should the franchise be extended to 16 and 17 year olds? Flashcards
layout the argument
FOR:
1. responsibilities without rights
2. youth interests ignored
3. stronger political alignment
4. irrational cut off age
COUNTER:
1. immature voters
2. deferred representation
3. undermining turnout
4. preserving ‘childhood’
- responsibilities without rights
the uk has a blurred ‘age of majority’ w the min age for various activities being lower than 18. the case for votes at 16 is based on the fact that this is the age at which young people can leave full-time education to start an apprenticeship or traineeship or spend 20 hours or more per week working while in part-time education or training. pay direct tax, consent to sexual relationships, and (with parental consent) join the army, get married or enter a civil partnership and give full consent to medical treatment.
- immature voters
The main argument against lowering the voting age is that until 18 most young people are in full-time education and continue to live with their parents. This means that they are not full citizens, and their educational development, even though they can leave school, remains incomplete. Most 16-18-year-olds are unlikely to be interested in, or have knowledge of, politics.
- youth interests ignored
The lack of political representation for young people between 16 and 18 means that their needs, views and interests are routinely marginalised or ignored. Lowering the voting age may therefore give greater attention to and stimulate, fresher thinking on, issues such as education, drug policy and social morality generally
- deferred representation ?????
to regard the lack of representation of 16-18 year olds as a political injustice is absurd. unlike women and the working classes of old, young people are not permenantely denied political representation. their representation is only delayed or deferred. moreover, 18 year olds are also likely to be boradly in touch with the interests of 16 and 17 year olds
- stronger political alignment
