the future, and creates and alienation between themselves and society, leading to drugs, crime and suicide. The best way to vent this frustration is to give them a say in society. Make them a responsible part of society rather than the irresponsible non-people stuck on the outside between free- dom as an adult and comfort as a child. As Eddie Cochran sang in his song, Summer Time Blues about the frustration of being poor and young, ‘‘Well, | called my Congressman and he said quote, ‘l’d like to help you son, but you’re too young to vote.’ ’’ The right to vote does get people who can do something about your problems to listen to you. ges Age is not a reason for denying someone the vote. If you are going to have an arbitrary age set for voting then it should be at the minimum age people can be expected to discern the difference between candidates and issues rather than denying everyone under 18 years of age because they may not act responsibly in voting the right way. If responsibility was a prerequisite then we wouldn’t have our staggering debt or our over supply of expensive, deadly arms. e usually forget that adolescence, as we know it, didn’t exist until the start of public schools at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Until that time, people who had reached sexual maturity (usually around 12 or 14) were considered little adults. The problem was that the children were exploited as merci- lessly as the adults were. The years took their toll more heavily on small, impoverish bodies, resulting in many young people dying in theirs °°} ¥ teens. The child labour laws ended this carnage and created the public school tradition and the strong family unit that still exists. Students have never been equal and respon- sible in the schools and it is mostly society’s refusal to give them responsibility that has made them irresponsible, and our education system that has made them more ignorant of the political system than they might otherwise be. If Alvin Toffler is right, and we are going into a post-industrial, decentralized, cottage industry economy and society, then the reasons for schools (in their present state) and adolescence (which comes from the enforced school and home environment) no longer exists. One definition of adulthood is when you go from being oppressed by people older than you, to start oppressing others. Like many things, oppression begins at home. We are taught as children to respect authority and never question it. When the authority is questioned the answer ‘‘When you’re older’’ is given tor the denying of rights. This reenforces the concept that oppression and power over another person is normal and good, and that when you grow up you too can start giving orders to those under you. If we don’t take age as a reason for giving people the franchise and instead, look at ability, there would likely be a radical change of the voting patterns in this country. One quarter of Canadians are illiterate. Only ten percent of our population have the opportunity to study politics in the universities; the rest rely on the media, their own culturally defined biases and what the candidates tell them. And many just don’t bother to vote. t’s a crime that politics, which has the greatest impact on society is, for the most part (besides sex), the least talked about subject in school. As William Lyon Mackenzie said, ‘‘politics is the science which teaches people to care for each other.’’ Is that too dangerous and corrupting to teach the young? If the subject was taught from grade one up, 12 year olds would have just as clear an idea of who they were voting for and why as people twice their age. They may be influenced in their decision by parents or peers, but then, so are adults. Voting would also force youth to think about the future and their responsibility for the present as well as increasing the number of politically active people in the population at a lower age. It would create an awareness of the democratic process rather than the ‘‘might equals right’ Ramboism and the authoritarian structure they are subservient to in school. Dropping the voting age would also call into question all’the other age based laws, such as the age of consent, legal age to drink and the right to drive. If the arguement that young people are too immature to vote is laughed out of court, then it follows that the assumption that the bars will suddenly be full of young boozers, the highways filled with reckless cruisers and the parks filled with more lust-filled carousers than before, will be as well. For the youth this will be a two edged sword. While they would gain the rights as‘ full citizens, they could also be tried as competant to stand for trial as an adult. For the 17 year old sentenced to just three years for killing a man by carving his initials in the man’s chest, while stabbing him 46 times, this would be justice. For the 13 year old pot pusher sentenced to 25 years, it would be injustice. hildren can now testify in court if they } satisfy the judge that they know the difference between right and wrong, and what is going on in the courtroom. If they can now testify and be believed, why can they not vote and be respected? The removal of the age criteria would put competence and responsibility on an individual level. If you are 13 and can pass a driver’s test and drive the car well, then you should be able to drive. If you are 15 and want to dance, or see a live band in a place that sells liquor, then what is the problem? In Europe there are no such restrictions on the youth. The argument that youth would loose their innocence (as was given by the 1978 electoral reform commission in B.C. which kept the voting age at 19 rather than the federal standard of 18) is patronizing. Young people have the same _ information sources as adults. It’s been estimated that, by the time the age of ten rolls around, a child would have seen 60,000 murders on T.V. as well as numerous rapes and tortures, not to mention incidents of corruption and revolution nightly on the news. How would giving them the right to do something about all this carnage they see, but are powerless to stop, destroy their innocence? The fact is there is no reason for denying young people the vote. Would young people, say between the ages of 12 and 18, vote any differently than people over the age of 192 Probably not, but they would be more receptive to new ideas. And at least they would be represented, would have a voice, and could be counted as part of this liberal democracy we call Canada. But if one of the main aspects of a liberal democracy is that everyone, regardless of race, religion or creed, can vote, then how can it not contain such a large portion of the population as the under 18’s and still be called a true liberal democracy? So the youth sufferage movement should now begin. ow for youth who have to say ‘‘Mr.’’ all the time when addressing adults in school, who accept subminimum wage for delivering papers in all sorts of adverse conditions, and for fast food restaurant workers who have to act like cranked up robots while having to smile, wear dumb uniforms and look forward to being fired at eighteen when the minimum wage goes up, the cry should be ‘‘no co-operation without representation.’’ Or maybe, “youth of the world unite and throw off your ageist oppressors, we only have our childhood ignorance to loose.’’ Or perhaps we should wait until the next constitutional court challenge comes up. And then see what happens. lan Hunter is a Vancouver based freelance writer and former editor of the Other Press. He can be heard on the Heard But Not Seen show on Vancouver Co-operative Radio, CFRO 102.7, 104.9 most cable systems, every Wednesday from six to seven P.M.