The voting age should be 16 эссе

A debate that has seemed to become more popular in the past couple of years is the voting age n the United States, and whether it should be lowered to 16. Many teenagers across the nation have reached out and tried to bigot to help get the subject some attention and get those in the political world talking. Many others, mostly adults, are astonished and appalled at this idea, and don’t seem to take them or the uproar towards the debate seriously.

I have discovered three articles from a number of different kinds of sources on this debate.

To keep it interesting, I included articles that were opposed as well as proponents lowering the voting age. These articles are called ‘Top Ten Reasons for Lowering the Voting Age,’ ‘Don’t Drop the Voting Age,’ and ‘Maintain Our Voting Standards. ‘ The first article, called the ‘Top Ten Reasons for Lowering the Voting Age’ was written by the National Youth Rights Association. It held some very strong, solid arguments and reasons for convincing its audience of their claim to lower the voting age to 16.

It was surprising how many reasons they gave to support their views and content that they included common opposing arguments. The author also included evidence and reasoning to derail these common viewpoints on the matter. Logos was one of the most prevalent appeals used in this article, they tried to remain very logical so that their arguments were more sound and harder to prove wrong. One of the most common arguments used against lowering the voting age is that teenagers are not mature, responsible, or intelligent enough.

They managed to shed some light on this common viewpoint when they proclaimed that,”Voting Rights Act of 1965 states that: ‘any person who has not been adjudged an incompetent and who has completed the sixth grade in any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where instruction is carried on predominantly in the English language, possesses sufficient literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in any election. ‘

If a Sixth grade education is deemed adequate knowledge to vote, how can older youth be denied the right to vote? They managed to bring a refreshing new point to the table, with almost a slight sarcastic undertone. As the new idea begins to sink in, it is easy to agree with them, if a sixth grade education is the requirement to vote, then it is logical that sixteen year olds should be allowed to vote. They also continue on with using logical appeals, with a sensible point against the same subject, “The fact is, intelligence or maturity is not the basis upon which the right to vote is granted, if that were the case all voters would need to pass a test before voting.

Youth shouldn’t be held to a stricter standard than adults; lower the voting age. ” This statement is pretty straightforward and speaks for itself, although youth and adults are treated differently in other senses, on the subject of voting, if it is not based solely on maturity and intelligence, then what claims do the opposers have to stop the possibility of lowering the voting age? It keeps to the logical sense, and clearly undermines the common uncertainties toward the debate at hand.

If you think about what the author is trying to convey and what goal they are trying to reach, it is a national association trying to help get the voting age lowered, they didn’t use much ethos throughout their article, but it wasn’t really necessary for them to help reach this goal of rethinking the legal voting age. Their main appeal was logos, and that alone for them was powerful and convincing enough, because they remained pretty unbiased throughout the article and therefore remained purely logical and factual, which is easy to convince an audience as long as they understand it.

They were just trying to get the facts out there and explain why they feel the age should be lowered. They definitely have knowledge on the subject, and they definitely know what they’re talking about. An example of where they used ethos to help their claim is when they quote a college professor, ” A 1996 survey by Bruce Merrill, an Arizona State University journalism professor, found a strong increase in turnout. Merrill compared turnout of registered voters in five cities with Kids Voting with turnout in five cities without the program.

Merrill found that between five and ten percent of respondents reported Kids Voting was a factor in their decision to vote. This indicated that 600,000 adults nationwide were encouraged to vote by the program. ” This statement actually uses two appeals to ethos, an outside source who is knowledgable on the topic, and a statistical study that helps prove that lowering the voting age would probably help increase the voter turnout, although many people say otherwise.

Pathos also seemed absent in this article, but as I said before, was unnecessary, since they were trying to achieve a logical, complete argument that would be hard to undermine and easy to convince an audience. This is an effective way of convincing an audience without taking the easy way out, as many do, by appealing to just their emotions. Another common, easy way authors use to make their arguments is making unstated assumptions, which are easier to derail and also sort of the lazy way out, there are more dignified ways of making a solid claim, that won’t be rebuttaled so quickly.

Unstated assumptions is another tactic the author of the ‘Top Ten Reasons for Lowering the Voting Age’ did not include, which makes their article that much better, because as stated earlier, others aren’t so quick to rebuttal against them, since unstated assumptions don’t include real, legitmate reasons for their warrant and argument. The second article, ‘Don’t Drop the Voting Age,’ is from a Canadian online magazine that covers all kinds of topics, by Robyn Urback.

Her opinion is quite clear from the beginning of the article, when she begins with an imagination, “In this fantasyland, the Liberals are running on a strong platform of increased Justin Bieber performances, while the Conservatives are trailing with their “More School Dances” five-year-plan. The NDP’s “We’ll Talk to your Mom about Extending your Curfew” promise, however, hasn’t really taken off. ” Funny, yet a major over exaggeration, as if that is what would happen if teens were given the right to vote.

Her tone throughout this whole article, as shown in many quotes, shows that she does not take teens, even children, very seriously, she seems to look at the whole idea of lowering the voting age as a joke, and a sarcastic tone shines through in her writing often as well. She also compares B. C. Liberal leadership candidate Mike de Jong’s idea that 16-year-olds should be able to vote in provincial elections because it will create a “culture of engagement” by getting young people to the polls early, to giving out opsicles at polling stations.

It becomes ovious very quickly in her article that she is quite biased, and it seems that her clouded, close-minded judgment influences her ability to convince her audience and provide a solid argument for her claim in the beginning of her article. That being said, she still provides her audience with appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos, and tries to include many outside sources as well as remain more unbiased after her immature comments in the preface of her article.

She continues on, “While extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds would spectacularly increase turnout in the newly-formed “Under 18” category, the relative numbers will be just as abysmal as for those aged 18-24. In fact, they would probably be worse. Statistics show that voter turnout increases with age, even within the 18-24 category. So if those trends are any indication, 16-year-olds would likely have the worst showing of all. “

She begins this quote by using logic, that lowering the voting age would increase turnout in the under 18 category, stating the obvious, but says that they wouldnt be much different from the turnout for the 18-24 category. All very true, but how does she know that the number for those under eighteen wouldn’t be any different from those ages 18 to 24? In reality, she doesn’t, she is making an unstated assumption, which has no actual backing or evidence, and therefore does not help her argument at all, it really ruins it because all she did was provide us with her personal opinion and ideas, which does not help to convince us well.

She does appeal to ethos in this quote, by including that statistics (although she does include where they came from) show that voting increases with age. If that statement is true, and proven by statistics, then wouldn’t lowering the voting age to 16 help the 18-24 age group increase? She did not include that point, which is surprising considering it seems like a very good one, but it is obviously because this would again derail her previous argument that lowering the voting age would not help anything.

The author goes on to talk about the implications of a sixteen year old voting if they were “bribed by their parents, or by a stroke of luck” they voted, what knowledge would they have on what they’d be voting for? She makes a logical point to help this claim, “With few more than 14 years out of diapers, the newly-authorized voters would have little life experience from which to draw political conclusions or cast an informed vote. On the other hand though, being uninformed does not negate one’s right to vote.

Even when individuals are back in diapers, they can still cast a ballot, despite their perhaps eroding reasoning abilities. Of course, not all 90-year-olds have lost their wits, whereas no 16-year-old can remember, for example, the tax-happy premier that hijacked the province two terms ago. ” First off, makes sure that she added the word ‘diapers’ just to make sure that her audience doesn’t forget sixteen year olds still wear them, and she makes a point when she makses an analogy between teens’ lack of experience and knowledge to senior citizens’ lack of memory for their experiences, and they’re still technically allowed to vote.

She also touches on the fact that teens are easily influenced, “There have been countless studies affirming just how susceptible high school students are to outside influence– and just count the number of Canada Goose brand winter jackets you see on teens next time you’re in a mall if you have any doubts…. Politics would become an even dirtier game. ” She is once again making an unstated assumption that teens would be influenced by outside sources as much as she exaggerates that they do in her statement. Obviously, they aren’t, and she has no real, factual proof that they are influenced the way she says they are.

She ends her article with the statement, “Sixteen-year-olds should not be voting on that in which they have little stake, particularly during those formative years when “relativism” is just a word on an English pop quiz. ” She went out of her way to make sure that the reader did not forget that teens are, in fact, in high school. She included plenty of pathos throughout this article, with snide comments towards children, teens, and even the elderly, she made it very obvious, and she did not try to leave out her own personal emotions and disdain for lowering the voting age at all in her article.

It is astonishing that she included so much of her personal opinions and emotions, because that does not help in convincing her audience to believe what she believes, unless they already feel the same way as she does on the subject. ‘Mainaining Our Voting Standards’ was the last article chosen for this analysis, written by Michael J. Ring on the prestigious school of Massachusett’s Institute of Technology oldest online newspaper. He begins his article with the idea that both proposals to help lower he voting age at Cambridge City Council “Must be rejected. ” He also refers to these proposals as “Dangerous and problematic.

He also states that, “The protests of bitter, whining students over the new Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests demonstrate that many teens are not yet mature enough to participate in the political process. ” Maturity, a topic I touched on earlier in the National Youth Rights Association’s article analysis, where it is made clear that voting has nothing to do with intelligence and maturity when considering many older adults who have the same maturity as a ten year old. It is quite obvious from the beginning of this particular article what Michael J. Ring’s intent and opinion on the matter of lowering the voting age is, he feels very similarly about it as did Robyn Urback in her article I mentioned earlier, ‘Don’t Drop the Voting Age. ‘

He cares a lot about the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System tests, and feels that adolescents don’t. “A group of immature, angry teens could wreak havoc in a close school committee election, sweeping out candidates committed to high standards and true reform in favor of candidates who will oppose MCAS and pander to the students’ selfish, myopic vision. He pretty much compares teens to what sounds like a storm, ‘wreaking havoc’ and such. He makes a logical point when he states that, “Certainly, many 16-year-olds demonstrate the maturity that should be required of a voter, but undoubtedly many of their peers do not. ” Isn’t this true for adults as well? I could think of many adults with the maturity of a teenager, which makes teens not much different.

He makes another point by using appeal to logos, “Councillors argue that engaging teens in the political process before they leave for college will allow them to become knowledgeable about hometown politics and form a voting habit before leaving for college… Any young voter away at college can easily follow hometown happenings with a little initiative. ” News and information of happenings around the world is easy to find, fact. Obvious, but true point Michael J. Ring. He makes a terrible unstated assumption when he says, “Allowing non-citizens to vote creates the same problem that allowing 16-year-olds to vote would create.

Granting the franchise to non-citizens injects a pool of voters who have no obligation to learn about our political institutions into the electorate. ” He is comparing sixteen year olds to non-citizens and saying that sixteen year olds are not obligated to vote, basically, which is assuming that they don’t know or care about many of the topics they would vote on if allowed the priviledge. Surprising that an author pulished in such an esteemed school’s online newspaper would make such a frivilous mistake.

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, give them the rights they deserve!

It would get younger people interested in politics

Consistency

Alienation

Citizenship

Increase turnout

Representation

Rights

Effected be the policy makers decisions

Tax

Immature Choices

Don’t really care

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

Turnout

Where to draw the line?

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

Exclusively available on IvyPanda
Available only on IvyPanda

Updated: Jun 11th, 2022

Introduction

Why is it that we can work, join the army and get married by the age of 16, but we can’t vote at 16? What is it about electing a political representative that’s so much more important then choosing a husband or sending yourself off to potential death?

Discussion

The voting age was lowered to 18 nearly 30 years ago, and many people now believe this out of date law is in desperate need of another revision. The most ancient of arguments “No taxation without representation” is still relevant today. If you work at sixteen, whether it’s flipping burgers in McDonald’s, a modern apprenticeship or holding down a Saturday job, taxes are still being taken out of your hard earned wages. (Mandle, 2007) If you’re contributing money to society, shouldn’t you have a say in where it goes and how it’s used?

In some parts of the world, youth of all ages can be sent to adult prisons by adult courts where they are put on trial for adult crimes. But who determines what these crimes are? Who sets the age at which you can be tried as an adult? The voters do. This may sound oversimplified, but the fact is, when voters elect a lawmaker, they are also choosing the laws. Candidates running for local councils, mayor, Member of Parliament, and, of course, Prime Minister, make public the laws they want passed. (Lankford, 2007)

Those against may use statistics to dispute this argument, citing poor voting turnout among 18-24 year olds and little understanding by 16 years olds of basic government functions. Others claim that those under 18 are immature, easily manipulated, uninterested and uniformed on political issues. But considering what goes on in government legislatures and city council meetings – those circus rings with predominately older white men yelling and making accusations at each other- it’s hard to take these arguments seriously.

At 16 many students are learning about history, government and economics. With new sophisticated school curricula as well as the internet, teens are growing in independence, aptitude and intellect. (Wattenberg, 2007) There is also absolutely no evidence to prove that teens are less knowledgeable on political issues than adults. (Lankford, 2007) After all, how did Hitler get voted in to power? It certainly wasn’t by the country’s “immature”16 year olds, but the adult voters. If teens are learning about these issues in the classroom, why not give us the opportunity to apply what we are learning in the real world, through the ballot box?

It is true that some 16 year olds don’t know a great deal about politics but this is not restricted to the youth alone. There are many adults who base their vote on whether “Mr X” has a full head of hair, a comforting voice, or whether he’ll give them the biggest tax cut regardless of how absurd his policies are.

Conclusion

Our society has changed, and teens now have to deal with many adult responsibilities. Many teens read the paper and watch the news just like adults. We know what’s going on politically and have opinions. Why must someone under 18 take on the responsibilities and there consequences as an adult without having the right to vote like one? The UN convention for the rights of the child says that all ‘All young people have the right to express our opinions by whatever means available.’ Therefore shouldn’t we be allowed to express ourselves through voting for our choice of political party? 16 year olds are affected by many of the laws made today and we have definitely earned the right to have our say in enacting them.

References

Lankford, Ronald D. (2007) Should the Voting Age Be Lowered? Greenhaven Press.

Wattenberg, Martin P. (2007) Is Voting for Young People? With a Postscript on Citizen Engagement. Longman Publishers; 2 Edition.

Mandle, Jay R. (2007) Democracy, America, and the Age of Globalization. Cambridge University Press.

This thesis on Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to 16? was written and submitted by your fellow
student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you
must cite it accordingly.

Need a custom Thesis sample written from scratch by

professional specifically for you?

Особые предложения 2
Открыть

This question has been debated nationwide during these past years. A fundamental element in the success of a democratic society is the willingness of the people to be self-governing. In today’s modern society, to say that we have a government that is for, by, and of the people does not mean that each citizen is dictatorial. It does not imply that each citizen takes the law into his or her own hands, but rather that everyone has the responsibility to actively participate in society. Thus, the problem of declining voter participation is an extremely serious one indeed. People are trying to come up with various solutions for this problem but the most debatable resolution is whether the voting age be lowered from eighteen to sixteen. What would persuade the government to lower the voting age to an even lower one than the young adults age of eighteen? On the other hand how can the youth of Canada who have their individual opinions and beliefs be able to make a difference in society without having the right to vote? I strongly believe that lowering the voting age will interest youth to further participate in politics and they will have an effect on the course of their future.

In today’s world, sixteen year olds are more mature and responsible than ever. Taking into consideration the amount of responsibility placed on teens, it does not seem inappropriate to include the right to vote. The population of Ontario between the ages of ten to eighteen accounts for about 14% of the province’s overall population. Of this 14%, thousands already possess a vast political knowledge and have similar concerns and demands of people who actually vote. In addition to that, the youth of Canada also have problems of their own which they are unable to address substantially to the government. Teenagers are interested in matters much different compared to an employed adult. They are more concerned about class sizes, lack of job opportunities and minimum wage. It has been said that parents should be the voice for their children but it is inevitable that they will vote according to their best interests and needs. Therefore their opinions remain unheard and aren’t taken into consideration, which is absolutely unfair in a democratic society.

Denying youth the right to vote is the same as denying women or racial minorities the right to vote. Nowadays it is very common for teenagers to have jobs and pay taxes, which is similar to what adults do. They also go to school to learn about politics and are aware of the issues in our world. The youth of Canada are perceived as mature in many aspects of life and yet they are seen as too immature to vote for themselves in an election or referendum. Sixteen year olds living in Canada could legally get married, have a family of their own, possess a driver’s license, work full time and yet the right to vote is refused to them. It is rather confusing because if you can manage all these responsibilities and make these choices how can you be too immature to vote.

It is frustrating for people under eighteen who are politically aware and put a lot of effort in their work for political campaigns. The beliefs and priorities of sixteen year olds are unique to them. Politicians who once were sixteen year olds are unlikely to have an accurate perspective compared to a current teenager. If the Canadian Government cares at all about the opinions and desires of their young population, they must give them the opportunity to vote for themselves. By giving them this opportunity, they will have the possibility to influence the course their life.

The right to vote is currently granted at probably the worst moment in one’s life. At eighteen many choose to leave the home and community they have lived in for the majority of their lives. They either move away to carry on with their studies or move away from home in search of a job. Being in a new community, which you are unfamiliar with, will turn off many voters. Lowering the voting age to sixteen will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, are aware of local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings such as school, parents and friends. They feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote.

Attempts are often made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth acquainted with good habits, like voting? If Canadian citizens are involved in the process of voting earlier and get into the habit of doing so, the chances of them sticking with it through life is much higher. Political experts believe that not only will the turnout of young voters increase; it is also very probable that the turnout of their parents will increase as well.

The argument that youth should be given the right to vote because they lack the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions is only valid if these criteria are applied to all citizens. Yet they are not applied to everyone, only to young people. Senile people are not deprived of this right and neither are the thousands of alcoholics, drug-addicts and psychotics. It is obvious that intelligence or maturity is not the basis upon which the right to vote is granted because if that were the case all voters would need to pass a test before voting. Youth and adults should have the same voting rights in a democratic country.

Lowering the voting age will not dramatically improve the lives of youth, but I strongly believe that by giving them a real stake in their present lives that it will push them to become more involved and active citizens.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline «Vote early, vote often»