In any democratic system, public participation in legal activities is correct and the responsibility of every individual. At its simplicity, voting exercises us an expression of one’s preference of the category of leaders who will spearhead a nation for the next term of the ruling period (Pickard, 2019). Voting is also a way of expressing the core citizenship values and participation in any society’s rule-making process. The people who involve in this process are required to have specific qualities that will make sure the preferences ate the best for the welfare of the citizens, such include the ability to make rational decisions, social awareness, and many others. However, since there is no way to measure these abilities, age is taken as a standard measurement for everyone entitled to this right and is responsible for a voting process. This paper aims at explaining why the voting age should be raised to 21years for every individual.
Voting for good and responsible leaders requires wisdom and experience, which cannot be gained at a young age. Young people have no much expertise about a nation’s economy, they have no comprehension of any foreign policy, and party leaders can easily manipulate them without their knowledge. This is because they are not mature enough to make any sound decisions and in a consistent basis. However, at the age of 21, an individual is much exposed to current affairs and to the ways of ruling a nation at the teenage (Icenogle et al., 2019). These young individuals lack cognitive expertise in making bold and sound moves and making the right decisions. If they are subjected to the responsibility and or right to make decisions of political matters, they may live to complain and regret their decisions, which can also haunt their minds in regrets.
It is not easy to decide who has the requisite qualities to voting right. However, at 21, an individual is mature enough and has a stake in participating in a voting exercise (Floridi, 2017). They are capable of making sound decisions that they are sure of and as well have the confidence that the decisions they make are bold and will help in building up the nation. Child welfare advocates are fighting the harms that come with the adultification of teenagers that project their responsibilities and consequences of their decisions. An individual at a team game should not possess adult capacities such as participating in a voting exercise and being denied other rights such as in q Criminal Justice system.
Many states have lowered the voting age to even 16. It was unwise to engage inexperienced fellows to adult capacities, responsibilities, and consequences. This is as well attaching them to the harms of identification at such a young age. Issues such as juvenile justice systems (Sawyer et al., 2018), rights to buy tobacco, issuing of driving licenses are for adults who can make sound decisions and not for teens who still have the right to obtain supply for the foster care system.
There is a need to have more experienced voters who can make bold moves in ruling a nation and explain why they make certain decisions. Various privileges and rights of childhood and adulthood have been allocated to individuals ranging from 16 to 21 years of age by the law. However, discussing literature has raised many questions about how consistency is the pragmatic domain of these ages. Advertising for pro-youth participation in legal and political mechanisms helps to encourage youth civic and political engagement. In addition, it brings out a responsive sense of political marginalization in groups that are key in demographic matter