More voices should be involved in the process
We should incorporate as much of the population as possible in decisions involving voters.
(1 of 4) Next argument >
Elections are based upon the people's voices. Sixteen-year-olds need to be incorporated because they understand what's going on, and there is no reason to exclude them when a wider age range could be beneficial to the voting population.
In issues involving society as a whole, it just makes sense to involve as many people as possible. If eighteen-year-olds can vote, why not just lower it two more years to include a vast age group that is often left out of the conversation? Student activists all over the world have demonstrated that they understand and know what is going on, and being able to vote in topics that affect them would be beneficial to the world we live in. The stances they take may alter over time, but the earlier they can be involved the more likely they will be to understand the importance of what they are doing and actively participate in the future.
By that logic, why not just let everyone vote? If the age can be lowered that far we might as well just continue. The same argument can be applied to fourteen-year-olds, thirteen, and so on. It loses its validity.
[P1] The more voices heard, the more accurate elections are. [P2] Students understand what they are voting for. [P3] Students voting will have a great impact on society.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Young voices are not as accurate in knowledge. [Rejecting P2] Young people may just be gaining knowledge from what they see first on the internet. [Rejecting P3] Inaccurate voting may be detrimental rather than beneficial.