If all ages are influenced by misinformation, should there be any age limits on voting?

If the misinformation affects the old and the young equally, then age is not an effective filter for democratic power.

The assumption that underlies the age restrictions is very simple: older people are wiser, more stable, and less manipulable. However, the history of modern politics quietly undermines this assumption. When India reduced its voting age from 21 to 18 through the 61st Constitutional Amendment, there were concerns about impulsive politics. However, the young electorate became a game-changer in discussions about education, employment, and internet rights, which they experience firsthand every day. Likewise, during the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, voting behavior revealed that misinformation did not target the old and the young separately; the old were equally vulnerable to emotional storytelling and simplification. The same was true during the 2016 United States presidential election. Maturity did not necessarily imply immunity.

This is precisely the truth that justifies the larger truth: political vulnerability is cognitive, not chronological. In the age of algorithms, targeted advertising, and echo chambers, persuasion is engineered. A 16-year-old browsing short-form videos and a 60-year-old reading forwarded messages may be interacting with the same warped environment. If everyone is subject to influence, then the principle of exclusion on the sole basis of age becomes illogical.
The trouble, in any case, is not that young people are too impressionable. The trouble is that societies have not taken the trouble to seriously educate any age group in civic and media literacy. We hold citizens to a high standard of voting responsibly without teaching them to critically assess sources, recognize bias, or comprehend institutional procedures.

Simply raising the voting age would be treating the symptom rather than the disease. It would be taking the view that time is all that is needed to bring about wisdom, when the evidence is that ‘exposure without guidance is often a recipe for reinforcing error rather than correcting it.’ Exclusion may be safe, but it will not make democracy stronger; it will simply make it smaller.
A stronger approach would be more focused and more principled: a minimum voting age to ensure legal accountability, but alongside this, a civic and media literacy qualification before first-time voting eligibility. Schools should incorporate formal modules in constitutional principles, fact-checking techniques, algorithm awareness, and critical thinking. This would not be a barrier to exclude, but a preparation to empower.

This system moves the emphasis from age to ability – from suspicion to preparation. It honors young citizens while also recognizing the real vulnerability that spans all ages. Rather than asking, “Are they old enough?” we start to ask, “Are we educating them well enough?”