Home / Debates / Politics / Should The Voting Age Be Lowered To 16?

Should The Voting Age Be Lowered To 16?

Many people say young people’s voice need to be heard. And voting is a great way to do this. But would lowering the age to 16 be the right way to go? Say what you think below!

All the Yes points:

  1. They deserve to have a say.
  2. YES, give them the rights they deserve!
  3. It would get younger people interested in politics
  4. Consistency
  5. Alienation
  6. Citizenship
  7. Increase turnout
  8. Representation
  9. Rights
  10. Effected be the policy makers decisions
  11. Tax

All the No points:

  1. Immature Choices
  2. Don’t really care
  3. They are still maturing, and have not learned enough yet through education as well as experience to make fully informed decisions.
  4. Turnout
  5. Where to draw the line?
  6. Rights of the 16 year old are not as far reaching as supposed so they do not warrant the vote on the ‘rights’/consistency argument

They deserve to have a say.

Yes because…

If they are now in a responsible stage of their life, they deserve a say on who will decide how their schools will be run through elections!

Yes Because

If a sixteen year old can join the Arm forces, then the right to vote should be allowed.

If the voting age is lowered to 16, then politics could become a GCSE course, meaning they will be fully prepared at an early date, ready for an election if they are 16 for example.

No because…

They have really only just got out to the world and to their ‘responsible stage’. They need some time to know how its run now and if it should be different or be changed. They can’t just vote or it won’t come fair as they may not know how the world is being run by government at this time.

Even if they are able to join the armed forces, its a voluntery job. You do not need a certain responsibility to join the forces. Its to simply serve your country.

Starting a class around this may disrupt education of other important subjects they have/choose to do. Its a whole other section of learning and one which is unnecessary to have on your shoulders at the same time as GCSE time.

YES, give them the rights they deserve!

Yes because…

yes, I do understand that sixteen year olds are you and some may be irresponsible but that shouldn’t determine why other 16 year olds cant vote, there should be a voting list of which 16 year olds are mature and responsible enough to vote there are plenty of other things they are aloud to do so why jepordise how this country is ran by not letting 16 year olds be able to vote, huh?

This isn’t just affecting you guys because you are old enough to vote. David Cameron has ruined this country and let the people of Britain down if we where aloud to vote then we could of changed that, for the better of Britain and the folks that live here!

Thank you for reading my viewpoint.

No because…

First of all, your proposed scheme here poses a practicality problem: who or what, will be deciding on the maturity of 16 years-old voters? How would “maturity” be measured? Through tests?

If we do let a group of 16 years old vote, and we ban another group of 16 years old from voting, then the problem of injustice will arise. Protests are likely to be sparked.

From your argument, it can be seen that your only reason for lowering the voting age to 16 is that “David Cameron ruined this country”. But it is unfair, if not dangerous, to damage existing voting system and democracy to exercise one group’s political views.

It would get younger people interested in politics

Yes because…

The numbers of young people’s interest is ridiculously low. How should we address this? One way would be to allow younger people the vote, as it would encourage them to investigate further into how it all works. Some may not be interested at all, thats fine. But should we really obstruct the opportunities for those interested in learning more? I think it is important for young people to be interested in politics as will affect them hugely at some point in their lives, therefore we should offer 16s and over the vote.

No because…

I agree that younger people need to be interested in politics. However, to give them the vote before they are educated and experienced enough to make truly informed decisions would be a disaster.

(Speaking mainly from a U.S. standpoint): Many young people do not even know the history of their own country, let alone the history of other countries. They do not understand the different systems of government in the world and the history of those governments, some of which led to the deaths of millions of people! I hear many young people say history is “irrelevant and meaningless”, but nothing could be further from the truth! To paraphrase, “Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it” could well apply to many young people today, as well as some older people, who have not bothered to learn history, or learn the Constitution, or learn about particular issues. People, these things CAN be a matter of life and death – the difference between being free or being a slave, between living under a freely elected leader or dying in a camp under a dictator!

If young people want to get involved in politics, they should start at a local level as a volunteer. In the meantime, get educated and experienced before taking the important step of voting!


Yes because…

It is argued that the voting age should be reduced to provide consistency between the age a person can vote; with the age they can leave school; marry; have children; leave home; pay taxes; work full time; and join the armed forces.

and also at the age of 16 you can choose to have sex it is legal to have sex at 16 which is a big responsibility in its self also as you can have sex you can choose whether to have a baby which would make you a parent and on all the medicines and food if you are over 10/13 you are classed as a adult so why can’t they have the opportunity to vote?

Can you please specify these qualities that at 16 year old lacks.

No because…

It is important to note that in England a 16-year-old can only marry or leave home with their parents’ permission. A 16-year-old also cannot buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, or drive a car. You cannot argue on the grounds of ‘consistency’ without also arguing to lower the legal age for these activities as well.

Furthermore how is it argued or by whom? by you? painstakingly not you create a logical fallacy by saying because 16 year olds do this they should be able to do that. My 12 year old nephew can run does that mean he should be able to participate in a marathon? obviously not because he lacks certain qualities that it takes to run a marathon just like 16 year olds lack certain qualities to vote at 16


Yes because…

Secondly, it is argued that not allowing 16 and 17 year-olds the vote further adds to young people’s feelings of political alienation and suggests that the views of 16 and 17-year olds are not valid.

“The exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from elections is fuelling the disengagement of 18-24 year olds. The longer young people are denied involvement in the formal democratic process, the less chance there is of engaging them ever. There is no evidence to suggest that once 18, young people are likely to become more engaged.” – Electoral Reform Society

No because…

Allowing young people the vote will not result in them suddenly taking an interest in political parties and elections. On the whole, young people are concerned with specific causes and issues and are, therefore, politically active in other ways, e.g. going on protests, signing petitions, etc. I have never heard any of my friends say that there feelings are being hurt by political alienation honestly more often than not we hear 16-17 year olds complaining about everything imaginable except for when it comes to politics and has the ERS run a survey or questionnaire saying that “the exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from elections is fueling the disengagement of 18-24 year olds and furthermore I find that if 18-24 yr olds wanted to be politically involved they would be.


Yes because…

Thirdly, due to the introduction of citizenship classes into the national curriculum, 16-year-olds are now in a better position than ever to make an informed decision at elections.

“In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. Whilst young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years.” – Electoral Reform Society

No because…

However, most children of this age are not likely to have found their own ideological positioning. They are likely to be heavily influenced by the beliefs of their teachers and parents, effectively offering these groups extra votes. and furthermore most teens don’t even care about the voting system they just view it as another subject.

Increase turnout

Yes because…

A further argument in favour of reducing the voting age is that reducing the voting age will increase turnout. This is because people are more likely to maintain the habit of voting throughout their lives if they start at a younger age.

At present, a child will usually leave school at 16. They are leaving an environment where political issues can be discussed and debated, increasing their interest in politics. Once they have left school, they may have to wait up to 8 years before they have their first opportunity to vote at a general election. By this time, they have lost interest and are less likely to vote.

No because…

The youngest age group has always provided the lowest turnout at elections. Reducing the voting age will further reduce the national average turnout for elections.
This matters because we don’t want to look bad to other contries.


Yes because…

Not all 30-year-olds have extensive knowledge of politics. As a 16-year-old I knew an extensive amount about each of the parties and their policies; I even knew a few hundred politicians and knew what they stood for.

I will not respect any law if nobody in government will represent me whilst making it.

If 16 year olds can work and pay taxes they should be allowed to choose who governs and spends their tax money on their behalf.

No because…

Firstly, 16 year olds shouldn’t be paying taxes.

You are one of the lucky few who, at the age of 16, knew what you were talking about. Most 16 year olds don’t. Democracy is about majoritative rule. If most 16 year olds are uninformed and don’t particularly understand or care about the results of elections, then they shouldn’t get the vote.


Yes because…

“The rights based argument maintains that as voting is the central way in which citizens express their judgement and support of government policy, it is only fair that those who are affected by major government decisions are given the opportunity to express their opinions via the ballot box. The most common examples of these are the responsibilities of joining the armed forces, raising a family and paying tax, the argument being that if you can die for your country, get married and pay tax, you should have the right to indicate your feelings to the government.” – Electoral Reform Society

Your voice is your vote- how can people expect the needs of under 18s to be met if their is no incentive (ie votes for the parties that help them)

No because…

It is a good argument. However, statistically, most 16 year olds are not in the army (as are most adults) and they are not married and/or raising a family. Most of them are also uninformed and generally ambivalent toward the politics, so would not vote anyway

Yes, on the face of it, if 16 year olds can “die for their country” and “get married and pay tax”, they should also be allowed to vote. Yet, how informed are their decisions in dying for their country? In getting married and raising a family? Not very. So it would be with the lowering of the voting age. So rather than informing people, we should oppress this group because we don’t like them.

Effected be the policy makers decisions

Yes because…

It is clear that in the modern day a sixteen year old is far more knowledgeable than the ones in the times of the past when such laws differentiating minors and adults were made. With the growing awareness of the society and the daily occurances we observe the sixteen year olds have the ability to understand politics and its effect on their lives. Because noone can deny that what ever happens as a result of the elections the sixteen year olds also are effected by the policies of the election winners. Therefore they must be given the right to be part of the decision making process by being included in the category of those people who chose the leaders who will be given the duty to shape their society and in the process effect their lives.

No because…

The average 16 year old in this country seems completely uninterested in politics and relatively unaware of its significance. Whilst they may realise that whatever happens has an effect on them and their lives, and may loosely follow the goings on of the world, they are not doing so to the point where they have warranted a vote. Do you really want uninformed children deciding the next Government?

It is true that many 16 year olds are informed, clever, interested and desperate to make changes. However, these 16/17 year olds are a minority in this.


Yes because…

One of the fundamental influences on our idea of government today has been the the Magna Carta Libertatum or Great Charter of Liberties. One of the most revolutionary ideas it promoted was no taxation without representation. At 16 an individual is required to involuntarily submit to the state a portion of their wealth. To then deny that individual a say as the the use of their money is fundamentally wrong.

No because…

Taxation is only contributing, under 16s are inferior because they haven’t lived as long, which is their fault, and therefore shouldn’t be able to vote.

Immature Choices

No because…

If the voting age is lowered to 16, chavs will be voting. They’ll vote for what they think is ‘cool’ and may vote for BNP or a party like that, without knowing what they are doing or letting pass through in an election for example.

Yes because…

Most chavs won’t really be interested in poltics anyway. And if they do, they will most likely be overruled by main parties (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats in an election for example)

Don’t really care

No because…

The voting age in my country is 16 and I can tell you guys that it doesn’t really change the political situation.

Most of 16-year-old teenage electorate don’t care about politics and don’t actually vote.
Besides, an immature 16-year-old may elect an unprepared candidate who gets the kid’s vote with personal qualities and a manipulated and alienated speech

Yes because…

They are still maturing, and have not learned enough yet through education as well as experience to make fully informed decisions.

No because…

Research has shown the brains of young adults are not fully mature. Thus, they may not be able to fully comprehend the consequences of their choices, including who or what they might vote for. Below is an excerpt of an article from the website “Live Science” which describes what research has uncovered concerning the brain development of young adults:

At an age when Americans are first considered adults, their brains are still maturing, a new study suggests.

Researchers at Dartmouth College scanned the brains of nineteen 18-year-old students who had moved more than 100 miles to attend school.

“During the first year of college, students have many new experiences,” said psychologist Abigail Baird, the study’s principal investigator. “They are faced with new cognitive, social, and emotional challenges.”

A group of 17 older students, ranging in age from 25 to 35, served as a control group for comparison. The results showed that the freshmen students’ brains underwent significant changes and were very different from that of the older adults.

The researchers believe the changes represent an increased awareness of the students’ inner feelings and an improved ability to organize and integrate incoming sensory information; this synthesis helps shape the kinds of emotional and behavioral responses they have to new experiences.

The results are consistent with other research suggesting that the human brain continues to grow and mature right up to the point when we become adults and even beyond. In another study, researchers found that humans don’t really develop the ability to handle multiple pieces of information at once until about the ages of 16 or 17.

“The brain of an 18-year-old college freshman is still far from resembling the brain of someone in their mid-twenties,” said Craig Bennett, a graduate student who was involved in the new research. “When do we reach adulthood? It might be much later than we traditionally think.”

(end of article). In fact, this research, although it doesn’t address the issue of voting, suggests through extrapolation, that the age at which a person should be allowed to vote be RAISED instead!

Yes because…


No because…

Another argument against lowering the voting age is the fact that at all previous general elections, the youngest age group tends to produce the lowest turnout. Allowing 16-year-olds the vote will further reduce turnouts at UK elections.

Yes because…

This would not be the case, as 16 and 17 year-olds are more likely to be in, or to have recently been in, an environment where politics can be discussed. This means they will have a developed interest in the subject and will be more likely to vote.

Even if reducing the voting age were to reduce the turnout, it is preposterous that we should limit the franchise to avoid producing an embarrassing statistic.

There would be more people eligible to vote and hence the actual voting numbers would presumably increase, even if percentage turnout didn’t.

“Some people are concerned that lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections, the theory being that a larger voting population made up of younger voters, who are currently less likely to vote, would reduce the overall turnout. However, analysis by the Electoral Reform Society shows that if 16-18 year olds turned out in the same proportion as the 18-24 age group, there would be virtually no effect on turnout. Even if not one 16-18 year old voted, overall turnout would drop by only 2%.

Women are less likely to vote than men, poor people less likely than the more affluent and people from minority ethnic groups less than white people. Nobody suggests that these lower turnout groups should have their voting rights removed. No one should suggest that some 16 and 17 year olds not voting is a good enough reason to deny the many that do want to vote.” – Electoral Reform Society

Where to draw the line?

No because…

The line has to be drawn somewhere. If the voting age was reduced to 16, could we then expect to hear cries for allowing 14-year-olds the vote? 18 is the age when an individual becomes an adult, and in a vast majority of democracies across the world, it is the age when an individual may vote at elections. It is, therefore, a sensible age at which to draw the line for UK elections.

Yes because…

A line has to be drawn somewhere, but 18 is not that age. A 16-year-old is likely to be well aware of the effect a government will have on their education and work prospects. They can pay tax. They can join the armed forces. They can raise children. A 16-year-old has just as much interest in who governs the country as any other person.

Does it really matter what the voting age is in other countries? This could even be an opportunity to take a lead and to inspire other nations to follow in our footsteps. We should certainly not leave the voting age at 18 because it’s ‘the norm’.

Inaddition, why should the fact that a 14-year old may be able to vote shock us, we trust children every day. Children as young as 13 can be trusted to handle rifles with live ammunition in the combined cadet force. But, they are institually irrational because of their date of birth until their 18th birthday.

Rights of the 16 year old are not as far reaching as supposed so they do not warrant the vote on the ‘rights’/consistency argument

No because…

16 and 17 year olds are restricted from front line duty, can only marry with their parents permission, and that anyone who purchases goods and services pays VAT.

Yes because…

16/17 year olds joining the armed forces sign up to a period of at least 4 years, meaning that at 16, they are making decisions which may place their lives in danger for half of their minimum time in the armed forces. Similarly, while 16/17 year olds in England and Wales require the permission of their parents or legal guardians to marry, being granted the legal responsibility over ones sex life, with potential health risks and/or creation of new life should not be underestimated. Finally, while VAT is indeed paid by anyone, this is clearly different to direct contributions to national insurance and jobseekers allowance paid by those over the age of 16.

The Electoral Reform Society

Why should discriminatory laws mean that uner 18s cannot vote, when these laws in of themselves are justified by the inability to vote.

Notify of
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
8 months ago

How about the taxation on gas, food, and all of that without representation? 16 year olds constantly drive themselves to and from school and practices and work and get taxed on gas and other things like that but can’t vote. Which by the way heavily affects the gas prices

8 months ago

YES! They have a right to vote! There will be higher voting turnout. They can even learn about voting in school (which I think they already do), and they can do some research about it themselves!

1 year ago

I think yes because when you are 16 years old, you are old enough to know that which one should you vote, even if you did not get it at the end, but when you are 16, you know which one, and i think that teens have knowledge too, they have the ability to vote.

8 months ago
Reply to  Um...

Everyone who disliked this comment are probably over 18, lol.

2 years ago

Want to give 16 year olds the right to vote….if they are old enough to comprehend what the right to vote means, then they are old enough to comprehend their actions and be tried as an adult when they break the law and be incarcerated with adults…juvenile offenders only under the age 16

2 years ago

Because many people move away from their parents when they turn 18, lowering the voting age would increase the amount of time that parents and kids spend living together while they’re able to vote, and could incentivize both to hit the voting booths more frequently.

Jeffery Janruary
2 years ago

If a teenager doesn´t care about an election, that doesn´t mean that they shouldn´t be allowed to vote. The teenagers who don´t care about election will not vote, and that is their personal choice. But there are also adolescants who DO care about their country. Having people who don´t care about the country not vote does not affect the country in any way,

2 years ago

Instead of just arguing and debating about ’18’ or ’16’ why don’t we just change it to 17? I asked my teacher, and she said that 1 year isn’t much of a difference. And that’s exactly my point if 1 year doesn’t matter, then let’s just change the voting age to that! It’s in between 18 and 16, so it’s in the middle of too young and too old. The person’s brain is more mature than 16 and younger than 18. It might just end this big debate. I am currently 12 so I’m nowhere near 16, nor 18. But 17 gives me more time to learn rather than 16. And it also gives me an earlier chance than 18. I think that’s a good idea (personally, you can all have your own opinions).

2 years ago
Reply to  Outofthebox

I am 16 and I don’t think you can just say “A year isn’t much of a difference”. I think if citizens can show a fair ammount of understanding of politics they should be aloud to vote regardless of age, but the people that decided the voting age should be 18 had thought it out very carefully and likely took all of these things into consideration. Changing the voting age isn’t a game, we can’t just say “oh it is not a big deal”. I may agree with you though if you can explain in depth the way that a 17 year old is mature enough to vote based on a fair ammount of evidence.

3 years ago

Yes the voting ages should be lowered as the child these days, are already getting the practice of elections in their school. They vote for the head boy, head girl, sports captain, etc.They even become mature enough to actually elect their leaders.

3 years ago

As a sixteen year old I do not think we should lower the voting age to sixteen because we are not aware enough of our surroundings. Personally I do not think any of my friends should be voting because they aren’t exposed to anything much outside of school.

Common sense
2 years ago
Reply to  Anthony

However if you noticed some of the arguments above, people mentioned that if the government decided to lower it, students at sixteen would obviously be educated more about it, perhaps even have politics as a GCSE choice. If that was the case, it would benefit everyone.

Vote yes or no
3 years ago

My valid argument…I said No, because if a person commits a crime age 18 and older they are tried as an adult, because anyone under 18 is a child in the courts eyes. We cannot allow children to make decisions that could potentially harm their future, because they are not of age to take full responsibility for their actions. This is why they have parents to make those decisions/choices for them.

3 years ago

I personally think teens should be able to vote with parent permission. This would parallel with the other things teens can do at this age, i.e. getting married, joining the army, etc…

3 years ago

I personally think that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote, as it builds confidence and it gives the coming generation a chance to have a say in what their future will look like

Many people are unwilling to vote, but starting this practice at an early age will help in developing a steady habit and therefore, they will be less likely to resent voting.

Many people say that 16-year-olds are irresponsible, but there will always be the few people who refuse to grow up.

3 years ago
Reply to  UnKnOwN...

Yes because 16-year-olds should have the rights to vote. They are old enough to know what is right from wrong!!

Joshler Dunseph
3 years ago

Heck I am younger than sixteen and I am way more matured than the common misconception for people under eighteen years old. C’mon people. Not every teenager is exactly the same, and they should have a chance to decide what they want their future to be like. Besides, there are no wrong votes. It is all a matter of personal opinion, and the only reason why sixteen-year-olds cannot vote is because other people think that their opinions are incorrect.

Joshler Dunseph
3 years ago

I believe the voting age should be lowered to sixteen. Here is why: teenagers, as we know, are more adoptable to change than adults. Therefore, they are more understanding and are more likely to chose what they think is right, not just choosing the party that they voted for in the last election. Teenagers–if they were given a chance to vote–would actually take it seriously. If they got the right to have a say in what country they want to live in, they would do their research and take an interest in politics and vote for what they think is best for the country. Although they have yet to face many adult deeds such as owning a house, raising children, having an important job, etc., they listen to what others have to say. With the internet nowadays, they have the opportunity to hear what others that may be far away from them have to say. Because they are young, they have not formed many ideas on how a perfect government would be like yet, so they would have to engage in politics to be able to cast their vote. They would listen to other people and what they have to say, unlike most adults who have a fixed mindset on what they want for themselves and do not care what anyone else wants. Everyone who is reading this please stay alive for today. You are amazing. It is going to be okay <3 |-/

3 years ago

The voting age should be kept at 18. There wouldn’t be the same compelling point for lowering the voting age as there was in the early 1970s (Old enough to be drafted but not to vote?). Not to mention that people almost five years younger than I got to start voting the same year I did. Anyone who experienced that as I did should be against a lower voting age. It all gives me a strong conviction that lowering the voting age should be a once-in-my-lifetime thing.

4 years ago

Absolutely not, these are the same stupid people that let their kids run loose and do things that end up getting them killed. Their brain is not fully developed and it shows in many of the stupid things they do. There are many that have common sense but they should learn all there is about our government and how it works, before being sent into the voting booth. Not just what they see on TV and what their narrow minded hypocritical parents tell them. Voters should always know both sides of bill, candidate, election, they are just not capable of being that informed or care.
Why do we have to make our children grow up any faster than they do. Let them be kids for the few years they have . They will have 40-50 yrs to vote, what’s the rush?

3 years ago
Reply to  Candy

The rush is that they don’t want to inherit a world that you old people have screwed up. That’s why they want to vote. They don’t want to be just kids. They want to have a say in the world that they are inheriting.

And you are saying that adults know both sides of the bill and aren’t just looking at TV? That’s a complete lie.

4 years ago

People my age should be allowed to vote. the amount of times that a so called “adult” has called me an adult when it suits there needs or called me a child when its cheaper to pay for me or im not mature enough to talk about something because i dont agree with them. 16 year olds should be allowed to vote, we should be allowed to make our own desicions in life instead of someone who doesnt know us, and is only called an adult because they were born maybe a few years before us. your bound to know an adult, who’s intelect is far surpassed by a 16 year old, so why shouldnt we be allowed to vote for ourselves. 14 year olds are forced to choose subjects at school which will effect them greatley and you trust them to do that, you should be trusting the people that the vote is going to effect, instead of making these descisions for us and let us decide our own future. the majority of people who voted for brexit were the older generations, this wont impact them as much as it will for my generation!

Let 16 year olds vote
4 years ago

If a 16 year old is allowed to join the armed forces, get married and start a family why can’t they vote as well? Voting is not more important than making choices like creating a life for you to care for.

Kirk Fiorentino
3 years ago

Where do you get this idea that 16 year olds can join the military?? They can’t

Bill Symons
4 years ago

16 year olds should not have the vote, the are still children and dont have the knowledge or the experience to act responsibly. Unscrupulous politicians are preying on the youngsters idealistic outlook to change governments and policies to suit their own ends.No responsible parent would give them that authority in their own home. As a retired tradesman I would never allow a young apprentice to make major decisions on a job so I dont want children deciding the future of the country until they have some understanding of whats involved.

3 years ago
Reply to  Bill Symons

But being still in school and under the influence of teachers and parents they actually are more involved then people give then credit for. I know many teens who are very politically involved and actually care about the fate of our country and world, these teens care more than a lot of adults I know. And there is a simple reason for that. Teens are going to have to live longer with the consequences of their actions. You sir, being retired probably are over 60, and lets face it, are only going to live on this earth for another 20, years 30 at best. Teens are going to have to deal with the changes you make for the rest of their live which if they are 16 or 17, is a very long time. So we should let them have a say in what they are going to grow up in, and some day, control.

Kirk Fiorentino
3 years ago
Reply to  Bill Symons

I agree with you 100%. I have ab16 year old daughter and I asked her about this topic. She does follow politics but does not think 16 or 17 year olds are ready yet to vote

3 years ago
Reply to  Bill Symons

How do you get the experience if you don’t get the chance to vote?

9 months ago
Reply to  Sup

if you want 16 year old to be able to vote, the same people who are more prone to peer pressure, mostly looks at everything at face value then also give them control over himself, let them be legal adults over them self for which their parents have no legal control over them. let them start paying taxes if they have a job, and if they dont let them file for unemployment.

Someone young
4 years ago

The only reason more people voted yes is because younger people have more time on their hands and they visit websites like debatewise.

4 years ago

Why shouldn’t it? I mean, what harm is going to do. If they don’t vote, then nothing will change. If they do, then it’s just expressing the opinions others. What’s the harm in doing anything like it. The UK did it once before, from 21 to 18, what’s the problem here guys?

Marilla Theola
4 years ago

What if the state or government made a test where all potential voters had to answer questions on the candidates stands and what some of the important current laws are? That way age doesn’t matter!!!

3 years ago
Reply to  Marilla Theola

That would be very interesting, I have a feeling a lot of people of all ages would actually know very little! In particular about the parties that they don’t support. But how do you make sure that this ‘test’ is impartial and not biased towards the current government party?

2 years ago
Reply to  Sophie

I think the government can definetly come up with abstract test questions meant to test citizens understanding of politics. We can try to avoid biased questions by making them as fact based as possible, or possibly having each party agree upon themselves their general view on each question and, have citizens Summarize it to the best of their abilities. We might have a question like “which political party is most likely to be characterized by respect for american traditions and Christian values?” I think if we all worked hard to come up with general abstract definitions for parties that will simply show our understanding, we can develope a voting system where all to most ages can vote.

4 years ago

The argument that they are immature or uninterested isn’t good enough to the degree that a lot of adults aren’t mature or interested enough when voting but it is still their right. Some arguments suggest that as 16/17 year olds are unable to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or get a tattoo that this means they shouldn’t be able to vote either – which is inconsistent with the debate anyway, the ability to do these acts based on age doesn’t necessarily demonstrate the capacity to truly think before voting anyway.

The counter point can be made that at 16/17, they can: get married, drive, join the military, have sex, get married, smoke, need to decide on which uni to attend if at all (dictating their future), own a house, have a pint with a meal and even pay taxes like around 9% of the youth qualify for. These have very little bearing on demonstrating their capacity for maturity as even those deemed ‘stupid’ can perhaps do some of these. However, these all pretty much require parental consent; the argument has been made that this demonstrates how they aren’t responsible enough to have the right to vote but I would argue otherwise. The consent of a parent can help confirm or vouch for one’s maturity and I would like to believe that the young should especially have a voice in deciding their future, given that many choices to education would benefit from involving them in the discussion and they are quite technologically adept – allowing for even a wider scope with their perspective and facts than generations before them.

There are idiots of all ages and if our ever dwindling turnouts show anything, they show a growing disengagement with politics that would best be encouraged than dismissed because the voter can’t grow facial hair.

Lucy poynter
4 years ago

Yes, because if 16 year olds can leave school, get a job, and live an independent life away from their parents, why shouldn’t they have a right to vote for their future, instead of having people who are far older deciding their future for them. Also… As a sixteen year old who already has a job, and knows for a fact that 16 year olds are incredibly interested in politics, especially when we weren’t allowed to vote for brexit. The generalisation that some of the people give 16 year olds on here is absolute rubbish.

4 years ago
Reply to  Lucy poynter

And most kids, except celebrities, can not get a decent job leaving school at 16-17, support themselves or raise a child on their own. Either family helps or they become dependent on government services. How is that mature.
Sorry, you are one in 10,000 that care. There are many adults that have a college education that have no clue who is on the money they spend everyday. How many amendments to the constitution, how many members are in congress, how it is decided, how many yrs does a member of the HOR serve, a senator, a president and on and on.
Would not judge others by yourselves, just insulting yourself, 1 in that 10,000 might be able to answer two of the above questions and probably less on those over 21.

Séan Galvin
4 years ago

No, as a 16 year old I believe I should not be able to vote for two clear reasons, A) The slippery slope argument and B) We live with our parents we will until we are at least 18, and looking at common consensus, 21 in most cases, so our vote would clearly be influenced by them, whether it be voting with parents or “rebelling” and voting clear opposites, and whilst education in 16 year-olds about politics has risen recently, the ending of education, in the UK at least, is at 18, which is when we should be able to vote.

Awin Hope-Courtney
4 years ago

I’m currently 17 years of age and I’ve been gasping for a chance to put a tick in a box on referendum day. I’ve been closely monitoring the beautiful and spicy political world and if the age had been lowered I would have had my deserved chance to vote. Truthfully I just don’t understand why I haven’t had the chance. DISAPPOINTED:(

Nicaila Woods-Anderson
4 years ago

I look over this whole page & not any is there a higher percentage of “yeses” but also in the “yes” responses theirs also more information/reason/explanation of why the voting age should be changed to 16.

4 years ago

16- year olds are not only just as mature as even some adults, but 16 is when they are Learning about how the world works and how to get involved in politics. if they are mature enough to be tested for their License, then they should have the right to vote.
Lowering the voting is a smart thing to do because, not only does it give them a chance to get involved, it helps them Grow up.

Samantha Ross
8 years ago

If they are mature enough to get married or join the army, they should be responsible enough to vote also if you have to pay income tax at 16 I believe it is really unfair that they don’t have a say in how that money is spent or which political party is spending it.

Some people would argue/disagree and say lots of 16-17 year olds don’t even know who to vote for or just vote for who they think is “cool”.

I don’t agree with this because there are so many young adults who want to vote and know which political party they think will change things best but don’t get a chance to be heard because some people don’t want to vote.

Nower days ( with the voting age at 18) although people are eligible to vote thousands or even more don’t vote so if your worried that if the voting age is lowered to 16 and some of them don’t vote what makes a difference between now and then?

Señor Hyde
5 years ago
Reply to  Samantha Ross

Firstly, there are many 16 & 17 year olds who are interested in politics and would have a firm mind on who they would vote for, and why
Secondly, any ‘chavs’ who would just ‘vote for the cool party’ who are not interested in politics, would probably just not vote at all!!!

Andrew Kline
8 years ago

What about 16 year-old’s having been subjected to progressive ideology from the time they were 5? Could this be what’s behind this movement to lower the voting age…as if the lowering from 21 to 18 had not done enough damage!

Marilla Theola
4 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Kline

Then the parents should not trust the school system to teach their child about the government!!!
I agree with your statement.