the voter turnout in federal elections and referendums in Canada
According to Statistics Canada (2015), the voter turnout in federal elections and referendums has never risen above 78% despite the government’s efforts to increase it. The highest turnout was recorded at 77.4% in the 7th November 1990 Federal election. While there are other countries with lower turnouts than Canada, () notes that this is one of the leading causes of unequal representations among social groups of the populations. The research by Statistics Canada reveals that young people between the ages of 18 and 34 are the primary culprits on this. According to (), they cite disillusionment, work and study commitments, and the feelings that their participation will not make any significant change in society. Citizens have a responsibility to exercise their democratic right to elect their ideal leaders. Although critics argue that sixteen-year-old people are not psychologically and physically matured to make sensible resolutions, young people can be encouraged to participate in elections by lowering the voting age to 16. Therefore, this research paper maintains that Canada should lower the voting age to 16.
To begin with, young people are given adult duties yet deprived of the same constitutional rights. The law allows 16 years old to acquire employment, though this differs from one province to another. In Saskatchewan, these young people can work in various industries such as hospitality, nursing homes, and schools, among others. In the same province, 14 years are also allowed to acquire employment though with their parents or guardian’s permission. In a province like Alberta, the law gives 12-year old children the right to work as long as it does not interfere with their school schedules and academic performance. Manitoba and Prince Edward Island recognize that 16-year-old adolescents can work in different sectors. The legal age limit to obtain legal work in Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick is 14 years. According to (), these young people contribute to the economic growth of the country by paying taxes and providing the much-needed labor in sectors that have skill shortages. On the same note, young people are also allowed other adult responsibilities, such as taking care of their sick relatives and providing incomes for their families. Although 16 years-old can face legal hurdles in signing contracts, the law allows them to run businesses in the country; their parents can act as their signatories. () also notes that there are many other young people below the age of 18 who have succeeded in different fields such as chronic disease research, authoring books, and engaging in different perilous activities to rescue others. All of these activities demonstrate that young people can make rational decisions regardless of their physical maturity. If the law can allow them to partake in these, why should they be denied the right to vote in leaders that will represent their welfare?
Another reason is given by (), who notes that lowering the voting age can help the country tackle the issue of low voter turnout in all elections and referendums. Research conducted by () revealed that individuals that participate in one election are more likely to take part in subsequent ones when compared to those that have never participated in any. Research further indicates that 18-year-olds fail to take part in their first election, and this occurs since a majority of them are leaving school or their families. This explains why they continue to fail to participate in future elections. On the contrary, those below that age are more connected to their society and the issues that affect their daily living. As a result, they do not feel disillusioned because of vague resident rulings that may prevent them from participating in elections. () further supports this notion by arguing that encouraging people to vote while still living in the same locality where they grew up tend to develop life-long habits to participate in elections. Moreover, such voters are more likely to influence the voting patterns of their immediate family members and friends, implying that the voter turnout in the country will improve considerably over the years. As the generation gets older and sires their own children, they are more likely to encourage voting.
Another perspective is given by (), who notes that reducing the voting age to sixteen will help in making the lives of Canadians’ youths better. According to (), the government overlooks issues related to young people, and in most cases, they are viewed as a policy problem. Beginning from the age of 15, young people undergo different transitions that range from moving away from their families, completing their secondary education, and making decisions on whether they should proceed to institutions of higher learning, securing employment, and starting their own families, among many other issues. There is a myriad of concerns related to these transitions. Apart from the physical changes that accompany this life stage, notes that there are many young also experience other emotional, social, and psychological issues that affect their well-being. This population segment requires support at this crucial stage of life. () further suggests that it is essential to see the country’s young people as the origin of many solutions in the country. This implies that they should be heard, and their interests addressed with the seriousness they deserve. Furthermore, () maintains that young people can play a crucial role in the political dialogues in Canada. Instead of ignoring them, the government should lower the voting age to allow them to hold their leaders answerable. This, in turn, will help in improving their lives and support them in their endeavors to be solution providers in their societies.
Another crucial reason why Canada should lower the voting age to sixteen is because of strengthening civic education in the country. The declining voting participation by young people occurs a time when scholars have expressed concerns that Canada lacks an extensive civic education system. According to (), the lack of civic education in the country is a worrying trend since it makes young people even more disinterested in political matters. A study conducted by () concluded that many Canadians do not know about Canadian and international politics. In another study conducted by (), the researchers found out that there was a stark difference between Canadian and European youths’ knowledge about politics. Most of the Canadian participants could only answer 1 question out of the four required, while the European youths answered three of them. () associates the lack of civic education to the lack of participation in political matters. The study by () further supports this, as the research findings indicate that those young people that voted gave many questions right when compared to those that have never taken part in any election. From this argument, the federal government needs to ensure that Canadians receive civic education from an early age. There is evidence to prove that the only way any country can reinforce its democracy is by refining political knowledge among the citizens. It is perplexing as to why the government has not made conscious efforts to introduce civic education through the school system. In most provinces, students receive minimal civic education, and most of the important matters are not deemed essential to receive vast allocations of time. Besides, there are very few institutions that recognize civic education as a teachable subject in school. In any case, it does not make any sense for anyone to waste time and resources in studying a subject that will not guarantee employment after graduation. Therefore, allowing young people who are still in school to vote will allow the government to take civic education seriously, and make conscious efforts to increase political knowledge in the country.
According to (), it does not make sense for any country to expect young people to adhere to the law and yet deny them a chance to make it. The constitution maintains that every Canadian is equal before the law regardless of race, religion, age, gender, or ethnic background. Although they are still considered children, youths between the age of 12 and 17 are held accountable for engaging in criminal acts. While they may not receive the same punishment as adults, these young people are expected to follow the law, and in some cases, their lawsuit can be transferred to an adult court. Youth juveniles that engage in dangerous and violent acts such as murder receive adult punishments for their crimes. In any case, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) was created with the sole aim of protecting the public from criminal activities from young people. The implication here is that the government expects this population segment not only to comprehend what is right or wrong and the implications of engaging in criminal activities but also have the ability to circumnavigate the nation’s legal structure. () notes that society is very two-faced in insinuating that on the one hand, the young people are mature since they can be tried and punished through the adult legal system, and on the other, are too young to engage in elections and other political decisions in the country. Apart from the legal system, young people are also expected to follow the law while driving, paying taxes, or engaging in any business venture. If these youths should follow the law, then they should have a voice in its creation.
One of the major arguments against lowering the voting age is that young people below the age of 16 are not politically mature to participate in elections. However, Peto (2017) points out that this is not necessarily true, as excluding them is a clear indication of exclusionary social practices against young people. () defines this as the practice of blocking or denying a particular segment of the population rights, opportunities, and resources that are typically available to others. In other words, it is discriminating against others based on some ill-informed perceptions. Youths are at a social disadvantage due to this discrimination that exists amongst many societies. Youths suffer under this exclusion. Canada boasts of its diversity and inclusionary practices that support the well-being of its citizens. However, as () holds, the young people are excluded from participating in elections by baseless arguments, and allowing them to participate in elections and referendums will ensure that Canada addresses the discriminatory policies, processes, and institutions that continue to hinder young people from obtaining the opportunities and resources they need to excel in their lives. In any case, () notes that no country has ever had wrong votes. The argument behind this is that it does not make any sense to deprive young people of the right to vote based on the belief that they will not vote veraciously. It is not wrong for first-time voters to feel perplexed and totally bewildered by the voting process and its contribution to democracy. However, () notes that young people may also feel puzzled at the way others participate in elections, regardless of whether the others are familiar or not.
Conclusion
This primary objective of this paper was to discuss whether Canada should lower the voting age to 16. From the discussion, it has emerged that there is a great need to lower the voting age in the country because it will increase voter turnout, encourage life-long voting habits, and improve the lives of young people. The paper has also argued that it is hypocritical for Canada to treat young people as adults in some decisions and, on the other hand, regard them as inexperienced and immature in the democratic process of voting. Furthermore, allowing 16-years old to vote will help in addressing the exclusionary social practices that exist in Canada. Therefore, doing so is a sound choice that will positively change not only the lives of young people but the future of the entire country.