Would it be better to raise or lower the voting age?

JAMIE DIEDRICH
STAFF WRITER

11/11/2024

As we round out election season, conversations about changing the age requirement to vote are circulating. Some people believe that would cut out a huge demographic of relevant voters, including incoming or current college students, and the evidence behind this argument is heavily contradictory. In my opinion, the voting age should be lowered to 16, not raised to 21.

The most prevalent argument for raising the voting age to 21 is the classic take that “the brain has not fully developed yet.” However, the current voting age is 18 and the government doesn’t take that into account. If that were the case, we’d be voting at 25 or 30.

The main reason for changing the voting age to 16 in the first place would be to include votes from incoming adults – people who will have to face the new government official as they come of age. Changing the voting age to 21 would remove relevant voters from these significant government-related concerns.

At Alma College specifically, keeping the voting age below 21 could be essential for voting as a whole, especially given the number of students promoting voter registration on campus who are not yet 21.

Having the age of consent at 16 implies a form of growth in judgment, so why can that judgment not branch off into voting? Why is it that we trust 16-year-olds enough to operate a vehicle but not enough to vote for who they think should be in office?

One of the immediate responses to a proposal for changing the voting age to 21 is that this is the current legal drinking age in the U.S. However, that limit is based on physical capacity, not just mental, and the age of consent is proof that the government holds 16-year-olds accountable for their own rational decisions.

Another argument against lowering the voting age is that 16-year-olds are still going through puberty and are therefore unable to think logically enough to vote since they are emotional and hormonal. But if that’s so, what about the mental state of someone in their late 60s and early 70s?

According to KFF.org, an independent source for policy research, the 65+ voter demographic falls just below number of voters aged 45-64, with 37,086 voters. How can we be sure they’re more mentally fit to vote than a 16-year-old? While we’re drawing parallels, a 16-year-old can drive, but people over 65+ have been deemed unfit due to the decline of their mental state. 

Another question for the legitimacy of this argument is, “16-year-olds can’t use a gun, why should they be voting on gun control as a part of our democracy?” But gun control and the laws pertaining do not just affect people who can use a gun; school shootings happen to people under the age of 18 consistently.

Lastly, many people argue that 16-year-olds haven’t dealt with the issues they would be voting on due to their lack of life experience. Unfortunately, with issues like global warming and reproductive health, that just isn’t the case anymore.

Voting on global warming actions affects every generation, especially the future. Abortion rights and voting on said rights can be directly related to people under 16, given the focus on exceptions. 

Presently, we aren’t getting enough say from our future generation. 16-year-olds will have to grow up in the future with the effects of global warming, the rise and fall of the economy, fluctuation in student loan relief plans and so much more. They should have a say in building the future they’ll have to live in.