PRO’S &ND CON’S
Some 16 year-olds may be inexperienced however, from their curiosity they can become informed, asking others for their views. Some may not know or care about politics, so will not vote. I mean, would you stand in line for an hour to vote for something that does not matter? In the UK, they do have to pay taxes, and lack of experience is no excuse. They can be mature, and we should trust them with the responsibility to make up their minds just as much as every other citizen, or why are we letting choose their future at schools and colleges? Marginalising is not the way, informing is if they are inadept. Similar arguments about lack of awareness allowed classism, racism and sexism, and in today's world, we should be able to work past them. Maybe some 16-year-olds care about skate parks and community centres, but then surely we should be fulfilling their needs rather than ignoring them. Yes, maybe a few may act illogically and irrationally for these, but so do many adults on reducing taxes, for example, not realising future implications. Maybe the pitches would be driven slightly by popularity, but then again, is not every leadership really about getting rational support. The argument that law should stay unfair is age discriminatory. The argument that we cannot trust children to drink is used circularly with the fact that they cannot vote as a justification. Why can’t children vote? Because they can’t be trusted to drink. Why can’t children be trusted to drink? Because they can’t be trusted to vote. It is not their maturity, rather the outdated laws caused by the misunderstanding of their maturity that lead to this argument, and the remnants of the outdated, illogical, discriminatory arguments that justify the no argument. At 16 a person can get married and have children. If we allow them this responsibility, we should also recognise that they are mature enough to vote. In today’s society 16-year-olds are more mature than ever before and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document