LOWER VOTER AGE WOULD PUMP UP TURNOUT AT POLLS.

Byline: Robert Livingston 

THE recent mayoral primary in Los Angeles has prompted much discussion as to why 1.1 million registered voters failed to cast ballots. Whether described as cynical or apathetic, nonvoting citizens have posed a lingering question for all of us: As role models, what kind of message were adults sending to the young people of our city?

Clearly, the message sent was negative. Residents, by not voting, sanctioned the view that indifference to the problems facing L.A. was acceptable social behavior. In short, they claimed that voting didn't matter.

But voting does matter. A healthy democratic process is sustained by a majority of eligible voters who are motivated to participate at the ballot box. This behavior is what we want our children to emulate. Still, how do we make this happen given a voter turnout in direct conflict with our most cherished notions of political freedom?

As a former government teacher at Van Nuys High School, I say why not lower the voting age to 16? Eight arguments support this position.

Issues: Students would be cognizant of election day issues, since current events play a significant role in U.S. history and government classes. Students and teachers alike would find content relevance.

Candidates: Politicians could no longer avoid young people. With thousands of potential voters in the city's 52 high schools, those running for office would have to be responsive to the interests of younger teenagers. Issues such as keeping community college costs affordable and making available more job-training programs would be important to this new voter group, and thus to all candidates.

Political party participation: Many students, driven by an interest in the election's outcome, would want to work for candidates and/or special- interest groups. With a raw mixture of almost limitless energy and youthful idealism, they would be a welcome addition to the political process.

Parents: The potential for challenging dinner-table conversation would certainly increase as children and parents pondered political issues while passing the salad. Such an outcome can only be helpful in families where young people and elders need to better communicate values, hopes and dreams.

--School debates: Public-speaking classes could (and should) put on debates before large groups of students. The candidates, mindful of the youth vote, could (and would) participate in these debates.

Mock election: All students would be able to participate in a schoolwide mock election, one that had real meaning, since many would soon cast actual ballots. What better training for the ink stylus!

Instructional program: Presumably, reading and writing skills would benefit as teachers assigned work related to the upcoming election. Literacy, both in the classroom and City Hall, would improve.

Trust: Redefining voting rights, as suggested, would create a new rite of passage similar to the driver's license. The DMV and the polling booth would stand together, symbols of our faith and trust in young people to act responsibly.

I realize that many people will dismiss the notion of a youth vote. Too radical, they will say. Others will claim the young are too immature. Some will not want to deal with a new voting group. Whatever the validity of these criticisms, the challenge before all of us is to improve citizen involvement in the democratic process and to encourage a high voter turnout. A youth vote meets both imperatives.