Why the Voting Age should not be Lowered to 16
Contents
Introduction
It has been argued for many years that, as soon as an individual reaches the arbitrary age of 16, they should be able to vote. The Scottish Parliament has agreed to this principle, though not yet to the legislative change that would permit this. This is distinct from the current eligibility age of 18, which applies to all other levels of election in Scotland and so remains the case for the Scottish Parliament elections. Nevertheless, this issue of votes at 16 remains live.
It has been met with mixed reactions from the public and from parties elsewhere in the UK.
There are good reasons for the current eligibility age for public elections—not least around cognitive immaturity, relative lack of understanding of politics, and lack of behavioral responsibility. These are important considerations. This report seeks to address this issue and provide additional arguments against any such change in legislation. The aim is not to suggest that the views of the young should not be taken into account, merely that the position of privilege—the vote—which can affect many lives should be informed. Thus, what follows seeks to demonstrate why it is neither in the gift of the Scottish Parliament now, nor Parliament in the UK, to include 16 and 17-year-olds in their franchise.
Cognitive Development and Decision-Making
Adolescent development can be divided into four stages: early adolescence (approximately ages 10 to 13), midadolescence (approximately ages 14 to 16), late adolescence (approximately ages 17 to 20), and emerging adulthood (ages 18 to 25). Brain development is rapid from birth through late adolescence. Adolescence is a period of growth second only to infancy in terms of rate and amount of change. It is also characterized by complex changes in hormonal levels and reproductive timing. Behavioral science research has repeatedly shown that areas of the brain associated with cognitive control continue to develop throughout adolescence. Two domains of capacity for effective decision making include the ability to engage in critical thinking about evidence and argument and the capacity for impulse control.
The development of the adolescent brain has implications for everything youth do, and that is especially true of voting. Teenagers may consciously endorse rational thought processes, but if physiologically these parts of the brain are not well integrated, the result is decision making that is unduly swayed by strong emotions and impulsive thinking. Decision making that is rational and evidence-based depends on the integration of the different parts of the brain. Current ages for voter eligibility better approximate when meaningful development has taken place in these capacities. The current brain research strongly suggests that the voting age should not be lowered to sixteen. The brain research creates an assumption that a citizen's vote should represent a thoughtful recognition of the common good, with some attempt to set aside emotional and impulsive responses in the voting booth.
Political Knowledge and Engagement
However, research suggests a quite different picture of political knowledge and interest for many young Australians, particularly at the lower end of the 16-18 age group. Various pieces of research suggest that large numbers of 16- and 17-year-olds have little or no understanding of the electoral system, let alone the finer points. They have moderate interest in current events, but much more in celebrities and sport. Indeed, the relatively low level of political interest and knowledge among young people represents not the cause but the effect of the lack of civic education. But why is it that many young people are "politically inactive"? It is not surprising that in their teenage years, children are largely preoccupied with matters in school and their private life: health, family, relationships, and navigating the schooling system. Young people typically only begin to play an active part in politics as they approach voting age, but without improving civic education, at 16 many young people still lack the necessary tools with which to engage effectively. Encouragement to become an informed voter must begin well before 16. It is important that: “Ensuring a vote at the next election is not determined by a motivated citizen ready to participate in a healthy and functioning democracy… by the thousands of teenagers who made a last-minute decision, voted for someone with a political opinion they had just read that day, confused the policies of one party with another, or followed the opinion of a well-known local footy star.”
Social and Legal Implications
What are the implications of giving 16-year-olds the right to vote, legally or otherwise? This change may affect another question, parallel to the question of suffrage: when are young people old enough to bear adult responsibilities—like voting? It seems to me that younger minors, 16-year-olds, absorbing messages from an earlier age might see the vote conferred at 16 as the most adult signal society can send on their way to adulthood. There are implications for political parties. If 16-year-olds could now vote, what advice on their "priorities" would the major (and minor) parties be given by opinion pollsters? Would the issues flagged match those brought as a particular sign of governmental failure by older adults? There might be legal challenges to laws that do not reflect same-age and same-competence principles: for example, if 16-year-olds had the vote, could law prevent that expression of political maturity as part of a burden-sharing policy between age groups? A further question, then, is what society and its laws would now expect of 16-year-olds. Would they be tried as adults? There is some research suggesting not just that 16-year-olds with the vote collaborated in public deliberation more than younger 16-17s who lacked it, but that 16-year-olds in the few countries with that low minimum were less likely to trust politicians who aimed directly to court them.
Conclusion
This paper has argued that lowering the voting age to 16 would not make for informed long-term decision making. The importance of cognitive development in political knowledge and belief, and the key role of political knowledge in electoral choice have both been discussed. The link between the developmental process of understanding adult political responsibility and the nature of democratic politics seems important for informed electoral choice. There are many more studies suggesting a positive feedback cycle from adult voter turnout and a well-functioning democratic society, government, and public policy. To suggest some voting strictures would be beneficial for younger people is a significant move that needs to be more fully developed. It would also be concerning for an uninformed decision to be made based merely on convenience and political expedience; to do so may fail to differentiate us from sham democracies. If people believe in a society that is based to some extent on informed consent, it also seems important to support informed assent to a political party to govern.
The paper questioned whether adolescents have the same cognitive abilities as adults to do an informed job of voting, have argued that the research evidence suggests they do not, and have suggested this makes a strong case against their being allowed to vote. An alternative voting age was not nominated. I have begun to highlight some normative considerations, not ensnared in developmental frames, about how votes at 16 may inhibit informed choice. I argue, based on considerable evidence, that there may be reasonable grounds to believe that lowering the voting age to 16 may encourage uninformed voting at certain times. I also note that while 16-year-olds are not competent voters, they still are people with the potential to be competent voters and that these abilities can be harvested at a younger age. In future discussions, it may be worth probing further whether adults perhaps feel that younger people are not ready to vote due to lack of maturity or due to lack of information. I argue that most of the reasons to give 16-year-olds the vote are based on their social obligations, possibly overlooking that these obligations might inform their political beliefs and therefore their vote. Vote change is difficult. However, there are huge benefits to waiting until a voter base is more mature before extending the electorate to them, which will be obviated by a voting age of 16.
Why the Voting Age Should not be Lowered to 16. (2024, Dec 27). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/why-the-voting-age-should-not-be-lowered-to-16/