by Laurence Pevsner
It is strange that our politicians spend so much time fawning over America’s largest group of disenfranchised citizens. Of course, the pandering isn’t actually to children - it’s to their parents. And the policies that politicians champion disproportionately favor adults. Policies don’t favor young people because young people don’t get a say in the decisions that affect them. There’s no such thing as children’s suffrage. But there should be.
Most adult Americans would laugh at the idea of a 13-year-old walking into a polling booth. But that’s a familiar attitude in the history of American voting rights.
The first state to grant women’s suffrage was Wyoming - and it started as a joke, too. Edward M. Lee, the territory’s secretary, wrote: “During the session, amid the greatest hilarity, and . . . in the full expectation of a gubernatorial veto, an act was passed Enfranchising the Women of Wyoming.” The veto never came. A century later, this inauspicious start came full circle when women were included in the Civil Rights Act as part of yet another lawmaker’s joke.
Still, serious arguments against children’s suffrage abound. Eighteen to 21-year-olds already vote in dismal numbers - why should we give the vote to people even younger, who probably care less? Even if they do care to vote, children don’t have the intellectual capacity or the life experience to understand complex issues. Supposing you did stick them in a polling booth, they’re likely to vote exactly as their parents tell them to - essentially giving parents double, triple, or quadruple the votes.
The Washington Post © 2016 The Washington Post. All rights reserved. Used under license.
Question
Use the passage to answer the question.
Which portion of the passage functions as a counterargument?
(1 point)
Responses
It is strange that our politicians spend so much time fawning over America’s largest group of disenfranchised citizens.
It is strange that our politicians spend so much time fawning over America’s largest group of disenfranchised citizens.
Edward M. Lee, the territory’s secretary, wrote: “During the session, amid the greatest hilarity, and . . . in the full expectation of a gubernatorial veto, an act was passed Enfranchising the Women of Wyoming.”
Edward M. Lee, the territory’s secretary, wrote: “During the session, amid the greatest hilarity, and . . . in the full expectation of a gubernatorial veto, an act was passed Enfranchising the Women of Wyoming.”
There’s no such thing as children’s suffrage. But there should be.
There’s no such thing as children’s suffrage. But there should be.
Eighteen to 21-year-olds already vote in dismal numbers - why should we give the vote to people even younger, who probably care less?
Eighteen to 21-year-olds already vote in dismal numbers - why should we give the vote to people even younger, who probably care less?
Skip to navigation
1 answer
The portion of the passage that functions as a counterargument is:
Eighteen to 21-year-olds already vote in dismal numbers - why should we give the vote to people even younger, who probably care less?
This statement presents a reason against granting voting rights to younger individuals, highlighting concerns about their potential lack of interest and engagement in the voting process.
1 answer
1 answer
1 answer
1 answer