Aditya Shrivastava
In a world where young voices are increasingly gaining recognition and respect, it’s time for Lynnfield to consider joining the communities that have expanded the civic engagement of the younger generation.
Recently we have seen a local high school start charging students for using classrooms and gymnasiums after school hours without taking into consideration how local youth think about the issue. I strongly feel that the younger generation should have a say in local issues like this and that these decisions should be made more democratically by allowing the youth of Lynnfield to vote.
Likewise, the younger generation should have been allowed to vote for the new library. Younger people in Lynnfield are the majority of users of our local library and should have a say in whether we build a new one or not.
It’s very important to allow the young generation to vote in local School Committee elections. Decisions made in School Committee have a direct bearing on our future, and we should have a say in it and how it functions. This will also allow the younger generation to do meaningful community service and have more meaningful civic engagement.
Lowering the voting age is supported on the grounds that it can have several advantages. Promoting early civic engagement is one of the main benefits. Proponents contend that granting voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds will help them to feel responsible for their community at a younger age. Due to their motivation to learn about local concerns and get involved in the political process, young people may become more knowledgeable and engaged citizens as a result of this participation.
In addition, supporters contend that it’s critical to balance voting rights with other legal rights and obligations that 16- and 17-year-olds have, such as the capacity to work, file taxes, and in certain jurisdictions, even get married. One could argue that giving children the ability to vote expands their rights and obligations as young adults.
It is time for Lynnfield to consider joining the towns that have increased the civic involvement of the younger generation. Although it hasn’t happened before in Massachusetts, the idea of lowering the voting age for local town and municipal elections is not without precedence. There is hope for a more inclusive democracy because other states, counties, and localities have already been experimenting with ways to involve the younger generation.
Reducing the voting age to 16 for local elections has proved beneficial in communities like Berkeley, Calif., and Takoma Park, Md. These cities are leaders in reaching out to a younger population to increase political participation. They have tapped into the idealism and energy of their young populations by lowering the voting age, giving them a say in choices that have a direct bearing on their lives.
About 17,000 people live in Takoma Park, which made history in 2013 when it was the first American city to let 16- and 17-year-olds cast ballots in local elections. The motivation behind this ground-breaking choice was to encourage civic involvement in youth and inculcate a feeling of responsibility from a young age. Youth engagement in Takoma Park increased noticeably after the shift, as younger voters have taken their responsibilities seriously and contributed to the development of more knowledgeable and engaged citizens.
Similarly, Berkeley allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in School Board elections. The purpose of this was to address problems that have an immediate bearing on students’ educational experiences. Supporters contended that it was an important step toward inclusive democracy, despite the fact that it elicited conflicting responses. It promoted a sense of empowerment and involvement by giving young people a voice in determining the policies that directly impact them.
These instances demonstrate the benefits that decreasing the voting age in Lynnfield may have. We can ensure that our youth have a voice in decisions that directly affect them, foster civic duty, and create a more informed and active citizenry by allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. Local elections frequently focus on issues like schools, youth programming, community-service financing, and school finances, so it makes sense that young people would have a say in these decisions.
Lowering the voting age is a proposition that is not without its detractors, though. Critics contend that 16- and 17-year-olds might not have the maturity and life experience needed to make wise choices regarding local government. They bring up legitimate worries that younger people could not fully understand the complexities of some topics and might be more easily misled by candidates who are charismatic or have radical ideologies. These issues highlight how crucial it is to teach and equip our children for the duties associated with voting.
Moreover, there is concern that reducing the voting age would be seen as a politically motivated action to support particular political parties or candidates. The idealism of young voters could be abused by some groups, according to skeptics, who fear this could distort the electoral environment.
Lowering the voting age for federal elections has been a topic of continuous national discussion. A provision in the For the People Act intended to increase voting rights and accessibility allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote in federal elections. The bill was never signed into law, but it did signal a growing federal interest in granting juvenile suffrage.
In this larger sense, the proposed shift in Lynnfield is indicative of a national trend that reflects local communities’ aspirations to redefine and broaden the parameters of civic engagement. The way in which the benefits and drawbacks are balanced and handled in practice will determine whether reducing the voting age is a wise move or a bad one.
In recent years, there has been a growing global push to decrease the voting age as more nations realize the need to involve younger people in the political process. This change is a reflection of the rising recognition that a more inclusive and representative democracy depends on youth participation in decision-making.
Austria is among the leading countries in this endeavor. Austria was among the first nations in the world to reduce the voting age to 16 for national elections in 2007. The purpose of this shift was to give young people more political knowledge and maturity so they could take part in determining the direction of the nation. In the hope that these new voters would continue to participate in future elections, Austrian lawmakers felt that granting young residents a voice in national elections was a step toward fostering lifelong civic involvement.
In a similar vein, Scotland made history in 2014 when it allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to cast ballots in its independence referendum. Young Scots were given the opportunity to influence their country’s constitutional future thanks to this historic ruling. Young people’s political engagement and awareness were acknowledged, and it also established a global standard for incorporating younger people in important choices. A more general discussion regarding reducing the voting age in the U.K. was spurred by the referendum’s successful incorporation of young voters.
Estonia, a nation renowned for its progressive use of technology in government, permits 16-year-olds to cast ballots in local elections. Estonia’s embrace of technology and its dedication to inclusion are reflected in the e-governance platforms that allow young voters to engage in local politics. This illustrates how reducing the voting age can be combined with cutting-edge technology to enable younger people to conveniently participate in local government.
16-year-olds are eligible to vote in municipal elections and referendums in Norway, demonstrating the Norwegian government’s determination to involve young people in the democratic process from an early age. Voting in local elections and referendums is one way that Norway hopes to create a more representative and inclusive democracy, in which local decisions have a direct impact on the lives of young people.
A number of nations outside of Europe have also attempted to reduce the voting age. In Brazil, for example, voting in national elections is permitted for 16- and 17-year-olds. Young Brazilians are becoming more politically aware and active, which prompted this action. Brazil acknowledged the potential of young voices to influence the political landscape of the nation by granting them the right to vote in national elections.
These examples from other countries emphasize how crucial it is to involve young people in the political process and to respect their capacity to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the destiny of their countries. These initiatives represent a general understanding of the importance of young perspectives and their contribution to the development and vitality of democratic communities, even though they have not been without controversy and dispute.
The path to bring this change is not easy. Changes have to be made at the town, county, and state levels. I propose community events where young people can make their case to vote in front of the residents of Lynnfield. I also want to discuss this issue at our next Town Meeting to get the pulse of the local community. I will try to do canvassing in Lynnfield and collect signatures from residents. Then, we can make our case in front of everyone in a meeting at Town Hall. When I was doing a donation drive for refugee kids in local schools a few years ago, I was overwhelmed by the support I got from the School Committee and local officials. I am sure the local community will be more than supportive of my initiative.
Lynnfield should seriously look into lowering the age to vote in local elections. It would give the town’s youth a voice in choices that impact their lives, with the goal of fostering a more representative and inclusive democracy. It will take time to determine whether this project will significantly advance local democracy or if it will run into unanticipated difficulties that call for serious thought and modification. The movement to reduce the voting age is evidence that as the world changes, young people’s participation is important for the survival of dynamic, inclusive democracies across the globe.
Aditya Shrivastava is a student at Governor’s Academy and a resident of Lynnfield.
