The Debate on Voting Rights for Teenagers Under 18

The age-old question of whether teenagers under the age of 18 should have the right to vote has long been a topic of debate. Some argue that at 18, individuals possess enough maturity and judgment to participate in the democratic process, while others maintain that adolescents are not yet ready due to their lack of life experience and responsibility.

The Argument Against Teen Voting

Maintaining that the criteria for voting rights should be consistent with those for other legally binding decisions, many assert that teenagers under 18 should not be allowed to vote. For instance, society typically does not consider those under the age of 18 mature enough to legally enter into contracts, such as those necessary for purchasing cigarettes, alcohol, or driving. This lack of maturity is also reflected in restrictions related to marriage, which is also considered a form of contract.

The Nativist Argument

The more nuanced argument against lowering the voting age involves the concept of governance. In a democratic society, as Jefferson emphasized in the Declaration of Independence, the consent of the governed is the foundation of governance. It is argued that this consent should only come from those who are capable of running the country, which is generally accepted to be adults. Children, or at least those under 18, are not expected or allowed to run things, nor should they be allowed to make such important decisions as voting.

The Question of Readiness

Some critics question the ability of individuals under 21 to make wise judgments, even if society allows them to run their lives. However, supporters of lowering the voting age argue that as long as society considers individuals at that age capable of running their own lives, they should also be entrusted with the responsibility of voting. This perspective suggests that the ability to make informed decisions is more about practical maturity rather than mere age.

Alternative Perspectives

There are also those who will say that opposing this question rather than a motion is missing the point. A motion promoting the idea that 16-year-olds should have the right to vote might render the debate easier, as most 16-year-olds are likely to support such a proposal.

Machiavellian Approach

A cynical viewpoint suggests a more pragmatic stance. The argument could be made that lowering the voting age is a tactic to maintain political power by influencing the votes of the young through emotional manipulation. This viewpoint is particularly relevant in democratic systems where a significant portion of the electorate is positioned to be more easily swayed by emotional appeals. Some might even advocate for voting rights to be extended to those as young as kindergarten age, with the oversight of trusted instructors, if it means ensuring a continuous swing in votes towards their preferred party.