- Facebook18
- Threads
- Bluesky
- Total 18
(New York City) One of the recommendations of our major recent report, “All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement,” is to experiment with lowering the voting age to 17 in local and state elections. Voting for the first time at 18 is a bit problematic, because that is just when many people have left the communities in which they grew up for work or college. They are suddenly in networks of other 18-year-olds, in which everyone is new to politics, and less connected to older adults. On the other hand, if you could vote at 17, you could register in school and learn about the political system and how to vote in your social studies class.
In November, Takoma Park, MD tried it. Their 16- and 17-year-old residents voted in the city’s municipal election. Their turnout was 16.9%, nearly double the 8.5% turnout rate of eligible residents 18 and up.
This is a tiny data point–one election in one small community. A possible explanation for the respectable turnout is that it was the first time; there was a “buzz” about the new right to vote. We know that the first presidential election in which 18-21’s could vote, 1972, set a turnout record never since matched. But the more optimistic explanation is that Takoma Park kids heard about the election in school and were encouraged to vote. That could happen every year.
Great thoughts, Peter! I wonder, however, whether there is a specific logic you’re using in suggesting that we lower the voting age to 17 instead of 16, like Takoma Park?
In my mind, lowering the age to 16 is preferable because it guarantees that most young people would have an opportunity to participate in two or three elections before they graduated, which makes them well on the way to developing a habit – especially if those elections were taught about and discussed in their schools as they were happening. Only letting youth vote at 17 means they may only get the chance to vote once or maybe twice before graduation (or for students affected by the age cut offs in kindergarten, maybe never). That could mean just voting was just a thing they did once, and then the same problems for future voting you highlight above would still apply.
I think that the Takoma Park experiment is actually a great model for developing good civic habits and helping young people understand and value local politics because, by allowing youth to vote in municipal elections, young people could conceivably get their first exposure to participating in politics in the governmental body that most directly affects them – the school board. This is a double whammy, because not only do young people start engaging in civic discussions and activities, but the school board would then have to be more accountable to the interest group most impacted by its decisions – the students. Making school board candidates have to pursue “the high schooler vote” could be a great way to ensure that students and young people have more of a say in their schools and can offer their input and feedback on policies and what’s (not) working in their schools – thereby helping add their creative energies to the nation’s education system. It could also reinvigorate local school boards and the interest and participation the community has in them.
I think giving 16 year olds the right to participate in the decisions being made about and for them is not only a great way to start instilling and developing their civic capacities, but it’s simply more just. Here’s to 16-year olds getting the vote!
Roshan, I think you make a good point that 16 is better than 17.