Why Can't Kids Vote?

fruit that is hanging close to the ground

1. Background

It seems putatively accepted that minors or younger people should not be granted the right to vote; one can find proof of this in the fact that you can count the number of countries that allow suffrage to individuals under 18 on your fingers and toes¹. The common arguments for this are something along the lines of: (1) minors aren’t responsible/educated enough; (2) families with many children would have an advantage and parents would have too much influence; and (3) it would cause a race to the bottom. I’ll argue that none of these are satisfying answers and that voting should not be restricted by age.

2. Against

2.1 Lack of ability

Claim: Children’s lack of intelligence and cognitive ability is reason for restriction.

I understand why this may seem like an issue. We obviously want more informed voters, and children are at an absolute disadvantage when it comes to intellect, experience, and ability to think critically. However, we have two counter-examples that make this reasoning seem flawed. (1) There are definitely children out there that are more intelligent than the average adult. On the intelligence account, these people are clearly having their rights infringed.

One might claim this isn’t actually against the intelligence determinant; rather, it reveals that we ought to run tests to determine if citizens are capable of voting². This might be true; however, this brings up our second scenario. (2) It seems wrong to prohibit an extremely intellectually handicapped individual from voting. The prevention of the disabled from participating in elections would be to exclude one of the most vulnerable voices in our societies. This brings up the question of what the purpose of voting is. This could tell us that even the least competent individuals deserve to be represented. This point will be explored later on. Notice, however, an intelligence test isn’t an explicit argument against kids voting — rather, it's one arguing for the incompetency of the elector, with low expectations of minors. Though, I would imagine that a competency test would have an extremely high level of success among minors (past the age of 4-5 at least), or else a significant amount of the adult population could be barred. According to the National Centre for Education Statistics, 79.1% of the adult population in the U.S. is literate, with 54% of adults having a below 6th-grade reading level. This means that ~21% of the U.S. adult population is illiterate³.

Figure from U.S. Department of Education.

This could mean that a competency test would eliminate 21%⁴ of the electorate. This is probably viewed as a positive by the test crowd; reducing the number of "weak members" seems like a good thing. However, the tests may well be fallible. Imagine a person, completely blind, deaf, mute, and illiterate — but who was struck with a magic lightning bolt and possesses the wisdom of Solomon. Any intelligence advocate would claim that they have the mental capabilities for voting. However, there is no way to administer a test on them or for them to prove their competency. It would be a complete rights violation to restrict them based on this test. Such a system seems flawed.

Competency tests are reflective of first-year polisci majors’ strong self-image, with individuals advocating for themselves, believing that they can fix all of the issues if the electorate was “just smarter” (i.e., they think like them). Any test would probably cause major rights violations by restricting people who are simply less intelligent. These individuals still deserve to be represented; yet their voices would be stripped away. On top of this, the administration of a competency test and the insane bias that could be put in place within one could be devastating. However, an intelligence advocate would probably shrug this off as a pessimistic fairy tale.

2.2 Family power and influence

Claim: Families with loads of children will have an advantage politically, and children will be extensions of their parents.

My issue here is that this claim of power and extension is misguided. The initial claim that families with loads of children will have more power seems odd to me, as it just seems like an issue of perspective and time. Eventually, the children of large families will hit the voting age; why ought we violate the minors' rights in order to delay a partisan advantage? I also suspect that this line of reasoning is motivated by conservatives having more children on average than liberals, which weakens the strength of the point, as its backing is based on partisan preference, not the rights of an individual.

The issue of children being extensions of their parents is fair, but does not seem to justify withholding the right to vote. Children are extremely susceptible to influence, and may just ask their parents what to do. According to Pew Research Centre, ~85% of teens hold the same political ties as their parents.

Figure from Pew Research Centre.

However, ~60% of U.S. adults also hold the same affiliations as their parents. In the U.S., there are really only two political parties, meaning that we should expect a rate of 50% if influence held no role whatsoever. This means that roughly 10% of the voter base is influenced by their parents, though I do not hold that they should be barred from voting.

To point out the absurdity of the influence argument: if a parent tells their politically uninterested 18-year-old offspring — who is mentally handicapped to have the brain function of a 9-year-old — to vote, this would be entirely fine. If a parent tells their 9-year-old to vote for party Y, this is bad. Here, we see two individuals whose only significant difference is the number of years alive, yet one is granted the ability to change the course of their nation, and one is not.

2.3 Lowering of quality

Claim: Politicians will pander to children to win the vote.

This ties to an objection to the previous point: that I am missing the point and children will vote overall more biasedly than their parents. On the quality argument, it has the background assumption that children will vote entirely selfishly, and in very crude fashion. The quality skeptic will claim that party Z, with the platform “free candy for all — also I am now the leviathan!”, will win the vote of the youths and cause civil collapse.

I don’t think this is really an issue for two reasons: (1) people are allowed to vote selfishly and (2) this scenario seems really improbable. On (1), people are allowed to vote for any reason. I am allowed to flip a coin in the ballot box and then mark my X for whatever candidate I please. So, to vote for poor reasons — the primary concern regarding children voting — is not a real issue. On (2), there is not a single country on earth with more children than adults⁵. So, even if children — the group susceptible to these campaigns — voted monolithically, they would not be able to win the majority in any country. However, I think the point that individuals have the right to vote for any reason is most important here.

3. Conclusion/Purpose of Voting

People vote in elections (or abstain, or spoil their ballot, etc.) to decide/advocate for their own futures and those of others in society. I went out on election day and cast my ballot for who I thought would best represent my beliefs. There is no group that has more of an investment in the future than young people. They have the most time left here. Yet they lack the control over it. This is not an argument against the elderly voting. It is an argument for voting rights for anyone who has any stake⁶ in the future. No one citizen ought to have more of an entitlement than any other to voting. In sum, if we are to trust our intuitions that the mentally handicapped should vote, I am confused as to why children cannot vote.

1. 15 is the number of countries!

2. What this would evaluate could be a further issue for the intelligence test crowd.

3. Some of this data is muddled up with people who are illiterate in English or had a cognitive barrier, which made them ineligible to participate (4%). “Low-level” literacy could be a more accurate title for the 21%, as the majority (12.9%) were at level 1, which is essentially functional illiteracy, while 4.1% were below this.

4. It is possible that the survey included permanent residents who are adults but not citizens; however, from brief viewing of other sources, these numbers seem consistent. It wouldn’t be harmful, though, to keep in mind these numbers may be a bit off.

5. There are a couple of countries that are quite close (even up to 49%!); however, none of the countries in the top 10 are functioning democracies.

6. 'Stake' here refers to the position of being an individual who has to live with the consequences of being alive under the system that is elected.