More voices should be involved in the process

The argument

The case for lowering the voting age begins from a general principle about decisions that bind everyone. Where an issue involves society as a whole, proponents argue, it makes sense to involve as many of the people it binds as possible, so the burden of justification falls on those who would exclude a group rather than on those who would include it. Eighteen-year-olds can already vote; the question is then what work the remaining two years are doing. On this view no answer is available that would justify keeping out a vast age group which is often left out of the conversation while remaining subject to its outcomes. The objection anticipated is one of competence, and the response is observational. Student activists all over the world have demonstrated that they understand and know what is going on, which proponents take as evidence that the capacity to follow public argument does not arrive on a particular birthday. Where young people below the current threshold are already engaging with the topics that affect them, being able to vote on those topics would, on this account, be beneficial rather than merely fair. A second response concerns what a vote does over time. Proponents concede that the stances such voters take may alter over time, but treat that as no objection, since the same is true of every electorate. The relevant effect is on the voter rather than on any particular result: the earlier a person can be involved in the process, the more likely they are to understand the importance of what they are doing and to participate actively in future. Voting is treated here as a practice acquired by being exercised, so an earlier first vote is held to produce a more engaged electorate later, which is presented as a benefit to the wider world these voters live in.

Context

Elections are based upon the people's voices. Sixteen-year-olds need to be incorporated because they understand what's going on, and there is no reason to exclude them when a wider age range could be beneficial to the voting population.

Premises

Counter-arguments

By that logic, why not just let everyone vote? If the age can be lowered that far we might as well just continue. The same argument can be applied to fourteen-year-olds, thirteen, and so on. It loses its validity.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Young voices are not as accurate in knowledge. [Rejecting P2] Young people may just be gaining knowledge from what they see first on the internet. [Rejecting P3] Inaccurate voting may be detrimental rather than beneficial.