Indeed there are. There are many hills I’ll die on, and while this isn’t one of them, I do find it deeply uncomfortable to so clearly deny a whole category of citizens representation.
It's about as logical as saying, "we put people in jail, therefore it's ok that you go to jail." The nuance and reasoning is the point.
My conclusion: No. Children should not be able to do those things. Therefore, there are likely other things they should not be allowed to do.
I honestly can't believe we're even having this discussion.
The driving example is a bit disingenuous because, in the US at least, driving isn't conceptualized as a "right" - it's formulated as a privilege. The drinking example is closer, but that's the right to self-determination. I don't suspect that you believe children have zero self-determination, nor do I suspect that you believe that one person's right to vote should be based on everyone in a particular class.
It would be unconscionable to say, "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because some women can't make good decisions." I simply extend the same unconscionablity to children.
I of course disagree with that statement, but it would imply that some women _can_ make good decisions.
To carry that back to the original argument, you are implying there are children out there who are capable of participating in political discourse.
I disagree.
It's starting to feel a bit like I'm feeding the trolls here, so I'll let this be my final reply. Have a good day.
We apply this argument in all kinds of cases that are super-uncontroversial so it’s surprising to hear that it makes someone uncomfortable in this particular case.