Most countries have a minimum voting age of 18 years; however, since the turn of this century, several countries have had ongoing debates about reducing the voting age to 17 or 16, and several jurisdictions have legislated to lower the voting age. See Annex: List of Jurisdictions and their Voting Age. 

The following countries have different minimum voting ages:[i] 

•  16 years: Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Germany (only in some local elections), Malta, Nicaragua, Scotland 
•  17 years: Indonesia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Timor-Leste 
•  19 years: Republic of Korea 
•  20 years: Bahrain, Cameroon, Nauru 
•  21 years: Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tonga 
•  25 years: United Arab Emirates

The arguments for lowering the voting generally revolve around comparisons with non-electoral rights and responsibilities, international comparisons, level of political awareness and interest among the young, and the issue of maturity. 

In general, those in favor are convinced that lowering the voting age to 16 – in combination with stronger civic and voter education programs in schools – could increase the political participation of youth. The advocates for a lower voting age seek to strengthen their case by noting that 16-year-olds participate in political debates on social media and events, work, pay taxes, rent houses, and join the armed forces in some countries. Consequently, given their contributions to society, they should have the right to vote and hold representatives accountable for decisions that are affecting their daily lives. Research shows that 16-17-year-olds are more likely to vote than 18-20-year-olds—so giving them the vote when slightly younger enables them to vote when it is most convenient for them.

 The main arguments raised by opponents of lowering voting ages to 16 or another age younger than 18 are that younger people lack the maturity to grapple with complex political processes and that they would most likely be influenced by the positions of their parents or other adults. The relationship between age, maturity, and intelligence is complex and contentious. Developmental assumptions about what young people are capable of understanding and what motivates their behavior can influence public debate. The assumption that young people do not have enough life experience or maturity on which to base important decisions (such as voting), and also that they are easily manipulated, is hotly debated.

See Annex: Arguments For and Against Lowering the Voting Age.

There is a school of thought that believes there should be no fixed minimum age; that it should instead be for the individual to decide the age at which he or she is ready to vote; the suggestion being that if you are interested enough, you are mature enough.^[ii] But most supporters of change accept that there should be some fixed age at which voting is permitted, usually 16 or 17.^[iii]

This debate intersects with the discourse on the rights of children and adolescents and specifically on the issue of legal minimum age legislation, which can be contentious, contextual, and contradictory. In setting age limits, states have to balance protection with empowerment and rights. Human rights law says that there can be restrictions on who can vote in an election, as long as those restrictions are based on objective and reasonable criteria. All states have limited eligibility to vote based on age, no country allows people under 16 to vote in national elections, and only a minority allow young people aged between 16 and 18 the right to vote in national or municipal elections, some with conditions such as being employed or married.^[iv]

Several of the countries that have lowered the voting age have opted for an incremental approach, introducing the new legislation in one local district, for example, as a test-case before expanding to other districts. This approach was adopted in various jurisdictions in Austria, Germany, Norway, and the United States, but only Austria has expanded the legislation to all elections.

Since the 2010s, several jurisdictions have attempted to lower the voting age to 16 or 17 years of age – some have been successful while other attempts have been short-lived. Most attempts have been in jurisdictions in developed countries, and most have been unsuccessful; these include: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Council of Europe, the United Kingdom (the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly want to give their 16-year-olds the vote but need UK government approval^[v]) and the United States (including California, Florida, Alaska, and two districts in Washington DC). Norway experimented with a lowered voting age in 2011 in selected municipalities as a pilot. Despite the growing momentum in many of these countries, there is also considerable resistance to lowering the voting age among the public and politicians.

There has been limited data (at least that is available in English) in relation to the experience of those jurisdictions that have lowered the voting age. And even with the more recent experiences, there have only been one or two election cycles in which to assess the impact of the legislation on patterns relating to voter turnout, voting behavior, and other potential consequences of the legislation. Future research is needed to examine the short-term and long-term impacts of such electoral reform.

The early data is, however, fairly consistent: “Studies from a municipal election in the United States, as well as national elections in Denmark and Austria, have shown that 16- and 17-year-olds are avid political participants and that voting at 16 and 17 is habit-forming. Socialized into a culture of participation early on, 16- and 17-year-old voters may age into more politically active older people than those who do not vote for the first time until they are 18 or 19.”[vi]

For more on the topic of lowering the voting age, see ACE Spotlight on Voting Age.