An article made public in Economist supporting lowering the voting age to 16 because it couldincrease youth turnout by getting young people to adapt to the political systemearly. Adding more eligible voters isnot the answer to the civic malaise. Therefore, we shouldn’t motivate youngpeople to vote. The legal age for voting should not be lowered to 16. Thoughthere are different age range for same activities but one age range for voting,it shouldn’t trigger the reason to lower the voting age to 16. The voting age, infact, should be raised to 25 if need be.
Young people are less knowledgeable when it comes topolitical and economic issues. They cannot be trusted to make such an importantdecision that apparently, can put the country in chaos. They should not beallowed to vote at such age for their brains are still “technically developing,so aren’t yet fully matured.” (The Guardian)”How can you really make aninformed decision about what government you want when you’re not old enough tohave really “experienced” how the world works yet.” (The Guardian) Don’tMillennials have any clue on how the world functions and influences our decisionsso why give them the chance to vote? It is said that even a person in his/herearly 20s doesn’t have sufficient experience to make a substantial decision asimportant as the government.Again, it said that young people “tend to seevoting as a “choice” rather than a “duty” …” (Economist par. 4).
I stronglybelieve that voting should be by choice regardless of age differences. Somepoliticians may conclude that voting should be compulsory – which should bestrongly opposed. Moreover, millennialsshouldn’t be allowed to vote whether it be made compulsory or not.
As a matter of fact, young people tend to begullible and selfish regarding matters they have little or no knowledge about.Millennials can be easily persuaded to vote for a candidate based on ridiculousempty promises. Millennials will deliberately vote for a candidate they knowfor sure to be corrupt – a candidate who isn’t fit to be an idealleader – because they supposedly share the same values. The article in Economist points out that loweringthe voting age to 16 would build up the voice of the young and would justifythat their opinion matters. I agree with this claim, but my point is the voiceof the young could be heard evidently in so many ways.
To think that loweringthe voting age to 16 would increase casted votes is clearly insane. Choosingthe right candidate for election matters so it would be advisable for thevoting age to remain as it legally is, 18.For the most part, voting age should not belowered to 16 to save the country from chaos. Voting at 16 would not make civiclife any easier nor will it change the system.
Most informed and matured peopleshould be the ones turning out because they genuinely care and understand thepolitical system. I believe a change in voting age can help to a certain limit inbringing forth a more informed electorate – and that is by lifting theeligible voting age, not lowering it.