Should 16 year olds vote?

When I saw the title on a Honolulu Advertiser blog about this, I thought the writer had to have been kidding. Let 16 year olds vote? Why? We know why the US lowered the voting age to 18, but those reasons simply don't apply to 16 year olds. The original New York Times editorial that started this debate says that "Legal age requirements should never stand alone. They should be flexible and pragmatic and paired with educational and cognitive requirements for the exercise of legal maturity." I say bah. This is an opinion dressed up as a fact ("Legal age requirements should never stand alone") matched with feel-good words like "flexible," "pragmatic," and "legal maturity." Who wants to be counted as being against these terms? I'll take a shot.

The very example that the author picks - the fact that 16 year olds can drive - undercuts her point: which age group has the highest rate of accidents per mile driven? Teens. According to the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association, "The risk of crash per mile driven is thee times higher for 16-19 year olds than for drivers age 65-69." What are states increasingly trying to do (including Hawaii)? Institute graduated drivers licenses to restrict teens from driving by permitting them only to drive during the day, only with a relative in the car, etc. States are becoming more "pragmatic" about teen drivers by being less "flexible" about their options.

The NY Times allows people to comment of their op-ed pieces; those make more sense that the original article.

The Advertiser blog:

http://blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/quarterlifecafe.php/2008/02/06/lowering_the_voting_age_to_16

The New York Times Op-Ed piece that started this debate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06kamenetz.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Ceded lands - is there a solution?

I added a reading on the Admission Act and ceded lands as, once again, they are a hot topic in the political arena. There are at least three main positions: (1) give some ceded lands to OHA to hold in trust for the Hawaiian government, assuming the Akaka Bill passes; (2) don't give ceded lands to OHA as it is not the right recipient, being a state agency; and (3) don't give ceded lands to OHA, they are to be kept in trust for all five purposes.

Richard Borreca, Star Bulletin political reporter, writes that "The proposed settlement announced Friday by OHA and Gov. Linda Lingle would resolve the OHA claims to the former Hawaiian monarchy lands used by the state by promising that the state would give OHA $15.1 million a year, plus nearly $200 million worth of state property including the resort property on Banyan Drive in Hilo and portions of Kakaako and Kalaeloa." SB, January 22, 2008 (full article at http://starbulletin.com/2008/01/22/news/story03.html)

Is this a good deal for the State? for Hawaiians? For non-Hawaiians? Should OHA hold out for a better deal? Is OHA the appropriate agency to be dealing with this issue? Is this the right time?

So many questions, so many truly controversial answers.