In most regions of the world, the day a child becomes an adult is when the rights in that society begin. The day we can truly exercise our rights in the United States, this happens at eighteen and this is when voting can begin happening. Yet in the United States, these rights have so much more to do with young people today than expected. Subsequently, “We do not deprive a senile person of this right, nor do we deprive any of the millions of alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics and assorted fanatics who live of hospitals of it” (“Ten” 3). If individuals who are medically labeled as ¨senile” can vote, then why not allow those who are mentally fit, but under eighteen, vote? It has been proven that a person needs to possess sufficient literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in an election or in short terms, someone who has completed the sixth grade. If a sixth grade education is considered adequate to vote how can one deny those adolescents who have completed 6th grade, are not medically labeled ¨senile¨ yet are not the legal age of eighteen?  Although, this is a proven fact today in the United States we still allow the millions of people mentally incapacitated to vote yet not those who have one finished the sixth grade and who have the mental capacity to vote suitably. Concurrently, lowering the voting age to sixteen or seventeen years old in the United States would be beneficial because it will eliminate the double standard, include adolescents as community members, and even increase voter turnout.

Presently, at the age of sixteen the youth is very much a part of their communities. At the age of sixteen these young adults can drive on public roads, work without restrictions, and pay taxes. These adolescents concurrently, ¨...pay an estimated $9.7 billion dollars in sales taxes alone¨ (“Ten” 1).  These young people are paying taxes should not they be able to vote for the people who decide whether or not these taxes are being raised?  If the sixteen year olds, “...are old enough to drive, work without restrictions on their hours, and pay taxes they should also have a voice” (“Lower” 1). The teenagers in the United States are given the rights to have a paying job, can drive along federal highways, and they can pay for the seventeen percent of the taxes being used in the country for government programs, then shouldn't these sixteen and seventeen year olds be able to have a voice in the government? If these adolescents can be this much a part of the community then why should they not be able help set the restrictions that affect their age group and why not let them have a say in what their taxes go towards? According to Clir Malcolm Byrne, “Issues ranging from globalisation to the cost of college to the environment to car insurance will feature…” in the”… teenage discussions” (1). The issues that affect the futures of these teenagers are always up for discussions, so does it make sense to not allow them to be a part of these discussions? One could argue that these menial things such as working at a pizzeria can be done very easily and with little thought but even some amount is put into these jobs and one can not judge someone’s intelligence based on their job. The young people of the United States are truly a part of their communities and allowing them to vote will make their living fair and practical, along with this it will eliminate the double standard.

There is and has been a double standard in this country for a long time. There is a way to eliminate the double standard with sixteen and seventeen year olds; allow them to vote. An article states, “At the height of the Vietnam War most Americans realized the sick double standard”... and these… “Double Standards didn’t go away in 1971” (“Ten” 1). Even in 1971 there was a surreptitious double standard of sending teenagers to war, allowing them to potentially lose their lives, yet they were not allowed to fight battles at home with political issues and this issue still occurs today. Concurrently, “Frank Zimring found that Between 1992 and 1995, forty American states relaxed the requirements for transferring an accused under the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction may nonetheless be charged by direct filing in criminal court if they are over 14 years of age” (“Ten” 1). What kind of twisted message is being sent if the youth are judged like mature, responsible adults when they commit murder but like frivolous young children when it comes to voting? It can be argued that if teens are capable of horrendous crimes like murder, then why should society trust them to vote? However, why should millions of teens be judged by the mistake of one person. Is the same true for adults? No. Therefore, why should the double-standard apply only to teens?  To conclude, there is a sick double standard and it should be gotten rid of; not only will lowering the voting age eliminate the double standard but it will also increase the voter turnout.

An increase in voter turnout is very much needed. “Voter turnout dipped… to 57.4% in 2012” (“Voter” 1). This is about half of the population in the United States, if adolescents were able to vote the number could potentially go up. In Scotland during the recent elections they allowed anyone sixteen years old and older to vote and more than eighty percent of the eligible voters were under the age of eighteen cast their votes (Lee 1).  If this percentage is possible in Scotland then why not in the United States. This also goes to show that young people are very much interested and engaged in politics. The Austrian National Election Study, “... has found early indications that those who vote at a younger age tend to continue to vote as they get older¨ (Byrne 1). If adolescents start to vote at the age of sixteen or even seventeen then it is more likely that they will vote more often later on in life which in fact would enlarge the voter turnout.  A little closer to the United State, ¨ In Tacoma Park, Maryland, 17 -year -olds can vote, and in Iowa 17 - year - olds can even vote in Caucuses...¨ this is an example of how it makes ¨...a significant impact on voter turnout¨ (Lee 1). Some may argue that there is no proof that voter turnout would increase if a bill with this happens. However, even a little bit closer to home seventeen year olds can vote in Caucuses and this is cause a change for the better in voter turnout. To conclude, there a strong possibility that voter turnout will expand, and that reducing the voting age will help eliminate the double standard and include teenagers as community members.

Henceforth, it would be beneficial for the United States government to allow sixteen and seventeen year olds to vote in the United States. Thus, lowering the voting age would include young adults as community members. Additionally,it will be a pragmatic way to help eliminate the double-standard that has been a part of society since the Vietnam War. Furthermore, there would be an increase in voter turnout.  A “bad” future elected for those who aren’t able to vote or voice their opinion; is their silence agreement?  Why not let adolescents choose the type of future they want, especially for their country?

Works Cited
"2012 Voter Turnout Report." Bipartisan Policy Center. N.p., 8 Nov. 2012. Web. 02 Mar. 2016
Byrne, Clir Malcolm. "Reducing the Voting Age." Irish Times. 26 Jan. 2015: 15. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.
Lee, Chris. "Lowering Voting Age Could Increase  Turnout." University Wire. 04 Mar. 2015:
n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.
"Lower the Voting Age - Fairvote." FairVote. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.
Shi, Winston. "Lowering the Voting Age: Enshrining Rights Without Responsibilities." University Wire. 25 May 2015: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher.Web. 03 Feb. 2016.
"Top Ten Reasons to Lower the Voting Age." NYRA. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Feb. 2016.