And we've hit a new low

Well, this was something.

What blows my mind is that it ignores what a democratic process is all about, insults several generations, admits fault in the current voting population and THEN suggest voter suppression as a potential solution.

Don't get me wrong. The sentiment is very understandable. In fact, I think it is very much in human nature to fault others for not agreeing with us or thinking the same way as we do. It is basically the foundation of tribalism. It is why racism is systemic. It is why I doubt we will ever truly eradicate discrimination. If we solve the problem at a racial level, we'll just invent a new way to discriminate.

But, this is also a problem which the democratic process of voting exists to help address. Democracy is NOT there to exercise the will of the smart and well educated voters (or any other specific sub-group for that matter). More often than not, such action would just result in one group's opinion of who is smart seizing control of power indefinitely.

Democracy exists to exercise the will of the people through majority consensus.

If a majority of people WANT to elect officials based on them having the letter 'A' in their name (as per an example from the above article), then that is NOT democracy being broken. That is democracy exposing a shift in popular sentiment on who should govern.

Yes. It would be ridiculous if a majority of people were actually voting based on such grounds. And, while no doubt, there are people who vote on a whim, or superstitiously, I don't think there is a winning candidate in history who could say that the sole reason for their victory was on such flimsy standing. But, I don't see it as markedly different than voting for someone solely due to their political affiliation.

And yes, I think partisan politics is an infantile, idiotic thing for everyone except the politicians who benefit from it. After all, the entire purpose of electing someone to one of these positions is supposed to be to elect the candidate who best reflects your ideals and will vote in accordance with how their constituents feel. And that SHOULD mean for instance that a Republican from Seattle would vote differently than a Republican from New Hampshire on a wide range of topics. It might be expected because they are both Republicans that they would have more common ground than their independent or Democratic counterparts. But that isn't how politics plays out most times. It is basically a two party system and the vast majority of members of the two parties vote in lockstep on every motion.

So, to my mind, we should probably all be voting for independent representation if you actually want votes to reflect the true will of the people. But hey, I guess I'm pretty lonely on that front. 

And, it still doesn't mean democracy is broken.

As for lowering the age? I see two very good arguments for this. Firstly is predicated a cornerstone of the foundation of the US as a nation; "taxation without representation". One of the main causes which drove the US to seek independence was that Britain was taxing the US but they had no representation in parliament.

If you are a legally employed citizen but you are too young to vote then you are being taxed without representation.

The second argument is one of who has to live with the fallout of the decisions made. The younger you are, the more likely you are to have to live with, and live longer with the repercussions of the decisions made today. So, in a very real way, the younger generation has a greater vested interested in the outcome of the democratic process than those who are older.

Also, while the article attacks youth as being stupid and ill-informed I doubt that this is the case. I certainly haven't seen any data to back this up. I mean, outside of saying something idiotic like "a disproportionate number of 16 year-olds lack a college education". This doesn't mean that they aren't informed on the topics and can't make rational decisions affecting their future.

In fact, I would go so far as to argue that the biggest problem with youth is apathy. Those who WOULD vote, likely would be better informed than the average older aged voter simply because the uninformed rarely feel the need to vote at that age. 

Of course, they would also be more likely to hold opposing views. A position which is likely to draw the ire of older voters and incense them to say things about the capacity of young voters to think.

In my mind, these attempts to thwart expanding the voting age are a vain form of denial caused by how out of touch we become as we age. The youth, so despised today will grow up. And they will attain credentials to defend their intelligence. And many won't change their stances all that much through this process. Especially not in the face of such opposition. 

And no matter what they can claim when that day comes, people like this will still fiercely proclaim anyone who thinks differently to be too inept to vote. The tide they fear is likely to come.

And THAT I suspect is the heart of it. Deep down these people know that life has changed. As it always does. They just want to delay it, in hopes that they can die peacefully with the world the way it was when their view was the majority view.