Sir, – With An Coimisiún Toghcháin likely to begin examining the prospect of expanding voting access in local and European elections to 16 and 17 year olds (“Scrapping byelections and lowering voting age could be studied by Electoral Commission”, News, August 9th), it’s important to address some of the contradictory arguments often put forward by opponents of lowering the voting age.
The first argument often made against extension of democratic rights to younger people is that they haven’t formed their views based on real life and the real world, and therefore their votes could somehow destabilise the country for everyone.
However, what we have seen to date are votes of those over the age of 18 – and often significantly older – resulting in economic crashes, a national bailout, a constitutional amendment that caused the deaths of pregnant women, a rental crisis, a health service in chaos, a fast-collapsing climate, and unprecedented levels of homelessness. If that’s what stability and good judgment looks like, give me the chaos any day.
Another argument is that younger people don’t pay income tax and therefore shouldn’t have a say in the levying of taxes and other national decisions.
Matt Williams: Take a deep breath and see how Sam Prendergast copes with big Fiji test
New Irish citizens: ‘I hear the racist and xenophobic slurs on the streets. Everything is blamed on immigrants’
Jack Reynor: ‘We were in two minds between eloping or going the whole hog but we got married in Wicklow with about 220 people’
‘I could have gone to California. At this rate, I probably would have raised about half a billion dollars’
The problem with that position of course is that 16 and 17 year olds can engage in employment in Ireland and those that do pay income tax.
A wider concern with that argument though is the implication that only those who pay income tax should have a vote. If we go down that route, must we also question how much tax should qualify someone to hold a vote?
I would say no, to the entirety of that suggestion.
A third argument runs that younger people’s brains aren’t fully developed and therefore they simply cannot be trusted to make rational decisions at the ballot box.
Followed through to its logical conclusion though, the same argument would have the right to vote removed from older individuals whose mental capacities may be declining. Again, not something anyone should be calling for.
Finally, there is the classic argument that 16 and 17 year olds don’t have an interest in voting and therefore it would be a waste to give them the right to vote.
The obvious problem with that position is that at the 2020 general election less than 63 per cent of registered voters actually turned out to vote. Should the remaining 37 per cent be stripped of their right to vote because they didn’t have an interest in using their vote? No, of course not.
Ultimately, any argument made against expansion of democratic rights to 16 and 17 year olds can be easily countered by the reality of our current voting system.
If someone can engage in employment, consent to medical procedures, have and raise a child, they should absolutely be entitled to a vote in our democracy. – Yours, etc,
TOMÁS HENEGHAN,
East Wall,
Dublin 3.