Debate on Lowering Voting Age: Perspectives and Arguments

The debate surrounding lowering the voting age to 16 in the United States has gained considerable momentum. Young people from across the country are actively advocating for this change, with the goal of engaging in discussions with political leaders. However, many adults are taken aback and offended by this proposal, disregarding both teenagers' concerns and the contentious nature of the issue. I have encountered three articles from different sources that address this ongoing controversy.

To maintain interest, a compilation of articles with contrasting views on lowering the voting age is included.

These articles, titled 'Top Ten Reasons for Lowering the Voting Age,' 'Don't Drop the Voting Age,' and 'Maintain Our Voting Standards,' present different perspectives on the matter. The initial article, authored by the National Youth Rights Association, provides compelling and robust arguments in support of their assertion to reduce the voting age to 16.

Surprisingly, the author provided numerous reasons and included opposing arguments to support their views. They also presented evidence and reasoning to counter these opposing viewpoints.

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified writer

Proficient in: Age

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The article heavily relied on logos as an appeal, aiming to maintain logical reasoning for stronger arguments. One frequently cited argument against lowering the voting age is that teenagers lack maturity, responsibility, and intelligence.

The common viewpoint was clarified by stating, "According to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, individuals who have not been deemed incompetent and have completed at least sixth grade in a state or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where English is the main language of instruction, possess adequate literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to participate in elections.

"

If it is considered acceptable for someone with a sixth grade education to be able to vote, then why should older youth be denied the right to vote? They bring a fresh perspective to the discussion, subtly expressing their sarcasm. As we contemplate their new idea, it becomes easy to support their argument; if a sixth grade education is the voting requirement, then it logically follows that sixteen year olds should also have the right to vote. They further make logical appeals by pointing out a sensible argument against the current system: "Intelligence or maturity is not the basis on which voting rights are granted; if that were the case, all voters would need to pass a test before participating in elections."

It is argued that the voting age should be lowered so that youth and adults are not subjected to different standards. Those who oppose lowering the voting age must provide valid reasons beyond maturity and intelligence. This argument relies on logic and challenges common uncertainties surrounding the debate.

If you consider the author's intent and objective, it is a national association aiming to support the reduction of the voting age. Although they did not heavily rely on ethos in their article, it was not essential for achieving their goal of reevaluating the legal voting age. Their primary appeal was through logos, which alone proved to be influential and persuasive. By maintaining an unbiased approach, the article remained purely logical and factual, making it easier to persuade an audience as long as they comprehend it.

They were trying to present the facts and justify their stance on lowering the age. They possess expertise on the subject matter and clearly understand the topic. To support their argument, they quote a college professor, Bruce Merrill, who conducted a survey in 1996 comparing voter turnout in cities with and without the Kids Voting program.

Merrill discovered that approximately 5-10% of survey participants claimed that Kids Voting influenced their decision to vote. This translates to around 600,000 adults across the country who were motivated to vote because of the program. This finding serves as evidence supporting the notion that lowering the voting age could potentially enhance voter turnout, despite opposition claims.

This article did not demonstrate any emotional appeal, which was not required because the objective was to present a logical and comprehensive argument that would be difficult to challenge and convince the audience easily. By avoiding the common tactic of solely relying on emotions, the authors effectively persuaded the audience without taking the simplistic approach. Furthermore, authors often make unstated assumptions as an effortless means of supporting their arguments, but this approach is vulnerable to quick refutation and can be seen as an unimpressive way out. There are more respectable methods available to make a strong claim that would resist immediate rebuttal.

The author of the article "Top Ten Reasons for Lowering the Voting Age" enhances their piece by not including unstated assumptions. This absence makes their argument stronger since others find it difficult to counter arguments without legitimate reasons. In contrast, the second article titled "Don't Drop the Voting Age" is written by Robyn Urback and is featured in a Canadian online magazine that covers various topics.

The author's stance is evident at the start of the article, as she presents a scenario, saying, "In this fantasyland, the Liberals are running on a strong platform of increased Justin Bieber performances, while the Conservatives are trailing with their “More School Dances” five-year-plan. The NDP’s “We’ll Talk to your Mom about Extending your Curfew” promise, however, hasn’t really taken off." This statement is humorous but exaggerated, suggesting what might occur if teenagers were allowed to vote.

In this article, the author's tone conveys a lack of seriousness towards teenagers and even children. She perceives the prospect of lowering the voting age as a comedic notion, frequently expressing sarcasm in her writing. Furthermore, she draws a comparison between B. C. Liberal leadership candidate Mike de Jong's proposal to allow 16-year-olds to vote in provincial elections to distributing popsicles at polling stations, stating that it aims to foster a "culture of engagement" among young individuals.

It becomes apparent early in the article that the author is heavily biased, which affects her ability to persuade and support her initial claim. However, she does make efforts to appeal to logic, credibility, and emotions, and incorporates external sources to maintain some impartiality after making immature comments at the beginning.

According to her, if the voting age is lowered to include 16- and 17-year-olds, participation in the "Under 18" category would significantly rise. However, the turnout for this group would be comparable or possibly even lower than that of those aged 18-24. Data indicates that as individuals get older within the 18-24 age range, their voter turnout generally increases. Hence, if these patterns persist, it is probable that 16-year-olds would have the lowest voter turnout among all age groups.

The author suggests that lowering the voting age would lead to higher voter turnout among individuals under 18. However, she also argues that the turnout for this age group would not differ significantly from the 18-24 age group. It is crucial to question how she can be certain of this similarity between the two groups. She lacks any supportive evidence or backing for this assumption, rendering it ineffective for her argument. Instead of presenting persuasive evidence, she merely expresses her personal opinion and ideas, which fail to thoroughly convince the reader.

The author employs ethos in this quote by referencing statistics that support the claim that voting rates increase as individuals age, although the source of the statistics is mentioned. If this statement is accurate and substantiated by data, then wouldn't allowing 16-year-olds to vote potentially benefit the 18-24 age group? It is surprising that the author does not mention this point, as it seems like a valid argument. However, it is likely omitted to maintain consistency with the author's previous argument that reducing the voting age would not yield any positive outcomes.

The author discusses the consequences of allowing sixteen-year-olds to vote in situations where they may be influenced by their parents or by chance. The author raises the question of how much knowledge these young voters would have about what they are voting on. She provides a logical argument to support this by stating that the newly-authorized voters would only have around 14 years of life experience and may lack the necessary experience to make informed political decisions. However, the author also acknowledges that being uninformed does not invalidate a person's right to vote.

Even if individuals return to a state where they require diapers, they still retain the right to vote, even if their cognitive abilities may be declining. While not all 90-year-olds have lost their mental faculties, it is certain that no 16-year-old possesses the ability to recall past politicians, such as the tax-happy premier who governed the province in previous terms. The inclusion of the word 'diapers' serves as a reminder that sixteen-year-olds still wear them. The author draws a comparison between the limited experience and knowledge of teenagers and the memory loss experienced by senior citizens. Despite these circumstances, both groups are still entitled to vote.

In the passage, the author highlights the easiness of teenagers to be influenced by external factors. She supports her claim by mentioning the prevalence of Canada Goose brand winter jackets among high school students and suggesting that this indicates their susceptibility to outside influence. Moreover, she suggests that if teenagers were given the right to vote, politics would become more corrupt. However, it is important to note that the author's assumptions about teenagers being heavily influenced are not substantiated with concrete evidence.

The author concludes her article by stating that individuals who are sixteen years old should not have the right to vote on matters that they have little interest in, especially during their crucial formative years when the concept of "relativism" is merely a vocabulary term. She made a deliberate effort to ensure that the reader constantly bears in mind that teenagers are still attending high school. Throughout the article, she consistently employs emotional appeals, employing sarcastic remarks towards children, teenagers, and even the elderly. It is clear that she does not shy away from expressing her personal sentiments and disdain towards the idea of reducing the voting age.

Including personal opinions and emotions in her writing is surprising because it doesn't effectively persuade her audience unless they already share her views. The article being analyzed is titled 'Maintaining Our Voting Standards' and was written by Michael J. Ring for the prestigious online newspaper of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ring opens his article by stating that both proposals to lower the voting age at Cambridge City Council should be rejected, describing them as dangerous and problematic.

According to Michael J. Ring, the protests by students against the MCAS tests in Massachusetts indicate that many teenagers are not mature enough for politics. This relates to a previous article by the National Youth Rights Association which emphasizes that intelligence and maturity are not tied to voting, as seen in older adults who lack maturity. Ring's opinion on lowering the voting age aligns with Robyn Urback's view expressed in her article 'Don't Drop the Voting Age.'

The lack of significance that the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests hold for adolescents is a concern expressed by the author. They argue that if a group of angry and immature teenagers were to influence an election for a school committee, it could lead to candidates who oppose MCAS and prioritize their own interests instead of focusing on high standards and genuine reform. This analogy compares teenagers to a destructive storm causing chaos within the system. Additionally, the author acknowledges that while some 16-year-olds may have the necessary maturity to vote, many of their peers do not. Interestingly, this lack of maturity is not limited to just teenagers as there are adults who exhibit similar levels of immaturity. Therefore, in this regard, teenagers are not much different from adults.

The author presents a point utilizing appeal to logos, stating that councilors argue that involving teenagers in the political process prior to their departure for college will enable them to gain knowledge about local politics and develop a voting habit before leaving for college. Furthermore, any young voter attending college can easily stay updated on events happening in their hometown with a little effort. The author acknowledges that news and information about global events are readily accessible. It is an obvious yet accurate observation made by Michael J. Ring. However, the author criticizes an unstated assumption made by Ring, suggesting that allowing non-citizens to vote would create the same problem as allowing 16-year-olds to vote.

Granting the franchise to non-citizens introduces a group of voters who are not required to familiarize themselves with our political institutions to the electorate. The author compares sixteen-year-olds to non-citizens and suggests that sixteen-year-olds are not obliged to vote, implying that they lack knowledge or interest in the various subjects they would vote on if given the opportunity. It is surprising that an author published in a highly regarded school's online newspaper would make such a careless error.