Our brain’s frontal lobe, the part or the brain that handles critical thinking and decision making, is not fully developed until around age 25. The frontal lobe is a big reason why people under the age of 25 might not be equipped to voting. There are groups of people lobbying to lower the voting age. The legal voting age should not be decreased to thirteen because they don’t know any of the issues they’d be voting on, they are emotionally immature, and their frontal lobes that determine their decision-making is not entirely developed. Children do not have a good understanding of citizenship; they are rushing the maturation process. Instead of taking their time and learning the values of voting and citizenship they are racing as quickly as …show more content…
Teens are old enough at 16 and 17 to have photo IDs and be tried as adults for serious crimes. It's a double standard to deny them the right to vote while giving them the same penalties as adults. (Should the Voting Age be Lowered? Teens are unfairly treated if they aren’t given the representation of a vote. “Just like all other Americans, young Americans pay taxes. In fact, they pay a lot of taxes. According to the IRS, teens pay an estimated $9.7 billion dollars in sales taxes alone, not to mention many millions of taxes on income.” (The Pros and Cons of Lowering the Voting Age). Teens can make a claim for representation when they’re taxed by a government that they have no say in. “Politicians represent various constituencies. As of today, young people are no one's constituency. Why should politicians care about the needs and wishes of youth when they have no ability to vote for or against them?” (The Pros and Cons of Lowering the Voting Age). Teen’s interests should be protected just like those of every other citizen. That doesn’t negate their inability to make rational voting decisions, however. All of these reasons are why the legal voting age should not be lowered to thirteen; they don’t know any of the issues they’d be voting on, they are emotionally immature, and their frontal lobes that determine their decision-making is not entirely developed. Teens do not know about citizenship. They are young enough to where they make emotional decisions not logical one's, but they do deserve some representation in government. Voting age is an issue as old (or maybe as young?) as time. It is within the nation’s best interests to keep it where it is,
...adults compared to older adults were less likely to respond that voting was extremely important for good citizenship (133). He concludes that it is too late for the generation of young adults that do not feel voting is an important civic responsibility, however, that it is not too late to convince them that politics matter by showing them that they are giving their opportunity to make important decisions that may impact their lives to others who have different ideas. One may agree with Wattenberg’s idea that habits follow people throughout their lives instead of changing as they cycle in life. His personal accounts are an impactful way to illustrate the importance of building a sense of duty at a young age and carrying that responsibility throughout one’s life.
In the late 1960’s to mid-70’s the legal drinking age was 18 because the voting age of 21 was lowered to 18. However, in 1984 a bill was passed that every state in the United States was to change the legal drinking age from 18 to 21. Although this is a highly controversial topic many young adults believe lowering the drinking age back to 18 is best because if they may vote at the age of 18 then, they should be allowed purchase alcoholic beverages. In an article “Should the U.S. lower its drinking age?” written by Brandon Griggs introduces the pros and cons of lowering the drinking age. Griggs explains two generations ago young adults didn’t have to worry much about getting caught drinking or buying their way out to purchase alcohol. Nowadays
Considering the delegates that are currently running for office, a voter should have a vast level of understanding regarding the intentions of each and every candidate. Arguing whether to raise or lower the age limit for the right to vote has raised many speculations as to how it would affect the economy. There are pros and cons within both sides of the argument, but any decisions made by the powers that be will have an adverse effect on today’s society if it is placed in the hands of the younger generation. Therefore, raising the voting age to twenty-one is a better way of making sure that voters are more aware and would be more equipped to making a more sound decision rather than lowering
Since the 1890s, Canada’s voter turn-out has declined steadily, however, the decline in voter turn-out in the last several elections is one of great concern to Canada’s democracy. As a result, mandatory voting has gained the attention of many political scientists and political analysts. While there are good reasons to worry about Canadians’ diminishing voter turn-out, it is also fair to say that mandatory voting will not prove beneficial to the future of Canada’s democracy. Although mandatory voting will increase the voter turn-out, it will not create an informed voter base and neither raise a more politically knowledgeable society. Making voting compulsory is accompanied by both positive and negative outcomes, but in Canada, many fear that the negative outcomes outweigh the positives.
The age at which one is eligible to vote has been a source of heated discussions and debates. Should the voting age be lowered? Should it remain at age 18?
A political problem that has been argued over since prohibition is the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). This is a controversial subject because many believe that the legal drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18 years old. “In the 1970’s the 26th amendment was passed which lowered the legal voting age, this caused 30 US states to lower their MLDA to 18, 19, or 20 which left 14 states with a MLDA of 21 by 1982” (Minimal Legal Drinking Age, 1). But reports later showed an increase in teenage car accidents in states with a lower MLDA; these states soon changed the MLDA back to 21.
Prevailing arguments that lean in the vicinity of adverse effects of mandatory voting laws have always been primarily fixated on two things. Firstly, the controversy between Canadian rights and duties. Secondly, the proclamation that it 's undemocratic to force individuals to vote. However, a phenomenon that is frequently repressed, is the notion that sustaining a democracy in any country builds upon the commonality between informed citizens to hold the government accountable. As voter turnout plummets, so does the rights of Canadian citizens, in a democracy that is slowly being scrutinized as a crumbling social order of equality and justice. Let alone, in a political culture amidst a perspective centralized around peacekeeping and freedom,
John Adams once said "You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." For many generations, our ancestors have fought for the right to vote. It started with the Civil Rights Act in 1964 which made it mandatory that white schools integrate black children into their institutions. The outcome of the 1964 election was a landslide, favoring the democrats, which broached the issue of civil rights legislation. In 1964 “only 7% of eligible black citizens in Mississippi were registered; in Alabama the figure was 20% (Kernell, et. al 2014, 162). The low voter turnout rate was because people of color were required to take a literacy test. This all changed when President Johnson
All 50 states have set the minimum legal drinking age to 21, although some states have made exceptions. Raising the drinking age to 21 in order to avoid teenage drinking has instead created excessive drinking in private places, therefore producing more danger (“Minimum”). The national drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 in 1984; it was not until 1988 that all 50 states had a minimum legal drinking age of 21 (Wechsler and Nelson 986). Drinking underage is permitted in certain circumstances in 45 of the states; 29 states allow it on private property under parental consent, 25 states allow it for religious purposes, and 11 for educational purposes (“Minimum”). Lowering the minimum drinking age is ineffective and would benefit the economy, it
Today in America, less than half of young voters between the ages of 18 and 24 vote (TheBestColleges.org). What most of these new adults fail to realize, is that their government depends on them to vote and elect new leaders to represent their country. Many of them make excuses to avoid voting, when really, they benefit most from voting.
One on-going debate that has caused quite the argument between researchers, and that has been going on for decades in America, has been if the minimum legal drinking age should be lowered from age 21 to 18 for U.S. citizens. It has been clear that there is a drinking problem amongst this age range, for excessive drinking contributes to more than 4,300 deaths a year among those who under 21 in the U.S. (Fact Sheets, 2016). The debate in this argument circles around pinpointing the right method to combat this drinking problem. On one side, there are top professional researchers and institutes that believe that the MLDA, or minimum legal drinking age, should continue to stay at 21. They believe that this is the most appropriate MLDA, because they believe teens younger than this age don’t know how to handle alcohol responsibly, which could ultimately result in harm to themselves or others. On the other side of this argument are those who believe the MLDA should be lowered to around 18 or 19 years old. Proponents of this argument
In this paper, the reasons why young people do not vote will be explored and solutions as to how to get them to vote will be proposed. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), there are five main reasons why young people don’t vote. The graph presented uses census survey data from 2010 for citizens 18-24. The graph was broken down into two groups, those who are and are not in college. The first reason cited was being away from home or out of town, 23% of college students stated this and only 5% of people not in college stated this.
Hello, I am RJ Dearing. I am a sophomore at Washington Virtual Academies and I am writing to you to tell you why you should change the minimum age to vote to be at least closer to sixteen years of age. The younger generation of teens and young adults who also have a few opinions on politics like myself would love to voice our opinions on our own ballets. The only problem is the minimum age to vote right now is eighteen. A whole two years of waiting for our voices to be heard, when all you have to do is change the minimum age and let us have our voice heard on political matters.
According to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting lowering the voting age in 1971, this leads to a search for a way to contribute to change, often birthing violent or destructive pastimes, instead of the constructive act of voting. Lowering the voting age would give teens the power to change the world, thus empowering and rejuvenating a politically wary social group. Politicians have no reason to care about the interests of 16 and 17-year-olds under current law, in contrast, with the proposed law, politicians would be required to fight for the interests of said younger group to keep their job. Bolstering the morale and democratic ideals of a struggling adolescent generation is a massive effect this small alteration in current legislation would
In “You’re 16, You’re Beautiful and You’re a Voter,” author Anya Kamenetz states her belief that the voting age should be lowered to sixteen. Kamenetz gives several premises to her argument.