LNAT Practice Test Essay – Should the legal age to vote be lowered to 16? Explain your reasoning.

In the LawMint LNAT Practice Test Series for 2024 and 2025, there are 30 full length tests, with 360 passages – 1260 MCQs and 90 essay prompts or essay questions.

The essay below is a sample that can be written for the prompt:

Should the legal age to vote be lowered to 16? Explain your reasoning.

This LNAT essay question is included in LawMint LNAT Practice Test series.

While the model essays may include both sides of an argument, the question may require you to state your stance - either for or against; and support it with arguments.

Read our articles and watch the videos on our YouTube channel for guidance on how to structure and write the LNAT Essay.

Introduction

In many countries around the world, the legal voting age is set at 18 years old, reflecting the widely held belief that this age marks the transition to adulthood and the associated responsibilities of civic participation. However, in recent years, there has been a growing debate about whether the voting age should be lowered to 16, with proponents arguing that this change would lead to greater youth inclusion in the democratic process and opponents contending that 16-year-olds lack the maturity and knowledge required for responsible voting. This essay will explore the arguments for and against lowering the voting age to 16 and assess the potential implications of this change for democratic participation.

Arguments for Lowering the Voting Age to 16

One of the primary arguments in favor of lowering the voting age to 16 is that it would lead to greater youth involvement in politics and the democratic process. Proponents argue that by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote, political parties and candidates would be more likely to address the concerns and priorities of young people, fostering a more inclusive and representative political system.

Additionally, advocates for lowering the voting age contend that it would help to establish the habit of voting at an earlier age, potentially leading to higher voter turnout rates in the long term. Research has shown that voting is a habit-forming behavior, and that individuals who vote in their first eligible election are more likely to continue voting throughout their lives. By allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to participate in elections, it may be possible to instill the importance of civic engagement early on, leading to a more politically active and informed population.

Finally, proponents of lowering the voting age argue that 16-year-olds are already entrusted with significant responsibilities in many aspects of life, such as obtaining a driver’s license, working, and paying taxes. In light of these responsibilities, it is reasonable to extend the right to vote to this age group as a recognition of their emerging adulthood and growing role in society.

Arguments Against Lowering the Voting Age to 16

Conversely, opponents of lowering the voting age argue that 16-year-olds lack the maturity, knowledge, and experience required for responsible voting. They contend that at this age, young people are still developing their cognitive abilities and may be more susceptible to peer pressure, parental influence, and media manipulation, which could compromise the quality of their electoral choices.

Additionally, critics argue that 16-year-olds may not have a sufficient understanding of political issues and the implications of their voting decisions, as they may not have had the opportunity to fully engage with the complexities of the political system. By maintaining the voting age at 18, it is believed that voters will have a greater level of political awareness and experience, leading to more informed electoral choices.

Balancing the Arguments

Given the competing arguments surrounding the voting age, the question of whether to lower the age to 16 remains a complex and contentious issue. One potential compromise is to implement a gradual approach, lowering the voting age for local elections first and assessing the impact on youth engagement and electoral outcomes before considering extending this change to national elections.

Another possible approach is to focus on improving civic education in schools and promoting youth engagement in politics through extracurricular activities and initiatives. By fostering a greater understanding of the political system and the importance of civic participation from an early age, it may be possible to prepare young people for responsible voting without necessarily lowering the voting age.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over whether to lower the voting age to 16 raises important questions about the nature of democratic participation, the role of young people in the political process, and the balance between inclusion and responsible decision-making. By carefully considering the arguments for and against lowering the voting age and exploring potential compromises and alternative approaches, it is possible to work towards a more inclusive and representative political system that values the contributions and perspectives of all citizens, regardless of age.

Ultimately, the decision to lower the voting age should be informed by a thorough examination of the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a change, as well as a commitment to fostering a vibrant and inclusive democracy that encourages civic engagement and informed decision-making among all members of society. Whether or not the voting age is lowered to 16, it is essential to prioritize efforts to educate and engage young people in the political process, ensuring that their voices are heard and that they are empowered to shape the future of their communities and nations.