DEBATE

INTRODUCTION
 Since discussions about lowering the voting age emerged in the early 2000s in several countries,
much has been written about what we should expect if the franchise was to be extended to
include 16- and 17-year-olds. Granting voting rights at the age of 18 became the norm in
practically the entire democratic world in this period. In terms of turnout, this was a mistake,
according to Franklin (2004). By granting voting rights to young people at a time when, in most
countries, they are in a transitional phase in their lives after high school, dampens turnout
among first time voters. When people do not take part in their first eligible election, they may
learn the habit of not voting, which could then lead to a lifetime of abstention or just sporadic
voter participation. This is exactly what has happened since the 1960s, according to Franklin
(2004), as turnout has declined in almost all established democracies. Based on this, he
hypothesises that a further reduction of the voting age could actually have a beneficial effect on
future trends in turnout. Giving young people a chance to take part in democracy at a time
when they are still, for the most part, in high school and living in a community that they know
could spur higher rates of turnout among first time voters. Young people may then learn the
habit of voting, rather than abstention, which over time will lead to rising aggregate turnout
levels.
 Young people make good voters. When the voting age has been lowered to 16, young people
have shown our interest in voting. In 2013, when Takoma Park, Maryland, lowered its voting age
to 16, registered voters under 18 had a turnout rate four times higher than voters over 18. And
again, in Hyattsville, Maryland (the second place in the U.S. to lower the voting age to 16),
registered 16- and 17-year-old voters had a higher turnout out rate than older voters.
 Young people have adult responsibilities but are denied the same rights. People under 18 are
contributing and active members of society. Millions of us are employed and volunteer in our
communities. Many people under 18 also have “adult” responsibilities – such as being
the primary caregiver for an ailing family member, running a business, and making substantial
financial contributions to our households.
COUNTER ATTACKS:
 Young people are most directly impacted by education policy. Students have a better
understanding of what reforms are needed, but can’t even vote in school board elections.
 Young people will live with the effects of climate change for longer and are more likely to live in
poverty than adults, but have no voice in determining public policy decisions.
 Young people demonstrate responsibility, maturity, and knowledge comparable to other voters
 Many people 16 and younger are tried as adults and are placed in adult jails. If youth can be
punished like adults, they should be given the rights of adults.
 16-year-olds are just as knowledgeable about civics and have the same ability to make good
voting choices as older voters.
 Lowering the voting age to 16 increases voter turnout and develops lifelong voting habits.
 At age 16, people should have a voice in the laws that affect their lives and a stake in the future
of their country.
 Lowering the voting age will improve the lives of youth. Young people have a right to be heard
and to have our interests taken seriously.
 Enfranchised 16- and 17-year-olds were often more interested in politics, more likely to vote
and demonstrated other pro-civic attitudes (such as institutional trust).
 Furthermore, where we have data on public views on the topic, we see support for votes at 16
increase significantly. This may be due to the experience of seeing young people engaged or the
influence young people may have on their parents, especially when having had civic education
that involved discussions about politics. It seems that the process leading to the introduction of
lower enfranchisement ages may play a role as well, seeing popular support increase when
more bottom-up approaches are used and young people become visible in campaigns.
 Research shows that 16 and 17 years old have the necessary civic knowledge, skills, and
cognitive ability to voter responsibly.
 Youth are affected by local political issues as much as anyone. 16 and 17 year old deserve the
right to vote on issues that affect them on the local level.
 Strong civics education and a lower voting age would mutually reinforce each other to increase
civic engagement.
 A lower voting age would make civics education more effective as providing students a way to
directly apply what they're learning in the classroom in their communities would add a crucial
level of relevance to civics sources
 Lowering the voting age will improve the lives of youth. Young people have a right to be heard
and to have our interests taken seriously. However, by disenfranchising young people society
tells us that we do not have anything of value to add to the political conversations in our society.
It also gives politicians permission to ignore our interests as people under 18 have no way to
hold their representatives accountable. This is especially concerning since there are certain
issues, such as environmental degradation, public education policy, long-term government debt,
corporal punishment laws, and poverty that impact young people more than anyone else.
Younger people may also be better in tune with modern issues around internet privacy and
social media use. But since young people are underrepresented in politics, the issues affecting
us are underrepresented as well. Lowering the voting age will also help to increase the civic
engagement of young people.
CONCLUSION:
 Knowledge and experience are not criteria for voting eligibility. Even though young people can
be as politically informed as older people, there is no requirement that either group have any
political knowledge at all. In fact, whenever tests have been used to register voters, it has always
been about preventing certain groups of people from having political power rather than making
sure the electorate is as informed as possible.
 There are no wrong votes. In a democracy, we don’t deny people the vote because we think
they might vote badly. It can be easy to feel baffled by the way other people vote, even if we
know them very well. Many people believe that there are voters who are completely ignorant of
the issues, woefully misguided about the economy, who get their political ideas from biased
media, vote for candidates based on their personality, and are completely naive about the
world. And yet, disenfranchising people simply because we disagree with them is not considered
a serious position, unless that group happens to be disenfranchised already. No advocate for
lowering the voting age believes that young people will always vote intelligently, especially since
not everyone can agree on what that means. But the same can be said for adults. Why are
young people held up to a higher standard than everyone else?
References:

 https://www.youthrights.org/issues/voting-age/top-ten-reasons-to-lower-the-voting-age/
 https://www.youthrights.org/issues/voting-age/facts-and-resources/
 https://nextcity.org/features/why-we-should-lower-the-voting-age-to-16
 https://www.fairvote.org/why_should_we_lower_the_voting_age_to_16
 https://www.procon.org/headlines/lowering-the-voting-age-top-3-pros-and-cons/
 Jan Eichhorn, Johannes Bergh, Lowering the Voting Age to 16 in Practice: Pro:cesses and
Outcomes Compared, Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 74, Issue 3, July 2021, Pages 507–
521, https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab019
 https://vote16usa.org/reasons-for-lowing-voting-age-16/