Should the voting age be 16?

16-year-olds are capable of formulating opinions

Question: Should the voting age be 16?
Position1 of 3›: Yes, the age should be lowered
Argument‹3 of 4›: 16-year-olds are capable of formulating opinions

Sixteen-year-olds are beginning to become independent-they are old enough to make their own decisions.

The argument

The case rests on evidence rather than on principle. So many sixteen-year-olds are changing and morphing the world of politics, and the argument points to individuals rather than to a general claim about adolescent capacity. Greta Thunberg, with her activism on the nature of global warming and climate change, moved a subject up the international agenda. Malala made her voice heard, loud and clear, on education. Amika George staged protests to fight for period poverty, an issue that had barely reached public debate before she raised it. What these examples are meant to establish is narrower and stronger than the claim that teenagers can hold opinions. Each involved identifying a problem, forming a considered view about what ought to be done, and sustaining a public campaign against opposition over a long period. That is the full set of capacities a voter is assumed to need, exercised under more demanding conditions than a ballot requires: a voter chooses between options already put in front of them, while these campaigners had to construct the case from the beginning and persuade adults who started out unconvinced. Through the actions of teens like these, young people have proved time and time again that they are capable of making important political decisions. The second half of the argument concerns entitlement rather than ability. The issues these campaigns addressed are ones sixteen-year-olds live with directly, and in several cases will live with for longer than the adults currently voting on them. A person judged competent to lead a national debate on an issue but not to cast a vote on it is being held to two inconsistent standards at once. Proponents conclude that they deserve to be able to vote and have a say in important and critical issues that involve them directly, and that the demonstrated capability of young campaigners removes the main ground on which the present age limit rests.

Premises

[P1]Sixteen-year-olds such as Greta Thunberg, Malala Yousafzai and Amika George have led major political campaigns on climate, education and period poverty. [P2] Their activism demonstrates that young people are capable of forming and acting on serious political opinions. [P3] People who can make such important political judgements deserve a say in the issues that affect them. [C] Therefore, the voting age should be lowered to 16.

Counter-arguments

The young activists are the minority of their age groups. The few loud do not make up for the silent majority of young teenagers that are simply repeating what their favorite celebrities or parents are reporting. Lowering the age to accommodate for a few does not make sense.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Activists do not represent their entire age group.