I am going to be called a stick-in-the-mud, a fuddy-duddy, a grouchy old man.

Too bad. I do not think we need to reduce the voting age in this country from 18 to 16. The idea is drawing support from political progressives. Even the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi — who’s older than I am — has climbed aboard the Let ‘Em Vote at 16 bandwagon.

I won’t argue the point about whether those in their mid-teens have brains that are developed fully enough for them to make rational, reasonable and well-considered decisions on who to elect to public office.

I do know, though, that young voters today — those in the 18- to 21-year-old range — vote in far fewer numbers than those of us who are a good bit older. Is there an argument to be made that giving those who are 16 years of age is going to boost that voter turnout rate? If so, it doesn’t make sense.

I get the argument that those who are affected by gun violence ought to have their voices heard at the ballot box. The argument goes that those younger students are the victims. Therefore, they have earned the right to cast votes for those who are responsible for making policies relating to gun ownership.

Look, I heard the argument back when I was coming of age that if we were old enough to go to war we were old enough to vote on the politicians who would send us to war. I went to war in 1969 before I was old enough to vote. I served some time in Vietnam, came home and then became politically active upon my separation from the U.S. Army.

Then we ratified the 26th Amendment to the Constitution to reduce the voting age to 18. The 1972 election saw the voter turnout plummet from what it was in the 1968 election.

It’s enough that we have granted 18-year-old the right to vote. There’s no need to go lower.

Because I’m a fair-minded guy, I want to share with you an essay published in the New York Times that makes the case in favor of reducing the voting age. You can read it here.

My mind is made up.