In 1917, women picketed the White House and blocked traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue in the fight for the right to vote. A century before, agitation even more violent preceded the struggle to remove property qualifications. Now, however, when a third great suffrage extension is in prospect, there is little strong feeling and no demonstration. If the 18-year-olds get the vote, it will come through no effort of their own.

Those who oppose the age lowering cite the lack of agitation to show that the 18-year-old is not ready for the vote. Yet this apparent apathy can be used in one of the strongest arguments for giving him suffrage. Low polling turnouts, so common in this country, indicate that for many citizens an interest in political matters never comes. Its lack is evident not only in vote totals, but also in the popular opinion that politics and government are "dirty" occupations.

For the average citizen, the late high-school years represent the peak of reading, and in many cases, interest, in government and American history. But after graduation, he must wait several years before he can vote. During this period, his interest frequently dies. Lowering the age requirement to 18 would give young people a chance to become involved in their government at a time when they are reading and hearing most about it.

Political awareness is even higher among college students, who, while comprising only 20 percent of the 18-21 age group, will furnish virtually all future public administrators. Experience in Georgia, where the 18 year age limit has been law since 1943, shows that the vote has made college students much more aware of their political responsibilities, and this heightened interest has persuaded many to enter government and politics.

Opponents of the suffrage extension attack it on two grounds. First, they claim that people of this age are too easily influenced by their emotions, and are thus ready prey to political demagoguery. Rationality, however, does not necessarily come with age. Subjective, irrational considerations influence the white-collar worker of 30 as surely as they affect the high-school student of 18. The housewife with a son in Korea and the farmer who "distrusts foreigners" are easy targets for slick political oratory. If the voting age were lowered, high schools would place an even greater emphasis on civics and American history than they do now, to prepare their students to vote intelligently.

The second argument against the proposed amendment is that the vote should remain with the states, where it was placed by the Constitution. Those states wishing to lower the age limit could do so, as Georgia did, while others could keep it at 21. But this argument implies that there are differences among states in the 18-21 year age group that are not also present in voters over 21.

The states' rights people argue that the Federal Government should not regulate voting for state offices. But the same voting qualifications that apply to state voting also apply to national elections. Although extended suffrage would regulate qualifications in both state and national voting, the necessity for uniform standards in Presidential elections should over-ride state objections. In matters such as sanitation, states have differing needs and consequently differing legislation. But in the choice of a President, where the needs of the whole nation are the same, uniform qualifications should apply.

One other objection is conceivable: that teachers would herd their entire class to the polls on November 2 after thoroughly indoctrinating them with a particular party line. These fears are exaggerated, however; such indoctrination would soon be noticed and reported. Improvements in education and a higher literacy rate have given today's young people knowledge and experience that their predecessors did not have. With schools now stressing the responsibilities of citizenship more than ever before, students should get the opportunity to practice what they are taught.