why the young ones don't get a say (and whether that still makes sense)
Day 921. The cubs are confused. They watch the adults queue, but cannot participate.
Why can't I put paper in the box too?
The standard adult response:
"You're too young. You don't understand how the world works."
But the decisions affect my whole life more than yours...
The logic. Jenkins explains why the rule exists.
When these laws were written, they were trying to prevent... chaos. Imagine everyone voting — criminals, the mentally ill, children...
18th-19th century: voting was restricted to landowning men. The logic was that "stakeholders" should decide. Over time, we expanded who counts as a stakeholder. Women. Non-landowners. Different races. But not children.
The fears. Real concerns that shaped the law.
Children lack experience. They're easily manipulated. They'd vote for whoever promised candy. It seemed sensible.
This wasn't villainy. It was an attempt to ensure voters understood consequences. The concern was real, even if the solution was imperfect.
Applebee considers the other side of this logic.
But Jenkins... when adults vote for whoever promises tax cuts while ignoring climate projections for 2050...
...who is being short-sighted then?
The comparison. What if we applied the "maturity test" consistently?
If the concern is "understanding consequences," why does age matter more than engagement?
We don't test adult voters for competence. We assume they're informed even when they're not. The age cutoff is arbitrary, not principled.
Jenkins raises the counter-argument.
But Applebee — where do you draw the line? Should a 5-year-old vote? A 10-year-old? It would be chaos.
And parents could tell children how to vote. You'd effectively give parents multiple votes.
These are legitimate concerns. The line has to go somewhere. Perfect solutions don't exist — only trade-offs.
The real question. Applebee reframes it.
Maybe the question isn't "should cubs vote" but "are we making decisions that honor their future?"
The cubs who can't vote will inherit the decisions made today. They have the most at stake, but the least voice.
The paradox. Both sides have valid points.
Both are true. The law wasn't evil. But the world has changed. Maybe the law should too.
What we know now. Things have changed since 1800.
Kids today are more educated than voters were in 1850. They organize protests. They understand systems thinking.
The reasoning was: "they don't understand." But many now do. Maybe 18 was a proxy that made sense then, but not now.
Applebee writes in the margin:
"The adults who wrote the law weren't villains.
They did what made sense with what they knew.
But we know more now.
And knowing more means responsibility."
Applebee and the cubs sit together.
The law wasn't wrong for its time. But times change. And laws should change too.
Neither "adults are right" nor "cubs should vote tomorrow" is the answer.
The answer is: we should keep asking the question.