As I tilt my head towards my mother and meet her eyes, the question that had just left my mouth lingered in the air: “Are you Republican or Democrat?” My parents stared at me over warm rice and vegetable curry. The six-year-old with eager eyes listening for a response was instead met with deafening silence. The dinner table should be a microcosm of political conversations between members of our regional and state governments, in the chambers of the Capitol and in the Oval Office itself. Instead, in the current social and political climate of the United States, of the world, political discourse is viewed as a means to immediately receive a barrel of shouts, glaring eyes, and furious glances.

But to bridge this chasm of political reluctance and civic disengagement, we must enable political discourse to occur in the first place. The course of action is simple: lower the voting age to 16. Enable teenagers to cast a ballot and in return, we will bring political conversations directly to the dinner table.

The United States was founded on the stubborn attitudes of our Founding Fathers to bring the new notion of democracy to fruition. Indeed, the Founders’ notion of democracy vastly differed from our modern understanding of it. What began as an electorate of white, wealthy landowners has now expanded to include almost every U.S. citizen, excluding felons. And with this wave of expanding suffrage, so has the greater ability of Americans to bring political discourse to their homes, and to their greater societies.

Ultimately, youth voting has consistently proven to be a mechanism to encourage Americans to participate in their communities. In cities across the country, especially in Maryland and California, where the voting age is 16, 16 and 17-year-olds have participated in their local elections much more than their older counterparts. These occurrences are by no means isolated; countries around the world have implemented a voting age of 16, including Germany, Scotland, and Austria. In Austria, researchers found that young people under 16 voted in their local and regional elections at a rate higher than their counterparts over the age of 50.

Due to these positive experiences of young Austrians in their local elections, the democratic government felt justified in lowering the national voting age, becoming the first country in the European Union that allows 16-year-olds to participate in national elections. The Austrian government further warranted the new voting age as a means of responding to the “special needs” of young people in the modern age, especially since they can already conduct business, go to jail, and may make responsible decisions in Austrian society.

In all respects, the expansion of the right to vote to include 16-year-olds may only have positive benefits in enabling the citizenry to engage in meaningful civic discourse, rather than fear discussion of various perspectives, ranging from immigration to the economy. The teenager is integral to bringing such conversation directly to their homes, ultimately engaging their families in politics, current events, and society at large.

Consequently, a lowered voting age will enable greater participation of citizens in their government throughout their lifetimes. Political science research concluded that the act of voting is habitual. And so it follows that an individual that votes in the first election that she is eligible for will be much more likely to continue to vote in later elections, rather than taking several years for the action to become a habit. In bridging this gap between citizens and their government, citizens are further able to participate in their communities in the long-term and diminish political reluctance.

But even an immediate consequence of lowering the voting age would be a subsequent strengthening of civics education in the public education system. American schools, over time, have consistently diminished their concern for teaching students of their civic responsibility through government courses. However, a lowered voting age would instantly increase the relevance of civics education to the public school system; in a sense, lowering the voting age and a strong civics education would mutually reinforce each other to strengthen civic engagement.

Allegations of teenage immaturity plague the minds of federal officials, preventing them from integrating a lower voting age. However, these perspectives fail to account for the presence of the teenager in modern society.

In defense of the teenager, I, as a 16-year-old, can own and drive my own automobile. Much like many of my friends, I may go out and find a job, whether that be at a local tutoring company or a Panera, and then pay tax on my income. Further, if I were to commit a crime spontaneously, I may be tried as an adult in the court system. Teenage responsibilities and treatment under the law make them comparable to their adult counterparts, but they fail to reap the same benefits, especially the right to vote. 

Ultimately, however, the ability for Americans, especially teenagers, to achieve greater participation rests in the hands of the federal government. The strength of American democracy depends on it.