Latest news with #Scottishstudy

National Post

Daniel Manandhar: I'm 17. I shouldn't be allowed to vote

Article content Article content Supporters of this argument might respond with a Scottish study which found that teenagers allowed to vote at 16 are more likely to continue voting into their 20s. It's difficult enough to get teenagers to attend school these days, but even if the study's conclusion is true, turnout for the sake of turnout alone is not a noble goal if it does not represent an improvement to the function of our democracy. This country does not need an influx of uninformed new voters who largely get their news from TikTok. Article content There are many other cases for lowering the voting age that make equally little sense. Some propose that since 16-year-olds can drive, it's only fair that they have the vote. Ask these people how driving and voting are alike and they will seem perplexed. Another absurd notion is that 16-year-olds can consent to sex, therefore they must be mature enough to vote. It's witless. Article content Article content More creative individuals have suggested that the right to vote for 16-year-olds could be given as a reward — in exchange for passing a civics test, for example. I wonder how much this test would cost taxpayers, and what might be considered an appropriate level of knowledge for teenagers to vote. If voting were a privilege for academic 16-year-olds, teenagers not allowed to vote would be forever discouraged from it. Critically, voting isn't meant to be a reward for the smart — its purpose is to give Canadian adults an equal say in determining the direction of the nation, irrespective of their qualities and flaws. If the safe way to give the vote to 16-year-olds is as a prize, then it shouldn't be given to them at all. Article content Moreover, if you allow 16-year-olds to vote, they should be allowed to run for office. But how would 16-year-old parliamentarians do their job, since we also expect teenagers to be in school? Article content The crux of the argument for lowering the voting age is that teenagers have a stake in our country, and there is no way for them to have their voices heard other than the vote. Isn't this piece proof to the contrary? Article content Article content Elections are fickle things. They have real consequences for everyone, including teenagers. Much can change in four years. Beyond the tired old arguments, Canadians need to consider the cardinal question of trust. Article content I am uncomfortable with the prospect of anyone my age influencing four years of vital policy. Do you trust that impressionable teenagers will settle on the right vision for Canada? I would have been delighted to vote in the last election, but this isn't about my self-interest — it's about the national interest. If you wouldn't trust your 16-year-old child to manage the finances of your household, you shouldn't trust 16-year-olds with the deciding vote over the purse strings of the nation. Article content Article content Article content