10. There is more support for legislation lowering the voting age than you think. When the United States decided to end age discrimination in all elections for all persons 18 and older, it passed the 26th Amendment. The overwhelming bipartisan support for the amendment allowed it to go down in history as the fastest amendment ever ratified. Today`s suffrage movement, at age 16, has interesting parallels with the successful 26th Amendment campaign. Many of the original arguments against the right of 18-year-olds to vote – that they are too immature, that they do not understand the problems – are now being put forward to hinder efforts to further lower the voting age. Research shows that 16- and 17-year-olds have the knowledge, skills and cognitive abilities to vote responsibly. A study comparing the qualities associated with voting – such as civic knowledge, political skills and political interest – among citizens aged 18 and over and citizens under 18 found no significant differences between 16-year-olds and those over 18. In addition, deciding how to choose is based on “cold cognition,” the decision-making process in which a person advises alone and quietly, relying on logical thinking skills. Research shows that cold cognition matures at age 16 and does not improve with age. Young people are affected by local political issues as much as anyone else. They also work without limits on working hours and pay taxes on their income, can drive in most states and, in some cases, are tried in adult courts.
Sixteen and 17-year-olds deserve the right to vote on issues that affect them at the local level. Moreover, voting is the most reliable way for ordinary citizens to influence government. Lowering the voting age would require local politicians to listen to sixteen and 17-year-olds and address their concerns. Two Maryland cities — Takoma Park and Hyattsville — have successfully lowered their voting age to 16 in the past two years. Significant efforts are currently underway in San Francisco and Washington DC, and other cities across the country are also exploring this possibility. We look directly at the quality of the election, although this is, of course, a difficult concept to evaluate. We operationalize it as an ideological congruence between voters and the party they want to vote: the greater the ideological similarity between a voter and the party he chooses, the higher the quality of the voting decision. This is a simplified approximation of the conventional operationalization of “correct voting”, which uses measures of voter preferences on a range of different questions to distinguish candidates or competing parties, as well as some reasonable objective measures (e.g., expert judgments) when candidates actually stand on the same issues (e.g., Lau and Redlawsk, 1997; Lau et al., 2008).18 Although we do not have such detailed measures, we believe that our simplified approach provides a good indication of whether voters are voting for a party that is relatively close to them ideologically. GC is not the first group to push the idea. Our goal is to bring together all reports and studies on this topic and to research and advise campaigns across the country that are taking action on this issue. In addition, we have set up a Youth Advisory Council, made up of young people from active and successful campaigns of voting age, to advise us on this movement.
1990The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that persons with disabilities have a “full and equal” choice. States must make all aspects of the electoral process – from registration to polling stations – accessible to people with disabilities. There is a school of thought that believes that there should not be a fixed minimum age; whereas it should rather be up to the individual to determine the age at which he or she is prepared to choose; The suggestion is that if you`re interested enough, you`re mature enough. [ii] But most proponents of change accept that there should be a fixed age at which voting is allowed, usually 16 or 17. [iii] This is particularly worrying because there are certain issues, such as environmental degradation, public education policies, long-term public debt, corporal punishment laws and poverty, which affect young people more than anyone else. Young people may also be more familiar with modern topics related to online privacy and the use of social media. But because young people are underrepresented in politics, the issues that affect us are also underrepresented. Lowering the voting age will also help increase civic engagement among young people. The words spoken before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of lowering the voting age in 1971 are the same as they are today: In general, supporters are convinced that lowering the voting age to 16 – combined with stronger citizen and voter education programs in schools – could increase youth political participation. Proponents of a lower voting age try to bolster their argument by pointing out that 16-year-olds participate in political debates on social media and events, work, pay taxes, rent homes, and join the armed forces in some countries. Therefore, given their contribution to society, they should have the right to vote and hold representatives accountable for decisions affecting their daily lives. Research shows that 16- to 17-year-olds are more likely to vote than 18- to 20-year-olds – so if they`re a little younger, they can vote at a time that`s most convenient for them.
It is always difficult to measure voter turnout from survey questions due to problems of over-reporting, sample selectivity, distortion of social desirability, and the stimulating effects of pre-election interviews (e.g., Aarts & Wessels, 2005; Bernstein et al., 2001; Karp & Brockington, 2005).13 There is evidence that questions about voter turnout are the best predictor available of whether a person is likely to vote (Bolstein, 1991). Respondents could be more honest about their actual intention to speak out if presented with a scale where people can rate insecurity and restraint without directly stating that they can abstain. Therefore, we use switching intent as a dependent variable. We measure voter turnout using a question asking respondents to rate their confidence in voting on a scale of 0 to 10 in the upcoming European elections. In our sample, 54.1% of respondents reported an intention to vote score of 8 or higher and 41% reported a score of 9 or higher.14 This compares to the 46% who actually voted on June 7, 2009.15 The 16-year-old suffrage movement already enjoys support in national circles, from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to members of Congress. Newspaper editors and local officials. Yet it remains a grassroots campaign to change electoral laws city by city and city by city with the support of teenage activist groups and national nonprofit organizations like Generation Citizen and the National Youth Rights Association. The potential young voters who have joined the cause are persistent, resourceful and patient as they work to shake up the system from within. Obstacles such as bureaucratic mazes, an unprecedented pandemic, and even trenchant partisanship slowed them down, but not for long. 1971The voting age was raised from 21 to 18. Young Americans had argued that if they were old enough to fight in the Vietnam War (1962-1975), they were old enough to vote.
The case for reducing the vote usually revolves around comparisons with rights and obligations outside the election, international comparisons, political awareness and interest of young people, and the question of maturity. Attitudes towards European integration are measured by whether the EU has already become too integrated or should integrate more, on a 10-point scale. This has been resized to a range of 0 to 1, with positive values indicating a pro-integration opinion. Teenagers are interested in politics right now — and they deserve to have a say at the ballot box, say proponents of lowering the voting age. Countless young people across the country are participating in protests, contacting lawmakers and sharing their views on social media.