Elections constitute an essential part of democracy, however it is not limited to voting once in a while. A democratic system is based on the idea of “polis”, i.e. a community in which every citizen must participate in debates and discussions to decide the faith of the group. It is common knowledge that voter turnout is on a downward slop, especially amongst young adults. For the 2008 federal elections, 58% of registered voters bothered to vote, less than 40% for people under 25. In my opinion, the fact that millions of Canadians chose not to vote is probably a consequence of the weakening of the second element of democracy: a culture of debate. Many radical solutions or simple adjustments have been proposed in the last few decades to face this democratic and participation crisis: incorporate a proportional representation element into the system, make voting mandatory (as many countries do) or making election days national holidays. We have not tried any of these so far to reverse this sad trend; even if I thought Jean Chrétien leaving politics would help… it did not.
Reiko Aokim, a Japanese professor, proposes to modify an important democratic tradition: voting age. Should we lower it to 16 o raise it to 21? Nope, we should simply abolish it, giving a vote to all citizens, starting day one – note to pro-life activists, fetus would not get that right-. So, 7 years old Tommy should be able to vote for the coolest politician or the brightest color party? In practice, parents would bear the responsibility to vote in name of their children. It seems logical to oblige adolescents (starting at 14 years old) to be present for a vote to count. To avoid disputes between divorced parents or conservative/NPD couples, father would vote for boys and mothers for girls.
This idea is based on two main arguments: education to democratic life and intergenerational equity. As mentioned earlier, the issue goes further than voter turnout, it touches our democratic culture as a whole. Giving a vote to every single Canadian could contribute to fomenting interest in electoral politics but also in political discussions in a larger sense. On one side, adolescents would have an incentive to ask, get informed knowing that someone (their father or mother) can cast an extra vote. On the other, parents would probably feel more responsible for their children’s votes than theirs, giving them an extra motivation to go vote and to engage discussions with their adolescents about political issues.
The other justification possesses a more philosophical twist. In a demographic context of aging population, youth interests or simple long term preoccupations are “doomed” to come second. Older citizens tend to be more preoccupied by security and heath care, while younger people by education and environmental issues. On the long run, children will have to face the implications of today’s political decisions. Furthermore, most of us would agree that both education and the environment are far from being federal or provincial priorities. We can probably assume that a majority of parents would take in consideration their children’s future when it comes to vote. Abolishing voting age could therefore contribute to increase the importance of long term political and social issues, by taking into account children’s interest.
18 is clearly an arbitrary number. By no means reaching 18 signifies that one knows anything about politics, just like at 16 someone can be well informed and ready to make an intelligent choice. As a personal experience, I remember with great details the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which I could not vote (I was 15 at the time). I was not happy about the whole “you’re too young to vote” thing. My grandmother, who was full of wisdom thought I had more to gain or lose than her. She offered to vote in my name, so she ended up being the only one at her retirement home to vote yes (please keep reading anyway… complaints about hosting a separatist on the blog can be addressed to the editors). Voting by in name of children does not mean that they would actual get to chose, however, in large part their interest will be taken into account and as they grown up, adolescent will be gradually introduced in democratic life.
Obviously, there is no guarantee that parents would consider their children’s opinion or interest, as my grandmother did or that parents would have a greater interest in politics because of this modification. Nonetheless, in theory this idea seems to offer positive inputs and should be debated. One thing is certain, something has to be done to foment our modern “polis”, since our democratic life is in bad shape.