How young is too young? Thecase for lowering the voting age
Pressure is building indemocracies around the world to lower the voting age to 16. For nationalelections, Brazil (in 1988), Austria (2007) and Argentina (2012) have led theway. For local elections, parts of Germany in 1995, the Isle of Man (2006) andNorway (2011) all lowered the minimum age of voting in elections to 16 yearsold.
InAustralia, however, one political scientist has sought to slow the momentumwith a new analysis ofthe case for lowering the voting age. ANU political scientist Ian McAllistergained media attention recently for his conclusion that the evidence is notstrong enough to justify the reform. But is it?
Alltoo often, political scientists engaging in the debate about lowering the votingage see it only in abstract terms. In their analyses voters are ascribeda numerical value corresponding with their age – 16, 18, 21 – without anyeffort to distinguish the reality of the lives being led by people at theseages.
The turnout question
Thecentral claim made by McAllister, for instance, is that electoral turnoutfell in most advanced democracies after the voting age was lowered from 21 to18 from the 1970s onwards. This, he implies, is because turnout among 18-20year olds was lower than older generations, and they brought down the average.
Whileone cannot dispute that the enfranchisement of 18-20 year olds coincidedwith declining turnout, it is misleading to suggest a relationship between thetwo without considering the wide range of other causes.
Forinstance, economic inequality increased markedly in recent decades in advanceddemocracies. The effect of this on political participation has receivedprecious little attention from political scientists. Where it has been studied,the negative impact of inequality on turnout is clear.
How young is too young?
Anothercommon mistake is the assumption that the effect of lowering the votingage to 16 would be the same as lowering it to 18. McAllister admits to assumingthat 16-17 year olds are “behaviorally similar” to 18-19 year olds. This isfolly: the lives of most 16-17 year olds are markedly different to those agedover 18. 16-17 year olds tend to live with their parents, in a settledcommunity where they have spent much of their lives.
Post-18,by contrast, young people’s lives become far more chaotic. They leaveschool and may leave home, embark on university or full-time employment, anddeal with the range of stresses that accompany adulthood for the first time.
Thechart below shows the ages at which people move from one local governmentjurisdiction to another in England and Wales. The peak time for people to movebetween areas is 18-19, with almost one-quarter of people doing so.
Peoplein their late teens and early 20s are living precisely the kinds of lives thatmake them less likely voters before we even take their age into acｃount 16 and17 year olds are not. While this does not mean we should expect 16 and 17 yearolds to vote in extraordinarily high numbers, it does suggest it will be easierto engage them in elections.
ArticleSource: http://theconversation.com/how-young-is-too-young-the-case-for-lowering-the-voting-age-25793
Image Source: http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-16/voting.jpg
VOCABULARYWORDS:
1. Momentum (n.) ~ the driving force of adevelopment or course of events
2. Justify (v.) ~ to demonstrate or proveto be just, right, or valid
3. Abstract (adj.) ~ difficult tounderstand
4. Scribe (v.) ~ to write
5. Turnout (phrasal verb) ~ to arrive orassemble, as for a public event or entertainment
6. Dispute (v.) ~ to express disagreementover
7. Assumption (n.) ~ a minor premise
8. Chaotic (n.) ~ a condition of greatdisorder or confusion
QUESTIONSFOR DISCUSSION:
1. What is the legal voting age in South Korea? Is it the same for localelections and national elections?
2. Do you think that 16-year olds are mature enough to choose their ｃountry’sleader? Why?
3. What other factors do you think should be considered on deciding who shouldbe allowed to vote? Discuss your answer/s?
