The question is simple: Do you believe younger teens are easier to manipulate and mislead than older ones? If not, if you think the full wisdom of maturity is a

The question is simple: Do you believe younger teens are easier to manipulate and mislead than older ones? If not, if you think the full wisdom of maturity is available to us at 16, then lowering the voting age further [1] won't cause problems. The article addresses this with "Knowledge and experience are not criteria for voting eligibility" - true. But if we have any faith in democracy, we must presume that less knowledgeable and experienced votes will lead to worse politicians, and a worse society. Otherwise we may as well do away with voting altogether and pick leaders by lottery. I must say I find it bizarre how the article implies that, because they cannot vote, under-18s concerns are not represented. Pre-teens also cannot vote, yet politicians promising [2] to make life harder for them don't tend to get elected. [1] It used to be 21, but that made it awkward to conscript 18-year-olds to die in Vietnam. Instead of raising conscription to 21, they lowered voting age to 18. [2] Promising as in using it on the campaign to improve their election odds. That some politicians make life harder for children nevertheless is not remotely proof this is because kids can't vote. After all, they routinely pass laws to make life harder for plenty of demographics that can vote.