Joe Schrantz has it right (Our View, June 3). When I read the Daily Herald editorial of May 30 supporting the idea of lowering the primary election voting age for some 17-year-olds, I thought the editors were being facetious. Recent research indicates that teen brains are not fully developed in the area of judgment -- wouldn't that be a good thing in a voter?
When the voting age was lowered, teens were being drafted and sent off to Vietnam. I remember the argument for lowering the age being that "if they could die for their country, why couldn't they vote". Well, there is no draft, and teens have still shown a propensity for herd mentality.
If the argument for 17-year-olds is to get them interested, it's just not strong enough. They don't truly understand the implications of their vote until they are actually participating in society -- paying taxes, paying bills, trying to buy a house, sorting out their health care, and all the other "grown-up" decisions that we make daily. At 17, and even 18, most teens are still in the cocoon of their parents.
If any changes are made at all, it should be to raise the age back to 21. I'm with you Joe!