POLITICS: The voting age should be lowered to 16

Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive

How old were you when you first felt truly aware of the world around you—the politics, the issues, the community decisions? In many cases by 16, you’re already involved in so many decisions about your future. You might be driving, working a part-time job, and navigating big questions about career paths and life goals. But should 16-year-olds also have the power to vote, helping shape the policies that will impact their futures?

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today’s topic is “The voting age should be lowered to 16,” and it’s from our Full-Size Essentials Collection deck. Let’s dig in!

The debate over the voting age has been going on for decades. In the U.S., the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971, largely due to the Vietnam War. The idea was that if 18-year-olds were old enough to be drafted, they should be old enough to vote on the policies that might send them to war. Now, the conversation has shifted to lowering the age further, with advocates arguing that 16-year-olds are more informed and capable than ever before.

In recent years, countries like Austria and Scotland have lowered the voting age to 16 for certain elections, allowing younger people to have a say in decisions impacting them. And here in the U.S., some cities, like Takoma Park, Maryland, have extended voting rights to 16-year-olds in local elections.

This topic is essential today because young people have become more politically engaged than ever before. They’re often at the center of conversations about climate change, gun control, and education reform—issues that will profoundly shape their future. The question of whether they should have a direct say in these matters by voting is relevant not only to teenagers but to society as a whole, as it could redefine the role of youth in our democracy.

Now, let’s debate.

Agree – The voting age should be lowered to 16

16-year-olds are informed and mature enough. At 16, teens often make decisions that carry significant responsibility—like getting a driver’s license, holding part-time jobs, and sometimes even paying taxes. They’re also exposed to more information through technology, making them more aware of social and political issues. Studies show that many teenagers keep up with current events and actively participate in community activities, which shows they can be responsible voters.

Encouraging lifelong civic engagement. When people start voting early, they’re more likely to continue voting throughout their lives. By allowing 16-year-olds to vote, we’re creating good habits of civic engagement early, potentially leading to a more active and engaged electorate. Research from the U.K. shows that voters who start at a young age are more likely to stay politically engaged.

Youth voices on critical issues. Young people are disproportionately affected by policy decisions on education, climate change, and the economy. Given that these decisions impact their lives significantly, it makes sense to include their perspectives. In recent years, youth-led movements like the March for Our Lives and the Global Climate Strike have demonstrated that young people can advocate effectively on serious issues.

Disagree – The voting age should not be lowered to 16

16-year-olds lack the life experience and maturity. 16-year-olds, while informed, haven’t lived long enough to fully understand the impact of complex policies. Voting requires not just knowledge but a level of maturity that comes with life experience. In the U.S., 16-year-olds can’t yet buy alcohol, vote in federal elections, or be drafted, suggesting that society already considers them too young for certain responsibilities.

Potential for influence from parents or schools. Younger voters may be more easily influenced by their parents, teachers, or peer groups, which could mean their votes don’t reflect their own independent choices. Political scientists warn that these influences might result in voting patterns that don’t genuinely represent the interests of younger voters themselves, reducing the authenticity of their participation.

Youth turnout and interest could be low. Despite the efforts to increase youth engagement, studies have shown that even 18-year-olds tend to have lower voter turnout than other age groups. This raises the question of whether lowering the voting age would truly increase engagement or just add more low-turnout voters to the rolls.

Agree Rebuttal While critics argue that 16-year-olds lack maturity, proponents argue that exposure to education and information makes up for it. Today’s teens have more resources and learning opportunities than ever before, including civics education, which equips them with the tools needed to make informed decisions.

Disagree Rebuttal Those who believe young voters are too influenced by parents or teachers should consider that all voters, regardless of age, are influenced by various factors, including the media, community, and personal connections. Youth voting advocates argue that these influences aren’t unique to teens.

Emphasizing Complexity Lowering the voting age is not simply a question of maturity or experience. It also involves considering how we as a society view civic responsibility, how we prepare youth for it, and whether we value their input on future-defining policies.

Today, we explored the debate over whether the voting age should be lowered to 16. Proponents argue that today’s teenagers are informed, engaged, and ready to contribute to society, while critics believe that 16 is too young for the responsibility of voting. Each side brings valid concerns about maturity, influence, and the importance of youth voices in shaping the future.

In recent news, several U.S. states are considering legislation to lower the voting age for local elections, reflecting growing support for youth involvement in politics. At the same time, studies on youth engagement in voting from countries like Austria and Scotland, where the voting age is already 16 for certain elections, continue to shed light on both the benefits and challenges of this policy shift.

Want to dig into this topic even more? When you’re playing Dinner Table Debates at home, the Agree side sets the stage and chooses how to define the debate. This means they can outline the terms, context, and interpretation, creating a unique conversation every time. Here are some ways that Agree could redefine this debate topic:

“The voting age should be lowered for state elections but not federal elections.” Is local knowledge and relevance more important than general maturity for state vs. federal issues? How might voting on state issues first prepare younger people for national voting later?

“The voting age should be lowered to 16 only on issues directly impacting youth, such as education and climate.” Should there be specific areas where youth input has more influence? How would we decide which issues are youth-centered?

“The voting age should be 16 only if accompanied by civics education requirements.” Should readiness to vote be tied to understanding governmental structures and policies? Would this approach encourage a more informed young voter base?

If you enjoyed our deep dive, you can debate this topic and many others by getting your own Dinner Table Debates deck at DinnerTableDebates.com. It's a unique game because every round starts with randomly assigning agree or disagree, then you pick the topic, meaning you might be debating for something you disagree with—or vice versa! Stretch your brain, gain clarity, improve critical thinking and empathy, and have fun doing it. Save 10% on your order when you use the code PODCAST10. You can also join the debate on our Instagram and TikTok accounts at DinnerTableDebates. Get ready for some thought-provoking discussions that will challenge your assumptions and broaden your understanding of the world around you! Happy debating, and remember, everyone is always welcome at the table.