Retchless 1

Paxton Retchless

Mr. Ventura

ENG 1530

22 January 2021

Increase Civic Education to Lower Voting Age

Fifty years ago, the voting age was lowered from twenty-one to eighteen. Now, some

people are fighting to lower the voting age again, this time to sixteen. Those who want to lower

the voting age again believe sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are affected by many current

events and governmental policies, but have no say in them. Also, their abilities to work and drive

make them mature enough to vote (Astor). However, supporters of lowering the voting age are

certainly met with opposition. Those who oppose lowering the voting age believe sixteen- and

seventeen-year olds are in fact not ready, and society keeps increasing the age of responsibilities,

not lowering it. Also, civic tests have shown that younger voters are not very knowledgeable

about civics (Davenport). The opposition provides strong points, but what if the civic knowledge

of younger people could be increased? Studies conducted in Austria and Norway found that

lowering the voting age was beneficial when the education system was modified to increase civic

knowledge (Zeglovits). A solution to the issue is yet to be determined, but with the increasing

desire to vote among sixteen- and seventeen-year olds, the debate needs to be resolved. If

lawmakers mandate an increase in civic education at the appropriate grade levels, they should

also allow sixteen- and seventeen-year olds to vote. If governments mandated higher levels of

civic education, younger people could become knowledgeable enough and prepared to vote.

Many people have strong reason to believe the voting age should be lowered because

sixteen- and seventeen- year olds are affected by current issues and their responsibilities make
 Retchless 2

them ready to vote. Sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are affected by several current issues, and

“the rationale is that between climate change, gun violence, student debt and other issues, they

do have enough skin in the game” (Astor). Some sixteen- and seventeen-year olds experienced

gun violence firsthand during the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool shooting, which is

only one of many high school shootings that have occurred. After the Marjory Stoneman

Douglas Highschool shooting, sixteen- and seventeen- year olds created and participated in the

March for Our Lives Campaign, which shows their interest in political issues. In the campaign,

students lobbied for new gun laws and more gun control, which would hopefully keep the guns

out of schools. Since they cannot influence change through voting, the March for Our Lives

Campaign was a way for sixteen- and seventeen-year olds to express their opinions and desires.

One of the issues with lowering the voting age to sixteen is they do not have an obvious reason

like eighteen-year olds did. At eighteen, people can join the military, which was the driving

factor for lowering the voting age the first time. Supporters of lowering the voting age believe,

“People tend to focus on at 18 you can join the military, but there are a lot of things happening at

16” (Astor). Although the reasoning for sixteen- and seventeen-year olds is not as outright

obvious, the supporters argue they still have many responsibilities, including driving, working,

and being taxed, that make them ready to vote. A major representative for these arguments is

Representative Ayanna Presley of Massachusetts. In March, Pressley proposed an amendment to

lower the voting age to sixteen, but the amendment failed 126 to 305 (Astor). These arguments

were not enough to make the majority of the House of Representatives believe the voting age

should be lowered.

People also support lowering the voting age because the voter turnout for people of all

ages could increase. Leading up to the 2020 presidential election, young people were very
 Retchless 3

involved and played a significant role in voter turnout. Research conducted about engagement

pre-election showed fifty-one percent of youth tried to convince other youth to vote, and seventy

percent of youth talked to friends about political issues or elections (Beadle). Evidently, young

people encourage their peers to vote, but also their elders. As a result of youth participation in

politics, a “trickle-up” effect could occur, and older people could become more civically

involved because kids are talking about politics in the home. A program called Kids Voting is “a

national mock election program which allows children in grades K-12 to vote at the polls while

learning about the political process through a comprehensive classroom curriculum” (Mandell).

A survey conducted in 1966 found that “between five and ten percent of respondents reported

Kids Voting was a factor in their decision to vote. This indicated that 600,000 adults nationwide

were encouraged to vote by the program” (Mandell). A lower voting age could also increase

voter turnout in the future. Research conducted in Austria and Norway determined the turn-out

rates among sixteen- and seventeen-year old first-time voters were much higher than that of

eighteen to twenty-one-year old first-time voters. This is important because “If someone starts as

a voter, she or he will most likely vote again. If someone starts as a non-voter, she or he will

probably develop the habit of non-voting,” and “high turn-out rates among 16-and 17-year-olds

thus might raise hopes for future turn-out rates” (Zeglovits). The Speaker of the United States

House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, agrees a lower voting age could increase voter turnout,

and sixteen- and seventeen year olds should be allowed to vote while they are engaged in politics

in high school.

Lowering the voting age can also be beneficial when civic education is increased within

schools. The research conducted in Austria and Norway found this idea to be true. Lowering the

voting age was beneficial in Austria, but not in Norway. The main difference was that Austria
 Retchless 4

modified its education system to increase civic knowledge, while Norway did not (Zeglovits).

Austria “introduced some changes in the school curricula, introduced civic education as a subject

in the eighth grade (students aged 12–13) and implemented awareness raising campaigns or

projects and mock elections in schools” (Zeglovits). Austria exposed their youth to politics and

sufficiently taught them about civics at a young age. The difference was “Norwegian youth

voters participated in trial elections in some selected municipalities, whereas the Austrian youth

were fully enfranchised” (Zeglovits). In Norway, the political interest of sixteen- and seventeen-

year olds was much lower than that of older first-time voters, but in Austria, no significant

difference of political interest was found (Zeglovits). This implies the increased civic education

increased interest in politics among sixteen- and seventeen-year olds. In regards to political

knowledge, “there is no knowledge gap in Austria between 16- and 17-year-olds and older first-

time voters, whether in knowledge of the political system or in knowledge of political actors”

(Zeglovits). Also, “Evidence from two different elections in Austria shows that the quality of the

vote choice is not lower for 16- and 17-year-olds than for older first-time voters” (Zeglovits).

However, “the Norwegian results report less consistency between attitudes and vote choice for

16- and 17-year-olds than for older voters,” suggesting that increased civic education also

increases quality of vote choice among younger first-time voters (Zeglovits). All of these

findings show an increase in civic education can make a difference and be beneficial in lowering

the voting age.

Although people provide strong points in favor of lowering the voting age, people who

oppose lowering the voting age have strong points of their own. People who oppose lowering the

voting age believe sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are not ready to vote. Some say society

keeps increasing the age of responsibilities, not lowering it. Civic tests are also showing that
 Retchless 5

younger voters are not very knowledgeable in civics. On previous civic tests, “a mere 23 percent

scored "proficient" or above” (Davenport). This proves that, currently, many sixteen- and

seventeen-year olds do not know much about civics, and implies that they may not be able to

make informed decisions while voting. Some argue that sixteen-year olds “are not even trusted to

get a mortgage or borrow money without a guarantor” (Brown). Most members of the the House

of Representatives agree with these arguments and oppose lowering the voting age, including

Tennessee Representative Mark. E Green. Green believes America does not even “allow a 16-

year-old to buy a beer, and the decision making is because of their ability to reason at that age,”

so the idea to lower the voting age “is foolish” (Astor). Some people also do not want to lower

the voting age because they believe the democratic party will largely benefit. They believe

sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are more likely to vote for the left, and some people only want

the change in order to favor their party (Brown). These people also believe that even though

reasoning may show the voting age should not be lowered, democrats will still support the issue

as a political motive (Davenport). The people who agree with these ideas are mostly

Republicans. Many Republicans fear lowering the voting age could severely hurt their political

party, but benefit their opposing political party.

As of right now, people who oppose lowering the voting age have good reason to. As

previously mentioned, many sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are not knowledgeable enough yet,

as only twenty-three percent of the younger voters scored proficient or above on previous civic

tests (Davenport). This is a valid point, but can be counteracted with an increase in civic

education. With the implementation of higher civic education in Austria, “the quality of the vote

choice is not lower for 16- and 17-year-olds than for older first-time voters,” and “there is no

knowledge gap in Austria between 16- and 17-year-olds and older first-time voters….” An
 Retchless 6

increase in civic education can allow sixteen- and seventeen-year olds to make quality, informed

decisions while voting. The point that sixteen- and seventeen-year olds cannot buy a beer

because of their inability to reason at that age cannot be counteracted, but eighteen, nineteen, and

twenty-year olds cannot buy a beer either and they are still allowed to vote. Also, Republicans

have a right to fear a possible democratic advantage provided by a lower voting age. If people,

possibly including Nancy Pelosi, only advocated for a lower voting age to benefit their political

party, that would be unjust and unfair. However, the assumption that young people vote largely

democratic is untrue. Research has found “while it's true that young voters have favored

Democrats in the past few elections, that is a relatively recent trend and is not uniform across the

country. In 7 of the last 12 presidential elections, young voters have either preferred the

Republican candidate or favored the Democrat by less than 5 percentage points” (CIRCLE).

Young people do not vote as democratically as most people believe, so Republicans should not

fear such a large democratic advantage. People who oppose lowering the voting age have valid

concerns, but they can be counteracted.

Lowering the voting age to sixteen in the United States has been considered for several

years. Many valid reasons for lowering the voting age are sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are

affected by current issues, have adult-like responsibilities, and can increase voter turnout of

people of all ages. Some opposer’s believe lowering the voting age will largely favor the

democratic party, but this has been invalidated and cannot be considered viable in this argument.

The people who believe sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are not knowledgeable enough about

civics have valid reasoning, but this can be counteracted by increasing civic education in schools.

Research has shown the voting age can successfully be lowered to sixteen if civics are instilled
 Retchless 7

and taught in schools. If lawmakers mandate an increase in civic education at the appropriate

grade levels, they should also allow sixteen- and seventeen-year olds to vote.
 Retchless 8

Works Cited

Astor, Maggie. “16-Year-Olds Want a Vote. Fifty Years Ago, So Did 18-Year-Olds.” The New

York Times, 19 May 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/us/politics/voting-age.html.

Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

Beadle, Kelly, et. al. “Election Week 2020: Young People Increase Turnout, Lead Biden to

Victory.” Circle at Tufts, Nov. 25, 2020. circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/election-week-

2020. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

Brown, Steven. "'16 Is Far Too Young' England Urged NOT to Reduce Voting Age to 16;

EXPRESS.CO.UK Readers Have Voiced Their Opinions on Whether England Should

Follow Wales and Reduce the Voting Age to 16." Express Online, June 2,

2020. advance-lexis-com.jsrvproxy1.sunyjcc.edu/api/document?

collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:6020-F861-JCJY-G2FR-00000-

00&context=1516831. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

CIRCLE. “Dispelling Myths about Youth Voting.” Circle at Tufts,

circle.tufts.edu/understanding-youth-civic-engagement/dispelling-myths-about-youth-

voting. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

Davenport, David. "Don't Rock the Vote: Why the Voting Age Is Plenty Low Enough

Already." Hoover Digest, no. 1, 2019, p. 82+. Gale Academic

OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A613204356/AONE?

u=sunyjcc&sid=AONE&xid=c97125eb. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

Mandell, Keith. "Lowering the Voting Age Will Increase Voter Turnout." Greenhaven Press,

2008. Gale In Context: Opposing

 Retchless 9

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010525207/OVIC?

u=sunyjcc&sid=OVIC&xid=7983f720. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

Zeglovits, Eva. "Voting at 16? Youth Suffrage is Up for Debate." European View, vol. 12, no. 2,

2013, pp. 249-254. ProQuest, search-proquest-

com.jsrvproxy1.sunyjcc.edu/docview/1467021883?accountid=39896,

doi:http://dx.doi.org.jsrvproxy1.sunyjcc.edu/10.1007/s12290-013-0273-3. Accessed 11

Jan. 2021.