All citizens, regardless of their age, deserve the right to vote. If that right was not abridged on the basis of age, our politicians would be forced to recognize the views of a major section of the population that is currently ignored. As it stands, the only voice for young people that politicians have any incentive to listen to is that of adult-run “child advocacy” groups, which often seek to encroach upon the civil rights of young people in the name of their “best interest.” It is a fallacy that any person can be relied upon to represent the points of views or best interests of another person or group of people.
A second reason for eliminating the voting age is the concept of “no taxation without representation.” Whenever any person receives a paycheck or makes a purchase, that person incurs taxes which lower the value of the paycheck or increase the cost of the purchase. How is it that people under the age of eighteen are forced to pay taxes, yet lack a say in how those taxes are spent?
The following arguments are used to oppose the elimination of the voting age:
That young people are uninterested in making political decisions. It’s not as if most people over the age of 18 are interested in doing so; we live in a nation where less than half of registered voters vote in presidential elections. The existence of youth rights organizations such as ASFAR is proof that many young people do in fact care about making political decisions. However, it may be true that some young people are apathetic to politics precisely because of the fact that they are not allowed to vote. What incentive do young people have to take an interest in politics when their opinions are not counted? Regardless, this objection is logically ridiculous. Those that lack the political interest to vote won’t do so. Those that have the interest will.
That young people are incapable of making responsible political decisions. The justification for this claim is that young people lack the political knowledge necessary to make informed decisions. Like most other age-based generalizations, this is an unfair statement to make about an entire group of people. However, it is generally acknowledged that most adults are not well-informed about politics and vote frivolously, without seriously researching their options. If this is not considered a suitable reason for barring any adult from voting, then how can it be considered reason enough to bar all young people from voting?
That young people are susceptible to influence. It is often claimed that if young people were given the right to vote, that they would vote as their parents instruct them to, conferring political power to those with children. A similar argument was used in the early 1900s in opposition to the woman’s right to vote: that women will almost certainly vote in agreement with their husbands. The secret ballot guarantees that no person may know how any citizen’s vote was cast, ensuring that children will feel free to vote in accordance with their beliefs. While true that given a choice, children will most often choose to vote as their parents would, this is also true for adult voters. The number one determining factor in the political allegiance of voters over the age of 18 is that of their parents.
That a young person’s vote can be easily bought. Another claim is that young people can be easily bribed to vote for a specific candidate. Although purchasing a vote is illegal, it is conceded that preventing the sale of votes is difficult. It may be true that some young people will place such a low value on their right to vote that they will be willing to sell it to the highest bidder, but then this is true for adults too. As mentioned earlier, less than half of registered voters actually do vote in presidential elections. The right to vote isn’t exactly what people seem to consider a precious commodity.
All the arguments in support of the voting age refer to specific concerns, neatly ignoring the question of whether our government even has the right to bar an entire class of people from voting for any reason. As John Adams said in 1776:
It is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end of it. New claims will arise: women will demand a vote; lads from twelve to twenty-one will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state.
Most people would disagree with that statement today, for women, the poor, and “lads” from eighteen to twenty-one have the right to vote. One may, however, argue that it is indeed very dangerous to open the issue of who cannot vote, because as soon as you limit one group’s right to vote, you open the door to arguments in support of limiting any group’s right to vote.
The Solution
Amendment 26 of the US Constitution reads:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The solution is clear. We need a constitutional amendment which reads exactly as above, but with the words, “who are 18 years of age or older” removed. Until such an amendment is ratified, states should follow the precedent set with women and 18-21 year olds. In the past, many states enacted bills giving 18-21 year olds, as well as women, the right to vote in federal elections before a constitutional amendment granted it to them. ASFAR would support any bill that would serve to lower the minimum voting age for any local, state, or federal elections or ballots.