Would giving 16-year-olds the vote improve democracy or just change the way campaigns are run?
This post was written by a student. It has not been fact checked or edited.
Lowering the voting age: Would giving 16-year-olds the vote improve democracy or just change the way campaigns are run?
From my point of view, I think 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds may be young, but they should still be allowed to vote and could make an important difference. I believe everyone should have the chance to have their voice heard in a democracy.
Life-long habits: Studies show that people who begin voting at the age of 16 are more likely to continue voting for the rest of their lives. This means lowering the voting age could encourage more people to take part in elections in the future.
Having a say: Supporters argue that since many 16-year-olds can work and pay taxes, they should have a say in how that money is spent and how the country is run.
Thinking about the future: Young people will live with the decisions made today for the longest time. Because of this, it is fair that they should help choose the people who make those decisions.
Some people who disagree might think that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are too young and not responsible enough to vote. However, I believe they are capable of making informed choices and could improve democracy by bringing new ideas and opinions.
An MP in the House of Commons said that they will make sure that newly enfranchised voters understand how to register and exercise their right to vote.
Overall, I believe that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote because it would give young people a voice and strengthen democracy.
Comments (0)