Foster: 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in local elections
In Swampscott, Select Board member Peter Spellios has proposed allowing 16-year-olds to vote in the town’s elections. Although it is certainly a controversial suggestion, it would better enable our young people to develop into responsible citizens.
An argument often brought against this proposal is that the minds of people younger than 18 years old are not yet fully developed. While the brain doesn’t fully develop until the age of 25, it doesn’t have the bearing on one’s ability to vote that is often assumed. The article “Voting at 16: Turnout and the quality of vote choice” in Electoral Studies in 2012 examined how people younger than 18 vote in Austria, where 16-year-olds can vote. It found no significant difference between the ability of voters younger than 18 and those in older demographics to choose the political parties that best represent their interests or values.
Another issue with this framework is that mental development and maturity do not suddenly emerge at 18, but instead gradually evolve over a long period of time, unevenly and in unpredictable ways. Furthermore, once somebody reaches the age of 18, they can be as immature or uninformed as they want, and it has no bearing on their ability to vote. 16-year-olds have both the ability to make sound choices while voting and interests that justify participation in local elections — especially for School Committee members. Rather than having a clear cutoff line, a system in which people gain limited experience voting at 16 and acquire more as they get older would better reflect how the brain develops.
This is, of course, similar to how we teach young people to drive in this country. If people’s minds are not fully developed before they are 18, why is it acceptable for them to drive cars before then? Putting an underdeveloped mind behind the wheel is much more dangerous than putting them in the voting booth.
The reason is that we want to encourage young people to work and contribute to the economy, and being able to drive makes that much more feasible. But if people at this age are ready to have a stake in the country’s economy, they are also ready to have a stake in its democracy.
This proposal would only apply to local elections in Swampscott, which would benefit young Americans’ political development and civic engagement. Local elections are generally less partisan than those held at other levels. The focus is usually more on candidates, ideas, and policies than whether the people running are Democrats or Republicans. In a society that has become hyper-partisan, restricting peoples’ first interaction with American democracy to local elections would likely encourage them to research the issues at hand more thoughtfully.
We must look at the problems our democracy faces in the United States. Two of the most significant ones are partisan polarization and low voter turnout — especially among younger voters. Allowing 16-year-olds to vote in local elections could help address these issues. Young people will have to investigate their local issues more thoroughly than they would in a bitterly partisan national or statewide election. Ideally, this will prepare them to rigorously examine national and statewide candidates and issues when they turn 18. Similarly, it could also help establish a habit of voting earlier, hopefully creating a pattern of higher turnout as these generations age. While Swampscott can’t fix all of the problems with American democracy at the national level, it can address them locally to improve the quality and turnout of its own elections.
Stuart Foster is The Item’s opinion editor.
Deshpande: Why reducing the voting age to 16 for local elections would be a mistake
There has been a longstanding debate surrounding the appropriate voting age, with advocates of lowering the age arguing for increased civic engagement and representation. Last week, the debate came to Swampscott when Select Board member Peter Spellios proposed that the voting age be lowered to 16 for town elections.
When it comes to local elections in the United States, lowering the voting age to 16 is not the wisest decision. At this impressionable age, young individuals are still navigating the complexities of life, and exposing them to the intricacies of local politics might do more harm than good.
One critical aspect to consider is the exposure level of individuals at 16. While they might possess a basic understanding of societal issues, they often need more comprehensive knowledge and experience to make informed decisions about the governance of their local communities.
While civic education is crucial, inundating young minds with topics that might not be directly relevant to their lives could hinder their overall learning experience.
At this stage, their focus should primarily be on personal development, education, and laying the foundations for their future. Throwing them into the political arena could divert their attention from crucial aspects of their lives.
Rather than encouraging a broad understanding of politics, the focus should remain on education, preparing these individuals for the responsibilities that come with adulthood.
Teenagers are in a period of transition and exploration, often laced with susceptibility to external influences. This age group is more likely to be approached by interest groups and political entities seeking to exploit their naiveté. The risk of manipulation and shaping political opinions based on external influences is higher, as these young would-be-voters do not possess the experience necessary to filter through biased information.
Moreover, the problems faced by local communities might not resonate with the concerns of 16-year-olds, who are often in a more rebellious stage of their lives. The issues that grip their attention might vastly differ from those affecting the wider community.
Another critical consideration is that 16-year-olds are not yet considered fully fledged adults in many aspects of society. They might not be paying taxes, working, or actively contributing to the economy. In such a scenario, how can we expect them to make informed decisions about allocating resources and public funds within their municipalities?
Without a direct connection to the economic repercussions of their decisions, their understanding of the consequences would be limited.
A more gradual approach to political participation is warranted. Voting in school elections first provides a step-by-step introduction to engagement with civic responsibilities. This gradual progression allows young individuals to develop a more nuanced understanding of politics and governance, ensuring that they are better equipped to make informed decisions when the time comes for them to participate in local elections.
In conclusion, while the push for increased civic engagement among young people is a noble thought, lowering the voting age to 16 for local elections is not the solution.
Vishakha Deshpande is a reporter for The Daily Item.
