First off, anybody painting "conservatives" of being partisan on this issue should just be smacked. It's a partisan play by the left to lower it and sure, the conservatives have a partisan interest in not having it lowered... but anyone trying to argue one party is being partisan and another is just being virtuous needs to smack themselves.
The issue is unfortunately going to take a partisan tone one way or another. Acknowledging that fact is an important part of the conversation. So if one can acknowledge the partisan part and try to explain their view, then they should be smacked? I didn’t see anywhere in the thread where anyone argued that one side was partisan while the other side was being virtuous.
So pushing partisanship aside because I just want good governments and policies, I'm against lowering the voting age, I actually might be in favour of raising it. At the end of the day, humans develop differently and there is no one day we can pick, 16th, 17th, 18th, or 25th birthday, that has a nice clean cut-off as "you've now got a reasonably developed adult brain to work with," since some will be there at 18 while others won't reach it until 25, and others will never reach it. That's why it's called the age of majority in that, for the majority of people will have a reasonably developed brain (of which there is also no objective standard).
Age of majority (which is actually age of legal majority) is not the same as age of maturity which is what yiu are describing Our society and others set various ages to be able to do certain things. Voting age in Canada is 18, but in most provinces drinking age is 19. In the US it’s 21 for drinking in many states. Driving age is 16. At 16 you can legally marry and have consensual sex with an adult. (It was 14 until recently). At 12 you can use a gun. Age of legal majority is a set as the point we decide that you are an adult fir a variety of things. Yet we have child support payments that continue beyond 18.
Voting age does not actually have to be tied to that age (age of majority) but it currently is.
I think a lot of that brain development has to do with the responsibilities we give people, a bit of a chicken or the egg game. I know moving out at 18 made me grow up quicker, I know being a Pl Comd at 22 made me grow up quicker. The trend these days is that adolescent youth are taking on less and less of those responsibilities. They are moving out later, entering careers later, it's completely common to have someone's parents calling a professor in post-secondary or dealing with post-secondary administration on issues, etc. Couple that with the evolving scientific literature that says adolescence continues into the mid-20s. There seems to be nothing that suggests that the age of majority should be lowered because "kids these days" are growing up faster / brain development is happening earlier, quite the opposite.
If you look at the pros and cons list there is some evidence to suggest that at 16, the “cold cognition” part of the brain is developed enough when it comes to things like voting. From the link (which has sources).
“Scientists believe that “cold cognition” skills, those used to make the kind of informed, well-thought out choices needed in voting, are solidly established in 16-year-olds.”
And
A study in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science found that, “On measures of civic knowledge, political skills, political efficacy, and tolerance, 16-year-olds, on average, are obtaining scores similar to those of adults… Adolescents in this age range are developmentally ready to vote.”
What "benefits" are there, exactly? A higher voting turn-out? How is that a benefit? I would challenge the idea that that in and of itself is a benefit. If higher voter turn-out is an indisputable benefit, then the argument should be about mandatory voting.
The earlier someone exercises their right to vote the greater the chance they will remain engaged in that process for the rest of their lives. Thus increasing voter participation. You also add cohort years to the process. In any election given a 4 year cycle (although that can vary if this current government is any indication) people that are voting for the first time are typically aged anywhere from 18 to 22. That is within the age range where voter apathy is highest and engagement is lowest. A variety of reasons explains this as that this the age range where major life changes can happen. Moving out, Post secondary education, entering the work force etc. When I speak of voter turn out I also mean actual engagement in the process. Making it mandatory does not equate to greater engagement.
I am however not opposed to mandatory voting. In fact I think age should be dropped all together and a civics test should be passed in order to vote. Either given in school or otherwise. But that likely won’t fly.
Also the whole "well it's their future, they should be able to vote on it," ummmm okay? Then why not start letting 8 year olds vote?
See the quotes I posted above about cold cognition.
I don’t think that equating an 8 year old to a 16 year old is a valid counter argument. If the argument is a 16 year old can’t have the cognitive skills to vote or be politically engaged (and as such be equivalent to an 8 year old in that regard) then the same argument exists for any number of age related permissive behaviour. Should the the young offenders age be raised to 25? No. How about joining the military? 17 or 25? Guns? Wait until you are 25?
Now, here's a real interesting thought experiment that will probably raise a fuss... female brains tend to develop faster than male brains. How about different ages of majority for boys and girls, with the ladies getting to vote earlier.
It’s likely why the age of consent in Canada was 14 for so long. Or why throughout history they were married off at early ages. Using the fact that biologically and cognitively they matured faster than males. Again ages of majority and voting age are different things even though we have them at the same age.
But yes, it is an interesting thought experiment. I doubt it would get any real traction (extreme feminists might agree with the premise though). I’d be curious to see if there is any real academic or discussion on that point.
