The political climate of the modern age brings lots of controversy toward voting rights. Many regard it as a right, while others call it a privilege, especially with the ambiguity of the Constitution. But across all the demographics discussed, like felons or the neurodivergent, perhaps the most crucial group in need of discussion is our youth.
Several movements across the United States have aimed to lower the voting age to 16 years-old, namely California and Maryland. To add additional consideration toward these campaigns, it’s essential that we look at the facts when approaching this conversation.
Youth Representation
The fact is, public policy affects young people, especially right now since education is such a pressing topic for policy makers. But when these legislators draft bills or write resolutions, the students that these policies affect have no voice in the conversation whatsoever. This situation isn't just restricted to education centered policies; for example, sales tax/withholdings, healthcare, infrastructure, and law enforcement are all legislative matters which affect young people. As a result, they also deserve a seat at the table in those conversations. The most simple way to do that is to give them a vote.
Because of how large of a demographic 16 and 17 year-olds are, legislators will be forced to consider the voices of young people and will advocate for more policy which properly represents them. Otherwise, if they fail to consider young people, then those candidates won’t win the young votes. Allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to vote allows them to actually have a say in matters that affect them–that is the basic notion of a democracy.
Increased Civic Activity
The ability to vote has been proven to increase civic engagement for those enfranchised youth, which continues as they grow older. As reported by Oxford Academic, enfranchised 16 and 17 year-olds were more likely to vote, more interested in politics, and more likely to take civic action such as volunteering with campaigns or speaking with legislators. This conclusion was drawn by observing other countries which allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote, as well as US cities which allow these teens to vote in local elections.
In times where our government seems to be straying further and further away from the interests of the people, it is essential to ensure that each citizen is inclined to advocate for themselves in that space through civic action, as that ensures that elected officials know what their citizens want and are more likely to align their values with the values of their constituents. Lowering the voting age causes a chain of effects which builds a more accurate representation in our democracy.
16 & 17 year-olds Are Mature
Though the benefits of lowering the voting age have been well established, there are still contentions which dissenters utilize to combat the youth voting movement. Their primary contention is maturity, this argument is based on the assumption that those who are younger (16 and 17 year-olds) haven’t reached the appropriate level of maturity needed to execute competent voting decisions, and as a result, their vote won’t properly represent them and any election will become less representative of the people.
However, according to the American Academy of Political and Social Science, by analyzing national survey data, 16 year-olds portray levels of mental developments (relevant to voting) which are approximately the same as citizens 18 years-old and above. Furthermore, they failed to find any tangible differences between the voting-related cognition of 16 year olds and franchised voters. It is notable however, that 15 year olds did not show this similarly, and that they presented a stark contrast in terms of voting maturity. Nevertheless, the argument that 16 and 17 year-olds are not mature enough to vote is simply a myth.
A potential reason that the American Academy of Political and Social Science provides for this misconception is the idea of hot and cold cognition. In short, hot cognition is the decision-making ability in times of spontaneity or intense emotion (such as stress or anger), while cold cognition is the decision-making ability in calm or relaxed situations. The notion that teenagers are immature likely comes from their hot cognition choices, as research shows that hot cognition isn't fully developed until the age of 22. Cold cognition however, is fully developed at the age of 15. It is also shown that when voting, cold cognition is the one at play. Thus, individuals with a fully developed cold cognition (16+), should be able to make relatively capable voting decisions.
Peer Pressure Isn't An Issue
Another primary argument that opposers present is the fact that teenagers are especially influenced by peer pressure, be it from their friends, parents, or community. They argue that if teens only align their political beliefs to those in proximity, then they won't be as open to considering their own alignments toward electoral candidates. In contrast, the Journal of Applied Psychological Development reports that when polling teenagers in swing states and checking voting records by, they presented no substantial evidence that their partisan alignment exceptionally correlated with those of their community, and that the political beliefs of their friends and parents barely influenced their political stance any more than it would to individuals 18 years-old or older. This means that citizens who are 16-17 have little to no peer influence when it comes to voting.
Unavoidable Arguments
Though the major arguments of negators have been dissolved, there are still two contentions that do require consideration when it comes to lowering the voting age. The first argument is that minors do not pay income taxes. This is especially relevant when voting for elected officials, as the majority of government actions have their funding sourced from income taxes. Thus, minors would be less considerate of income tax logistics when voting for policies or candidates, which distorts the votes of taxpayers if they are able to vote. However, there are still many situations where minors are affected by income tax changes; for example, by their parents or if they make more than $1,250 a year. Additionally, other voter demographics like low-income citizens or those with many dependents are exempt from taxes, so precedent is set for non-taxpayers to vote.
The second argument that should need consideration is cost. The fact is, elections cost a considerable amount to run. In fact, the 2020 election cost the US government around $18 billion ($10 billion for congressional races and $8 billion for the presidential race). The majority cost of these elections stem from hiring election workers, who count ballots and report votes, and establishing polling places. With the introduction of these teens (near adults) as voters, we have a potential flooding our polling places with 8 million new voters. That would drive up the cost of elections substantially–first by requiring the hire of much more election workers, as well as the establishment of new polling places to compensate for more voters. Although, it is vital to note that young people have, historically, lower voter turnout. Additionally, this shifts the debate from democracy, toward the capability of our government, which isn't necessarily a poor notion, but requires the input of financial experts and economic analysts.
In Conclusion
The fact of the matter is, young people simply lack representation in our government, and data shows that lowering the voting age is one of the simplest ways to solve this issue. In addition, lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout and civic engagement from citizens of all ages. Studies have consistently shown that 16-17 year-olds have the cognitive ability and independence to vote in a mature manner. The facts are clear: lowering the voting age will lead to a better democracy for our country, and when it happens, young people will finally be heard.
Resources
Hart, D., & Atkins, R. (2011). American Sixteen- and Seventeen-Year-Olds Are Ready to Vote. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 633(1), 201-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716210382395
Jan Eichhorn, Johannes Bergh, Lowering the Voting Age to 16 in Practice: Processes and Outcomes Compared, Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 74, Issue 3, July 2021, Pages 507–521, https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab019
Daniel Hart, Robert Atkins, Sarah Allred, Stability and change in partisan political identification: Implications for lowering the voting age, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Volume 71, 2020, 101210, ISSN 0193-3973, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101210.