa restrictions on Moraes and is said to be considering imposing sanctions on the judge under the Magnitsky Act, a law designed to punish human rights violators. Moraes had already incurred Trump's ire by aggressively trying to police misinformation on social media. He famously clashed with Trump's erstwhile ally Elon Musk over demands that the X social network remove accounts spreading misinformation. (Musk gave in.) Trump's media and technology company, which operates his Truth Social website, has joined another right-wing site in suing Moraes in a U.S. court. Among the list of grievances in Trump's tariff letter is his claim that the Brazilian Supreme Court is issuing 'hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms.' Some civil libertarians are legitimately concerned that the Brazilian courts might be trampling on free speech rights in their efforts to stop the spread of misinformation online. But Trump is hardly a credible champion of free speech, given his attempts to stifle media criticism at home with libel suits of dubious merit. The Brazil trade dispute also features a troubling commingling of private and public interests: It's hard to tell if Trump is defending his country or his company. So far, Trump's attacks on Brazil are backfiring. Brazil's leftist president, Lula, was losing popular support until the Trump tariffs gave him a sudden burst of popularity. 'A gringo will not give orders to this president,' Lula told a student assembly on Thursday, while wearing a blue cap emblazoned with the words 'Sovereign Brazil Unites Us.' Trump is hardly the only leader capable of catering to nationalist grievances, and Brazil is in a stronger position than other countries to resist his bullying because its exports to the United States account for only 1.7 percent of its economic output. There is no indication that the Brazilian Supreme Court, which zealously guards its independence, will simply drop the criminal case against Bolsonaro, as Trump demands. No matter how the U.S.-Brazil trade war turns out — and there are likely to be no winners on either side — it serves to underline the point being made by the plaintiffs who are suing Trump in the 'reciprocal' tariffs case: namely, that he is pushing his tariff-setting authority far beyond what Congress intended or the law allows. By imposing massive tariffs on Brazil for reasons that seemingly have little to do with trade, Trump is trying to undermine the rule of law in both Brazil and the United States.
