In 500 BC, during Athens’ golden age of democracy, the voting age was set at 18. Over 2,500 years later, this threshold remains the same in the vast majority (90%) of countries. However, as democracies grapple with rising populism, authoritarianism, marginalization of vulnerable groups, and diminishing public trust, it is time to re-evaluate this long-standing tradition. Lowering the voting age to 16 offers a bold solution to rejuvenate democratic systems, fostering accountability, inclusivity, and civic engagement.
Critics argue that teenagers are too immature to participate in elections. However, neurodevelopmental science shows otherwise. By age 16, the brain’s cold cognition—used for long-term, deliberate, and logical decision-making—is fully developed, providing teenagers with the cognitive ability to make informed political decisions. If immaturity disqualifies voters, then must we also exclude adults who fall prey to populist rhetoric or misinformation?
Lowering the voting age to 16 can strengthen democratic systems by combating democratic apathy through early civic engagement, ensuring intergenerational equity by including those with the greatest stake in the future, and expanding participation to foster accountability and inclusivity.
Combating Democratic Apathy
Young people both in the US and abroad are growing critical of democratic systems. Some claim that youth lack interest in politics, but this is a mischaracterization of their engagement. Studies reveal that young Europeans are disheartened by the existing system and politicians, seeking alternative ways to engage with social and political issues. This results in them abstaining from conventional systems (i.e. voting, and institutions) and engaging in non-conventional participation (i.e. petitions, social media, and protests).
As young people lose faith in democracy, they become more likely to support autocratic-leaning regimes. For instance, autocratic-leaning politician Marine Le Pen garnered her largest support base among voters aged 18 to 24, with 40% of them expressing support for her. Seeing the failures of the democratic system and the effectiveness of autocratic regimes such as China’s style of collective authority leads to the belief that individual rights are less important. Only 27% of Generation Z strongly agree that democracy is the best form of government, compared to 62% of Baby Boomers, 47% of Generation X, 37% of Millennials, and 75% of the Silent Generation. This raises the question: why involve a cohort displaying counter-democratic beliefs? Paradoxically, engaging young people early on may help reverse their growing disengagement with democracy. Research from the College of William & Mary Law School has shown that by the age of 16 brains can develop lifelong habits, and according to Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies, voting is habit-forming. Early civic engagement at a time when children are in school and are encouraged to engage with their communities could combat this phenomenon of apathy and anti-democratic views.
Intergenerational Equity
Democracy, rooted in the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (power), becomes stronger when more people are included. Its basis is built on the empowerment of the public, and its strength lies in the diversity of voices and perspectives it represents. By embracing broader and greater participation, democracy gains legitimacy, and the ability to address the needs of all its citizens.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recognizes children’s rights to express their views on “all matters affecting the child”. Yet, despite teenagers comprising 16% of the global population, only those aged 18–19— one-fifth of this cohort—can vote, excluding the vast majority from political and public life. While those under 18 are restricted from voting, there is no upper age limit. According to the UN’s World Social Report in 2023, the number of people aged over 65 worldwide is projected to increase by over 200% while fertility rates are projected to drop by 50% by 2050. This demographic shift will amplify the age bias favoring an older electorate. At a time when today’s crises demand long-term thinking, lowering the voting age to 16 empowers those with the longest life expectancy, and the greatest stake in future outcomes, to have a voice in decision-making.
In fact, in a cross-municipality primary research study I conducted in Greece and Sweden, after local council meetings between youths and elected officials I observed a significant shift in council members’ attitudes toward the inclusion of teenagers in municipal decision-making and their broader political priorities, specifically adopting more climate-friendly initiatives. This highlights the transformative impact of formal youth participation, bridging the intergenerational gap and encouraging politicians to consider younger voters in their policies.
Echoes of Exclusion, A Historical Perspective on Voting Rights
Some argue that introducing a new cohort into the electorate will disrupt electoral dynamics. However, framing this issue as a political calculation rather than a human right undermines democratic principles. The arguments against granting teenagers the vote echo those once used to exclude women, black people, and the working class, reflecting outdated biases rather than valid concerns. For women, it was argued that they lacked any rationality and political voice and belonged in the domestic sphere. According to the science of the time, women had inferior brains which made them unsuited to the rigors of voting. These same arguments, specifically of rationality, relate on teenagers’ political participation rights. However, self-protection and maintaining the status quo were behind the denial of women’s right to suffrage.
Another common criticism of women’s suffrage—echoed in discussions about lowering the voting age—is that women would simply vote as their husbands did, implying that family socialization undermines political independence. Similarly, young people are often thought to be heavily influenced by their parents, raising questions about their political maturity. Research, however, complicates this argument. For instance, a Belgian study found a strong correlation between teens’ and parents’ political ideologies, with a one-unit shift in parents’ left-right ideological position leading to a 0.57-unit shift in their children’s, highlighting significant alignment. While this alignment is often cited as evidence of a lack of independent thought, political socialization within families is not a one-way process. Contemporary research reveals that intra-family socialization is reciprocal: children influence their parents’ perspectives too. If political influence within the family is a reason for political exclusion, should we also exclude parents from the electoral process because their views are shaped by their children?
This criticism assumes that turning 18 eradicates 18 years of shared family environments, discussions, and values. Research demonstrates that ideological and positional views are already well-formed by the age of 15.
In a time marked by democratic backsliding, strengthening the “demand side” of democracy is crucial for promoting greater accountability from leaders. Including young people in democratic processes enhances this accountability. With 1.8 billion young people worldwide—90% of whom live in consolidating democracies—there is a significant opportunity to improve democratic systems. So, why would we wait another 2,500 years to adapt our democracies to the needs of the present?
Image: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-united-kingdom-july-3-2016-446643277
I want to congratulate Ines for an exceptional and engaging blogpost. In this post, Ines frames lowering the voting age to sixteen as a way to “rejuvenate democratic systems.” There are several strengths of this piece that I wanted to highlight, and some open questions that Ines’s proposal raises.
Her utilisation of neurodevelopmental science research is a novel mechanism that I have never seen in discussions of voter psychology and political science, and I must admit that I laughed at her rhetorical question: “if immaturity disqualifies voters, then must we also exclude adults who fall prey to populist rhetoric or misinformation?” By placing the disenfranchisement of older teens alongside other historically maligned disenfranchisement (women, ethnic minorities, etc), Ines implicates the 18 voting age as morally fraught. By highlighting her own independent research on the topic, she establishes her credibility.
One thing I was concerned about was Ines’s assertion that earlier voting will foster democratic habit formation. At the same time, she also highlights that young voters have often supported populist, anti-democratic sentiment. While lowering the voting age to 16 would allow teens to access procedural democracy, democracy is about more than casting a vote—it is about engaging with broader democratic culture. I wonder if encouraging young anti-democrats to vote would really foster the democratic pluralism Ines hopes for.
While my personal position on this issue is still unclear, Ines’s piece was highly compelling, engaging, and convincing. I’d be interested to hear more about what she thinks about youth rights. If 16 and 17 year-olds have the ability to make rational, long-term decisions, should they be allowed to serve in the military? Sign onto a mortgage? Marry without parental consent? What other “adult rights” should be expanded to them?
Ines, this is a really interesting and well framed argument that I enjoyed reading! I encountered some movements to lower the voting age to 16 when I was in high school but have not heard much about it in recent years. I agree that Generation Z (aka us) has borne witness to the perils and pitfalls of democracy around the world throughout our whole lives and this creates a sort of disillusionment surrounding the practice as a whole—it’s nice to learn that research and statistics support my own lived experiences and observations on this theme. I also really like your guiding question of “why involve a cohort displaying counter-democratic beliefs?” because while this is definitely something that needs to be considered, and I know myself and many of my peers don’t always agree with the way our countries are governed, I had never thought to frame issues of youth engagement in this exact way. It is refreshing and reassuring to hear that, actually, efforts to engage young citizens can in fact reverse democratic disengagement and promote a more participatory voting population in the future. Your point about the shifting global age demographics and need to include those with the most stake in policies affecting the long term future was also very persuasive.
One possible counterargument to the idea of lowering the voting age to 16, and something that worried me as I was reading this article, is a lack of civic education that could be a detriment to the democratic process. 16 year olds may not have enough education and knowledge of the world and their government to make informed choices. While this is not necessarily influential to everyone, I believe it is fairly common for students to take government or civics classes in their last two years of high school (I personally did not take one until age 17). I believe that beliefs and opinions tend to be formed by age 15, but this does not imply that teenagers at this age are well versed in the intricacies of the American governance system (adults may not be either, but this is a separate problem entirely). Overall, I think this proposal is persuasive and worth considering but there are still factors which could prevent it from having the intended positive effects on American democracy.
Ines, much like Professor Blair said during our final class, you have changed my mind about lowering the voting age. If I had been asked ten minutes ago if my 16-year-old sister should have the right to vote, I would have scoffed and moved on immediately, but I feel far more inclined to say yes after reading this blog post. I was particularly convinced by the idea of voting as habit-forming in an age where apathy towards democracy is prevalent among youth. Another wonderfully argued point that made me both laugh and convinced me of your argument was the following rhetorical question: If political influence within the family is a reason for political exclusion, should we also exclude parents from the electoral process because their views are shaped by their children? I couldn’t help but think of my own family’s political views and laugh at the prospect of my Dad being disenfranchised from voting because his 16-year-old daughter convinced him to consider reproductive justice more seriously in his political alignment.
You rather effectively turned counter-arguments against lowering the voting age on their head. One counter-argument that wasn’t addressed by your blog post, seems to be the wider repercussions of expanding civil liberties at the age of 16. At least in the United States, there are legal protections for individuals up until the age of 18 within the justice and child welfare systems that, if the voting age were to be lowered, would likely be reevaluated and revoked after the age of 16. A lower voting age could become justification for revoking costly special privileges of youth that are undeniable social goods. This is not to say that the voting age should not be lowered, but rather that there are likely going to be unintended legal consequences to an earlier entrance to what our society considers “adulthood”.