Should 16-year-olds get to vote? Absolutely.

[BloombergOpinion]( [Early Returns]( [Jonathan Bernstein]( I’ve been [writing]( about the benefits of a lower voting age for years, but I always thought it was a theoretical question. No longer. On Thursday, the House actually held a vote on reducing the minimum age for federal elections, to 16 from 18. Although it didn’t come close to winning, a slim majority of House Democrats (and a lone Republican) went on record in support of the change. Wow. The vote was on an amendment to the Democrats’ [big government-reform bill](. It failed by a 305 to 126 margin. But a small majority among Democrats signals that this is no longer a fringe idea, as it was in 2013 when the very liberal town of Takoma Park, Maryland, adopted a lower voting age for local elections. Three cities have since followed, and San Francisco came close in 2016. The idea has been introduced in areas from [Oregon]( to [Washington, D.C.]( It’s certainly not a solid party position or priority yet, but Thursday’s vote showed that it’s gaining real support all the same. And that’s to everyone’s benefit. It’s not just that younger people deserve a voice in public affairs. A lower voting age would also help correct some of the disadvantages of the current limit. Older teenagers face unusually high hurdles to voting. Often they’re at a residential college or otherwise living on their own for the first time, which can mean having an unfamiliar group of politicians to vote for and against. Even the offices up for election may be very different from what they grew up with. Add to that the distractions of college life or a new full-time job (or both), and it’s not really surprising that the youngest voters have abysmal turnout rates. The problem is that voting is habit-forming. If most citizens begin their voting lives by missing elections, it can establish a lifelong pattern of non-participation. If kids vote for the first time in high school, however, the odds are better that they’ll get to the ballot box – with their parents, with their friends, perhaps with encouragement from their schools. The best case against younger voters rests on the idea that elections are meant to reach the best decisions, and young people tend to be less informed and have poor judgement. But that’s not a very democratic notion in the first place. And we don’t exclude other groups of voters for those reasons. If we want experts to determine policy, we’re better off establishing an aristocracy of some sort. In a democracy, we can’t guarantee that our decisions will objectively be the best ones – but we can try to allow everyone to express their preferences and advance their interests. To me, the bottom line is that while we (correctly) emphasize the civic virtues of voting, other forms of political action are more influential in our system. Organizing, mobilizing others, forming interest groups, lobbying elected officials – that’s what determines elections and government policy. Young people are perfectly free to participate in those activities (and many do). It makes little sense that they can phone bank, campaign door-to-door, even raise money for a candidate, but aren’t allowed to vote. Young people have interests just as older folks do, and there’s little reason to deny them a vote other than that it seems weird to us. It isn’t – and the more activists and politicians who push it, the less weird it’ll seem. 1. Dave Hopkins takes [aim at the media’s role in presidential nominations](. I tend to think that the parties, and not the media, have the lead role most of the time these days. But he’s correct that the media holds debates in higher esteem than more party-based forms of electioneering. 2. Brian Tilley at the Monkey Cage on [racism](. 3. Also at the Monkey Cage, Sarah K. Dreier on [what’s happening with the Methodists](. 4. Michael Davidson, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein on what should happen after special counsel [Robert Mueller submits his report](. 5. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Timothy L. O'Brien on [what House Democrats are going to be investigating]( – and how much there is to investigate. 6. Julian Davis Mortenson on the Article II “[executive power](” and how it contrasts with the royal prerogative.  7. And Sarah Lyall profiles [Stacey Abrams, “Star Trek” fan](. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. [Click here to subscribe](hash=b9b2681361bede0e1069ca238efb1ec2). Also subscribe to [Bloomberg All Access]( and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. Bloomberg L.P. ● 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 [Web]( ● [Facebook]( ● [Twitter]( [Feedback]( ● [Unsubscribe](