Each day I monitor a number of mainstream news sources, and recently I came across a segment on FOX News in which Jesse Watters presented a series of man-on-the-street interviews with young people who were hanging out at the Jersey Shore. The interviewer asked a series of simple questions relating to government, geography, and civics. Their responses are almost as distressing as the fact that many of these idiots actually vote. More on that in a moment, but first here are highlights from the interviews:
Q: Who is Trump’s vice president?
A: J.K. Rowling
Q: Name the three branches of government.
A: Republican, Democrat, and Independent.
Q: What is the First Amendment to the Constitution?
A: Free will.
Q: What is the Second Amendment about?
A: The right to vote.
A: The right to go places.
Q: How many Supreme Court Justices are there?
A: 20
A: 101
A: 13
A: 7
Q: Name a current Supreme Court Justice.
A: Amy Winehouse
A: Sonya Gomez
A: Samuel Adams
A: Nancy Pelosi
A: Neil Armstrong
Q: Name a state that borders on California.
A: I don’t know history.
A: Kentucky
A: Florida
A: The one to the left. (interviewer: “That’s the Pacific Ocean.”) Yeah, that one.
Q: Who was our president in the 1990s?
A: FDR
A: Joe Clinton
A: How am I supposed to know that?
That last response says it all and gets to the heart of our overreaching problem in America. Today’s youth can text with lightning-fast speed and navigate the most complicated video games, but many kids aren’t learning or retaining the kind of information that would make them responsible citizens who can sustain our democracy going forward. Even so, there are some elected officials who believe that we should lower the voting age from 18 to 16 (it had been 21 until 1971). One such advocate is Washington, D.C. City Councilman Charles Allen, who said, “At the age of 16 our society already gives young people greater legal responsibility. They can drive a car. They can work, and they pay taxes. Yet they can’t exercise their voice where it matters most — at the ballot box.”
All that is true, but attaining the ripe old age of 16 and working part-time at McDonald’s doesn’t mean that kids today are qualified to help decide who goes to Congress or who occupies the White House. The Jersey Shore gang proves that point, but only for one reason. As I mentioned, those young people suffer from self-imposed ignorance resulting from not paying attention in class. But their lack of knowledge is also the result of WHERE they choose to get their misinformation. According to a 2025 PEW report, only 15% of young people ages 18 to 29 even bother to follow current events, and 76% of that group get their news solely from social media, mainly Instagram and TikTok, both of which are unregulated platforms that are not obligated to disseminate accurate information.
In the 1992 election, 55% of 18-year-olds and other young, first-time voters participated in the process because they were energized by the candidacy of Bill Clinton (or Joe Clinton if you live on the Jersey Shore). That number was nearly matched in 2008 when Barack Obama’s candidacy drove young people to the polls. However, only about 38% of 18- to 29-year-olds usually turn out to vote in any given year. Even so, that means those young voters can decide the outcome of crucial races — something which worries me given the fact that many of them are armed with either no information or inaccurate information about the issues and candidates.
It’s no wonder that Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan recently proposed that we operate as an “epistocracy” whereby the right to vote is conditional on knowledge. Brennan suggests that we establish some type of national competency exam to determine if an individual is capable of casting an informed vote. Under his proposal, we could either use the U.S. citizenship test or develop something new, so long as it is drafted in a nonpartisan manner and not based on ideologies of any one political party.
We all know about the dangers of voter suppression and voter apathy, but it’s high time we address the problem of voter ignorance. That’s why I agree with Professor Brennan that voting rights should be tied to voter competency. No doubt such a proposal would be heavily litigated, and if so, then it can be decided by our 101 Supreme Court Justices.
September 1, 2026 @ 5:36 am
We Might Be In Big Trouble
Each day I monitor a number of mainstream news sources, and recently I came across a segment on FOX News in which Jesse Watters presented a series of man-on-the-street interviews with young people who were hanging out at the Jersey Shore. The interviewer asked a series of simple questions relating to government, geography, and civics. Their responses are almost as distressing as the fact that many of these idiots actually vote. More on that in a moment, but first here are highlights from the interviews:
Q: Who is Trump’s vice president?
A: J.K. Rowling
Q: Name the three branches of government.
A: Republican, Democrat, and Independent.
Q: What is the First Amendment to the Constitution?
A: Free will.
Q: What is the Second Amendment about?
A: The right to vote.
A: The right to go places.
Q: How many Supreme Court Justices are there?
A: 20
A: 101
A: 13
A: 7
Q: Name a current Supreme Court Justice.
A: Amy Winehouse
A: Sonya Gomez
A: Samuel Adams
A: Nancy Pelosi
A: Neil Armstrong
Q: Name a state that borders on California.
A: I don’t know history.
A: Kentucky
A: Florida
A: The one to the left. (interviewer: “That’s the Pacific Ocean.”) Yeah, that one.
Q: Who was our president in the 1990s?
A: FDR
A: Joe Clinton
A: How am I supposed to know that?
That last response says it all and gets to the heart of our overreaching problem in America. Today’s youth can text with lightning-fast speed and navigate the most complicated video games, but many kids aren’t learning or retaining the kind of information that would make them responsible citizens who can sustain our democracy going forward. Even so, there are some elected officials who believe that we should lower the voting age from 18 to 16 (it had been 21 until 1971). One such advocate is Washington, D.C. City Councilman Charles Allen, who said, “At the age of 16 our society already gives young people greater legal responsibility. They can drive a car. They can work, and they pay taxes. Yet they can’t exercise their voice where it matters most — at the ballot box.”
All that is true, but attaining the ripe old age of 16 and working part-time at McDonald’s doesn’t mean that kids today are qualified to help decide who goes to Congress or who occupies the White House. The Jersey Shore gang proves that point, but only for one reason. As I mentioned, those young people suffer from self-imposed ignorance resulting from not paying attention in class. But their lack of knowledge is also the result of WHERE they choose to get their misinformation. According to a 2025 PEW report, only 15% of young people ages 18 to 29 even bother to follow current events, and 76% of that group get their news solely from social media, mainly Instagram and TikTok, both of which are unregulated platforms that are not obligated to disseminate accurate information.
In the 1992 election, 55% of 18-year-olds and other young, first-time voters participated in the process because they were energized by the candidacy of Bill Clinton (or Joe Clinton if you live on the Jersey Shore). That number was nearly matched in 2008 when Barack Obama’s candidacy drove young people to the polls. However, only about 38% of 18- to 29-year-olds usually turn out to vote in any given year. Even so, that means those young voters can decide the outcome of crucial races — something which worries me given the fact that many of them are armed with either no information or inaccurate information about the issues and candidates.
It’s no wonder that Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan recently proposed that we operate as an “epistocracy” whereby the right to vote is conditional on knowledge. Brennan suggests that we establish some type of national competency exam to determine if an individual is capable of casting an informed vote. Under his proposal, we could either use the U.S. citizenship test or develop something new, so long as it is drafted in a nonpartisan manner and not based on ideologies of any one political party.
We all know about the dangers of voter suppression and voter apathy, but it’s high time we address the problem of voter ignorance. That’s why I agree with Professor Brennan that voting rights should be tied to voter competency. No doubt such a proposal would be heavily litigated, and if so, then it can be decided by our 101 Supreme Court Justices.