Retchless 1

Peer Review by Andrew Sherburne

Paxton Retchless

Mr. Ventura

ENG 1530

11 January 2021

Increase Civic Education to Lower Voting Age

Fifty years ago, the voting age was lowered from twenty-one to eighteen. Now, some

people are fighting to lower the voting age again, this time to sixteen. Those who want to lower

the voting age again believe sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are affected by many current

events and governmental policies, but have no say in them, and their abilities to work and drive

make them mature enough to vote (Astor). However, supporters of lowering the voting age are

certainly met with opposition. Those who oppose lowering the voting age believe sixteen- and

seventeen-year olds are in fact not ready, and society keeps increasing the age of responsibilities,

not lowering it. Also, civic tests have shown that younger voters are not very knowledgeable

about civics (Davenport). The opposition provides strong points, but what if the civic knowledge

of younger people could be increased? Studies conducted in Austria and Norway found that

lowering the voting age was beneficial when the education system was modified to increase civic

knowledge (Zeglovits). A solution to the issue is yet to be determined, but with the increasing

desire to vote among sixteen- and seventeen-year olds, the debate needs to be resolved. If

lawmakers mandate an increase in civic education at the appropriate grade levels, they should

also allow sixteen- and seventeen-year olds to vote. If governments mandated higher levels of

civic education, younger people could become knowledgeable enough and prepared to vote.
 Retchless 2

Many people have strong reason to believe the voting age should be lowered because

sixteen- and seventeen- year olds are affected by current issues and their responsibilities make

them ready to vote. Sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are affected by several current issues, and

“the rationale is that between climate change, gun violence, student debt and other issues, they

do have enough skin in the game” (Astor). Some sixteen- and seventeen-year olds experienced

gun violence firsthand during the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool shooting, which is

only one of many high school shootings that have occurred. After the Marjory Stoneman

Douglas Highschool shooting, sixteen- and seventeen- year olds created and participated in the

March for Our Lives Campaign, which shows their interest in political issues. One of the issues

with lowering the voting age to sixteen is they do not have an obvious reason like eighteen-year

olds did. At eighteen, people can join the military, which was the driving factor for lowering the

voting age the first time. Supporters of lowering the voting age believe, “People tend to focus on

at 18 you can join the military, but there are a lot of things happening at 16” (Astor). Although

the reasoning for sixteen- and seventeen-year olds is not as outright obvious, the supporters

argue they still have many responsibilities, including driving, working, and being taxed, that

make them ready to vote. A major representative for these arguments is Representative Ayanna

Presley of Massachusetts. In March, Pressley proposed an amendment to lower the voting age to

sixteen, but the amendment failed 126 to 305 (Astor). These arguments were not enough to make

the majority of the House of Representatives believe the voting age should be lowered.

People also support lowering the voting age because the voter turnout for people of all

ages could increase. Leading up to the 2020 presidential election, young people were very

involved and played a significant role in voter turnout. Research conducted about engagement

pre-election showed fifty-one percent of youth tried to convince other youth to vote, and seventy
 Retchless 3

percent of youth talked to friends about political issues or elections (Beadle). Evidently, young

people encourage their peers to vote, but also their elders. As a result of youth participation in

politics, a “trickle-up” effect could occur, and older people could become more civically

involved because kids are talking about politics in the home. A program called Kids Voting is “a

national mock election program which allows children in grades K-12 to vote at the polls while

learning about the political process through a comprehensive classroom curriculum” (Mandell).

A survey conducted in 1966 found that “between five and ten percent of respondents reported

Kids Voting was a factor in their decision to vote. This indicated that 600,000 adults nationwide

were encouraged to vote by the program” (Mandell). A lower voting age could also increase

voter turnout in the future. Research conducted in Austria and Norway determined the turn-out

rates among sixteen- and seventeen-year old first-time voters were much higher than that of

eighteen to twenty-one-year old first-time voters. This is important because “If someone starts as

a voter, she or he will most likely vote again. If someone starts as a non-voter, she or he will

probably develop the habit of non-voting,” and “high turn-out rates among 16-and 17-year-olds

thus might raise hopes for future turn-out rates” (Zeglovits). The Speaker of the United States

House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, agrees a lower voting age could increase voter turnout,

and sixteen- and seventeen year olds should be allowed to vote while they are engaged in politics

in high school.

Lowering the voting age can also be beneficial when civic education is increased within

schools. The research conducted in Austria and Norway found this idea to be true. Lowering the

voting age was beneficial in Austria, but not in Norway. The main difference was that Austria

modified its education system to increase civic knowledge, while Norway did not (Zeglovits).

Austria “introduced some changes in the school curricula, introduced civic education as a subject
 Retchless 4

in the eighth grade (students aged 12–13) and implemented awareness raising campaigns or

projects and mock elections in schools” (Zeglovits). Austria exposed their youth to politics and

sufficiently taught them about civics at a young age. Youth in Norway participated in trial

elections in certain municipalities, but the Austrian youth were fully enfranchised. In Norway,

the political interest of sixteen- and seventeen-year olds was much lower than that of older first-

time voters, but in Austria, no significant difference of political interest was found (Zeglovits).

This implies the increased civic education increased interest in politics among sixteen- and

seventeen-year olds. Similarly for political knowledge, “there is no knowledge gap in Austria

between 16- and 17-year-olds and older first-time voters, whether in knowledge of the political

system or in knowledge of political actors” (Zeglovits). Also, the quality of vote choice was not

lower for sixteen- and seventeen-year olds than older first-time voters in Austria, but in Norway,

sixteen- and seventeen-year olds had more inconsistency between attitudes and vote choice than

older voters. All of these findings show an increase in civic education can make a difference and

be beneficial in lowering the voting age.

Although people provide strong points in favor of lowering the voting age, people who

oppose lowering the voting age have strong points of their own. People who oppose lowering the

voting age believe sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are not ready to vote yet. Some say society

keeps increasing the age of responsibilities, not lowering it. Civic tests are also showing that

younger voters are not very knowledgeable in civics. On previous civic tests, only twenty-three

percent of the younger voters scored proficient or above (Davenport). This proves that, currently,

many sixteen- and seventeen-year olds do not know much about civics, and implies that they

may not be able to make informed decisions while voting. Some argue that sixteen-year olds “are

not even trusted to get a mortgage or borrow money without a guarantor” (Brown). Most
 Retchless 5

members of the the House of Representatives agree with these arguments and oppose lowering

the voting age, including Tennessee Representative Mark. E Green. Green believes America

does not even allow sixteen-year olds to buy a beer because of their inability to reason at that

age, so lowering the voting age is foolish (Astor). Some people also do not want to lower the

voting age because they believe the democratic party will largely benefit. They believe sixteen-

and seventeen-year olds are more likely to vote for the left, and some people only want the

change in order to favor their party (Brown). These people also believe that even though

reasoning may show the voting age should not be lowered, democrats will still support the issue

as a political motive (Davenport). The people who agree with these ideas are mostly

Republicans. Many Republicans fear lowering the voting age could severely hurt their political

party, but benefit their opposing political party.

As of right now, people who oppose lowering the voting age have good reason to. As

previously mentioned, many sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are not knowledgeable enough yet,

as only twenty-three percent of the younger voters scored proficient or above on previous civic

tests (Davenport). This is a valid point, but can be counteracted with an increase in civic

education. With the implementation of higher civic education in Austria, “the quality of the vote

choice is not lower for 16- and 17-year-olds than for older first-time voters,” and “there is no

knowledge gap in Austria between 16- and 17-year-olds and older first-time voters….” An

increase in civic education can allow sixteen- and seventeen-year olds to make quality, informed

decisions while voting. The point that sixteen- and seventeen-year olds cannot buy a beer

because of their inability to reason at that age cannot be counteracted, but eighteen, nineteen, and

twenty-year olds cannot buy a beer either and they are still allowed to vote. Although the idea

that Democrats only want to lower the voting age as a political motive could be a valid concern,
 Retchless 6

the assumption that young people vote largely democratic is untrue. Research has found “while

it's true that young voters have favored Democrats in the past few elections, that is a relatively

recent trend and is not uniform across the country. In 7 of the last 12 presidential elections,

young voters have either preferred the Republican candidate or favored the Democrat by less

than 5 percentage points” (CIRCLE). Young people do not vote as democratically as most

people believe. People who oppose lowering the voting age have valid concerns, but they can be

counteracted.

Lowering the voting age to sixteen in the United States has been considered for multiple

years. Many valid reasons for lowering the voting age are sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are

affected by current issues, have adult-like responsibilities, and can increase voter turnout of

people of all ages. Some opposer’s believe lowering the voting age will largely favor the

democratic party, but this has been invalidated and cannot be considered viable in this argument.

The people who believe sixteen- and seventeen-year olds are not knowledgeable enough about

civics have valid reasoning, but this can be counteracted by increasing civic education in schools.

Research has shown the voting age can successfully be lowered to sixteen if civics are instilled

and taught in schools. If lawmakers mandate an increase in civic education at the appropriate

grade levels, they should also allow sixteen- and seventeen-year olds to vote.
 Retchless 7

Works Cited

Astor, Maggie. “16-Year-Olds Want a Vote. Fifty Years Ago, So Did 18-Year-Olds.” The New

York Times, 19 May 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/us/politics/voting-age.html.

Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

Beadle, Kelly, et. al. “Election Week 2020: Young People Increase Turnout, Lead Biden to

Victory.” Circle at Tufts, Nov. 25, 2020. circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/election-week-

2020. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

Brown, Steven. "'16 Is Far Too Young' England Urged NOT to Reduce Voting Age to 16;

EXPRESS.CO.UK Readers Have Voiced Their Opinions on Whether England Should

Follow Wales and Reduce the Voting Age to 16." Express Online, June 2,

2020. advance-lexis-com.jsrvproxy1.sunyjcc.edu/api/document?

collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:6020-F861-JCJY-G2FR-00000-

00&context=1516831. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

CIRCLE. “Dispelling Myths about Youth Voting.” Circle at Tufts,

circle.tufts.edu/understanding-youth-civic-engagement/dispelling-myths-about-youth-

voting. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

Davenport, David. "Don't Rock the Vote: Why the Voting Age Is Plenty Low Enough

Already." Hoover Digest, no. 1, 2019, p. 82+. Gale Academic

OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A613204356/AONE?

u=sunyjcc&sid=AONE&xid=c97125eb. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

Mandell, Keith. "Lowering the Voting Age Will Increase Voter Turnout." Greenhaven Press,

2008. Gale In Context: Opposing

 Retchless 8

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010525207/OVIC?

u=sunyjcc&sid=OVIC&xid=7983f720. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.

Zeglovits, Eva. "Voting at 16? Youth Suffrage is Up for Debate." European View, vol. 12, no. 2,

2013, pp. 249-254. ProQuest, search-proquest-

com.jsrvproxy1.sunyjcc.edu/docview/1467021883?accountid=39896,

doi:http://dx.doi.org.jsrvproxy1.sunyjcc.edu/10.1007/s12290-013-0273-3. Accessed 11

Jan. 2021.