An empty promises. Millennials will deliberately vote for
An article made public in Economist supporting lowering the voting age to 16 because it could
increase youth turnout by getting young people to adapt to the political system
early. Adding more eligible voters is
not the answer to the civic malaise. Therefore, we shouldn’t motivate young
people to vote. The legal age for voting should not be lowered to 16. Though
there are different age range for same activities but one age range for voting,
it shouldn’t trigger the reason to lower the voting age to 16. The voting age, in
fact, should be raised to 25 if need be.
Young people are less knowledgeable when it comes to
political and economic issues. They cannot be trusted to make such an important
decision that apparently, can put the country in chaos. They should not be
allowed to vote at such age for their brains are still “technically developing,
so aren’t yet fully matured.” (The Guardian)
“How can you really make an
informed decision about what government you want when you’re not old enough to
have really “experienced” how the world works yet.” (The Guardian) Don’t
Millennials have any clue on how the world functions and influences our decisions
so why give them the chance to vote? It is said that even a person in his/her
early 20s doesn’t have sufficient experience to make a substantial decision as
important as the government.
Again, it said that young people “tend to see
voting as a “choice” rather than a “duty” …” (Economist par. 4). I strongly
believe that voting should be by choice regardless of age differences. Some
politicians may conclude that voting should be compulsory – which should be
strongly opposed. Moreover, millennials
shouldn’t be allowed to vote whether it be made compulsory or not.
As a matter of fact, young people tend to be
gullible and selfish regarding matters they have little or no knowledge about.
Millennials can be easily persuaded to vote for a candidate based on ridiculous
empty promises. Millennials will deliberately vote for a candidate they know
for sure to be corrupt – a candidate who isn’t fit to be an ideal
leader – because they supposedly share the same values.
The article in Economist points out that lowering
the voting age to 16 would build up the voice of the young and would justify
that their opinion matters. I agree with this claim, but my point is the voice
of the young could be heard evidently in so many ways. To think that lowering
the voting age to 16 would increase casted votes is clearly insane. Choosing
the right candidate for election matters so it would be advisable for the
voting age to remain as it legally is, 18.
For the most part, voting age should not be
lowered to 16 to save the country from chaos. Voting at 16 would not make civic
life any easier nor will it change the system. Most informed and matured people
should be the ones turning out because they genuinely care and understand the
political system. I believe a change in voting age can help to a certain limit in
bringing forth a more informed electorate – and that is by lifting the
eligible voting age, not lowering it.