“Keeping the voting age at 18 is not a slap at 16-year-olds. It is recognition that an informed electorate is the best kind. Let’s keep the age where it is, and use those two years to give teens the tools for a lifetime of not just voting, but doing so as well-prepared participants who are ready for the task.” — Editorial, MassLive.

Voting rights should be granted at the age when people become full citizens(aka adults!) Adults are able to make more rational decisions than the average 16 year old.

“Though the voting age may be an arbitrary legal standard, it takes into account the completion of a high school education, the full opportunity to be versed in government, legal independence, and coming into one’s complete rights as a U.S. citizen.” — Ilona van der Linden, San Diego Union-Tribune

Teenage brains haven’t matured enough to make sound voting choices. This goes back to the first quote spoken by Editorial MassLive.

“Teen brains are still developing, and lack full adult capabilities for long-term planning and thoughtful decision-making. That is why society rightly places limits on the rights of teenagers to consume dangerous drugs, drive, gamble and take part in other risky activities.” — Editorial, Boston Herald

Sixteen-year-olds aren’t civically engaged enough to vote. Again this goes back to the 1st quote as well.

“At 16, most kids have little awareness of politics, civics, or American history, and they have little life experience to inform their decisions. Although a small percentage may work or even contribute to household expenses, few hold full-time jobs or fully care for themselves. Most don’t even pay for their own cell phones — let alone groceries, rent, utility bills, or property taxes. Simply put, they don’t have enough skin in the game.” — Jennifer C. Braceras, Boston Globe

Lowering the voting age would be a political power grab for Democrats. It would make more democrats elected because the extra people who are age 16-17 will make a difference. Even though it may not look like it, 16-17 year olds will make a pretty big difference in terms of people getting elected.

“Some liberals want the age dropped for an obvious reason: The kids will vote D., because they are passionately engaged about Things and Stuff.” — James Lileks, National Review

They will be influenced by the people around them, including friends who will make a dare to them saying to vote for a specific candidate because it would be funny. 

The arguments for the voting to be lowered to 16 are saying that people at 16 and 17 are able to make valid points. 

Allowing 16-year-olds to vote would improve democracy for everyone. Counter argument: I think it would tilt most of the voting because they might be support other people, and the amount of other people voting would tilt the voting towards one side yearly. Even if they don't have good reasons to prevent them from voting, they still shouldn't be able to vote because they might vote the opposite to spite their parents, and try and get the other person elected.

“The thing is, we don't really have a good reason not to allow 16-year-olds to vote. In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite — that enfranchising 16-year-olds would be good for them and good for our democracy.” — Nancy Deutsch, Newsweek. In my opinion, this statement is flawed.

If young people don’t have the right to vote, Issues that affect them get ignored. Counter argument: If we lower the voting age, later we're going to have the same outcome later with having people want to lower the age to 14, then 12. That wouldn't be very effective for our government. If 16-17 year olds are being affected by someone or something, they can wait until their older, where they can vote to help out the other 16-17 year olds.

“When young people’s participation lags badly, issues important to them — school safety, student loans and climate change, among others — receive short shrift in the public discourse. A vicious cycle of disengagement ensues: Politicians don’t bother to speak about the issues that matter to young people, so young people don’t vote.” — Michael McDonald, Los Angeles Times. I think it's flawed.

It’s much easier to establish voting patterns before the age of 18. Counter argument: If you start voting early, sure you will become used to voting, but what is stopping them from not voting anyways? Are 16 year olds really that similar to 18 year olds? They could probably still not vote like other 18 year olds. That wouldn't change anything.

“Voting is habit forming and it increases a voter’s likelihood to participate in future elections, which underscores the importance of having as stable an environment as possible for the youngest voters. ...The transitions that often accompany turning 18, such as graduating from high school, reaching the age of majority, starting college, and possibly living away from home for the first time, [are] factors that can actually make it more difficult for young people to vote.” — Lauren Young, Teen Vogue. In my opinion, flawed.

Many older voters are just as uninformed and irrational as 16-year-olds would be. Counter argument: 18 year olds are more educated because they have had 2 more years of highschool, which might not sound like a lot, but overall, it really does make a difference. They could've had more education in terms of the government. Then you have people in college that are getting even more education on the government.

“Another objection is that young people are not yet mentally competent. … Implicit in this argument is the assumption that young people, because they are immature, are too uninformed to vote. But most voters are very uninformed, and some of them are quite foolish.” — Noah Berlatsky, CNN. Flawed.

Teenagers are mature enough to vote rationally. Counter argument: 16 year olds are too influenced by social media, and by the people around them. They might get influenced by their friends to vote for someone who won't do anything, or doesn't do anything to benefit the country.

“Psychological studies seem to support the premise that teens of this age have the capacity to mull over the issues and scrutinize candidates on the way to making a decision. And they perform those functions as well as 20, 40, or 60 year-olds.” — James A. Anderson, Next City. Flawed.

Sixteen-year-olds are treated as adults in a lot of important ways. Counter argument: Sure that 16 year olds are able to drive, get a full time job and be able to captain a boat, but even though they can do all those things, they might not be able to vote responsible if at all.

“In most states, 16-year-olds have the right to drive. They can get married, join a trade union, leave school and work full-time, pay income taxes, earn a minimum wage, leave home without their parents’ consent, pilot a glider, captain a boat, be a lifeguard, consent to medical treatment, get a passport, and take college prep exams that most adults would perform poorly on. … [But] they don’t have a say in who runs their communities and country.” — Karen Dolan and Theo Wuest, BuzzFeed. Flawed.

This is why in my opinion, I think that 18 is a reasonable age to vote. I just don't think that 16-17 year olds aren't as educated in governments to make rational decisions. I think that they would be easily influenced by their friends, and it would tip the balance we currently have. I think that a lot of 16-17 year olds would vote more democratically than republican. They aren't very responsible either. This is why I think we shouldn't change the voting age to 16.

I didn't include the following information:

Roman has 3847 characters and 693 words. (And I included "Let's go Raiders")

I have 8800 characters and 1539 words.

I win

“Teen brains are still developing, and lack full adult capabilities for long-term planning and thoughtful decision-making. That is why society rightly places limits on the rights of teenagers to consume dangerous drugs, drive, gamble and take part in other risky activities.” — Editorial, Boston Herald

Another argument they make is that there is  a belief that teenage brains haven’t developed enough to make rational decisions, this would leave 16-year-old voters open to voting based on emotion or being influenced by pressure from their peers or parents. Others say those who support lowering the voting age are motivated by pure politics, since the new voters would likely overwhelmingly support Democrats.

Personally I agree with those who say that the younger generations should be able to vote because not only does it educate kids on politics and get them more involved in it, it is a great way for younger kids to advocate for their problems or concerns themselves. Although there are many arguments to be made I feel that immaturity and "not knowing" enough is a valid excuse, this is because there is many ways for us to restrict or educate them before they vote, people being lazy about educating and convincing new generations should not be a reason why 16 year olds can't vote. "So many are here to judge me, yet so few are here to tell me why" this quote is what someone said on a political post online, it shows how very few people care to actually teach you why some way of thinking is wrong, all they do is just say your wrong. The same can be applied to this situation, people learn nothing from you if you just saying they're wrong, educate them so they know better not just that they're wrong. People also mention influence from peers and parents, but as I said before I think that this is another case of politicians trying to work less, if you truly are a good politician you should know how to convince people to vote for you, you should know how to change people's minds, and you should know how to get your points across to others. Saying that teens get influenced easily is not only them trying to avoid doing more work, but it is also them delaying the inevitable, cause if anything by the age of 18 the thoughts of one's peers or parents would have influenced them a lot deeper than when they are 16, that is an extra 2 years of them getting their political stance solidified. In reality it should actually should be easier to convince a 16 year old to change their mind than an 18 year old. Republican politicians make the argument that it is just a plan for the Democrats to get more votes, but as I said before YOU CAN CHANGE THEIR MIND, instead of complaining work to change it, they are the same as undecided votes, just try your best to convince them. And if these newer generations were truly hellbent on joining the Democratic party then isn't it inevitable for the Democrats to take over? By saying "Oh that's why we are trying to convince them to join the Republican party." Then let them start voting for you, the Democrats aren't trying to beat you, they are trying to get more voices in our government. Our country sits on the back of future generations and by restricting their voices you can be causing more harm than good to them. It seems as if those who are opposed think that 16 year olds are stubborn, dumb idiots who don't listen to anything, ride or die with their ideologies, and are impossible to change their mind. When in reality teens are probably the most easiest to convince, CAN give great insight on issues they see as threatening, and can help them get a lot more into politics, politicians not wanting to convince more people or not wanting their party to be at a disadvantage is a major reason why they don't want 16 year olds to be able to vote. Them being lazy should NOT be a valid reason why they should restrict teen voices, and help to future generations. They is a lot more harm than good being done by them not caring enough to put in effort.