​​​​In a few days, the Senate of Canada will be voting on whether to send Bill S-201 (otherwise known as the Vote 16 Act or #Vote16) to committee. The Vote 16 Act would amend the Canada Elections Act by lowering the voting age in federal elections from 18 to 16. While many are in favour of this bill, there has been just as much resistance due to public belief that teenagers “aren’t mature enough to make political decisions” and that they “lack the ability and motivation to participate effectively in the electoral process”. 

​

Many also believe that 16 year olds will be less likely to vote due to their lack of motivation, comparable to 18-25 year-olds who are already rated the least motivated to vote. With the additional age group of 16-17 year olds, this may lower the percentage of voting young adults even more. Others dispute the bill because 16-year-olds are more likely to follow the crowd and conform to what others are voting for rather than challenge the federal government by voting for what they believe is best for society.

​

Manitoba Senator, Marilou McPhedran is a key player in this Vote16 decision and rebuttals the arguments made against #Vote16 in an interview with As It Happens host Carol Off. In an effort to debunk the opinion that “16-year-olds lack the education and understanding of politics”, McPhedran states that “16-year-olds are still deeply engaged in the education system” and they are reachable in a way that “many 18-year-olds are not”. She goes on to say that “age does not mean wisdom” and that there are countless 20, 30, 40, and 50 year olds who do not engage in politics. 

​

She further explains how even though some schools don’t teach civic courses in school or offer students the proper education to understand the importance of voting, her entire campaign, that yearns to empower and educate younger viewers on the importance of voting, is run through social media, one of the main platforms younger generations use to engage and communicate with others across the globe. McPhedran also states that by involving them in political affairs early, they will be more likely to maintain involvement in political decision-making in the future. 

​

The interview ends with Manitoban Senator’s discussing a paper written by a 15-year-old student and a 16-year-old student, both part of a whole influx of students from The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). She informs those watching that if a 16-year-old can drive a car and enroll in the armed forces, and a 17-year-old can be sent off to fight, then both parties should be able to vote. 

​

Reflecting on both sides of this debate. I agree with some of the hesitancy in letting 16 and 17-year-olds vote as they might lack the motivation, the understanding, and the education to express their beliefs in a political environment. Moreover, that might be a lot of stress and responsibility to instill in young teenagers who are still on a path to finding themselves. 

​

Conversely, perhaps we are looking at it all wrong. Maybe, it isn’t the older generations of voters we need to be motivating to vote, but the younger generations. By approving #Vote16, 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds will more likely see the value in their own voice and utilize that sense of reliability and confidence to engage in politics now and in the future. They may also influence future younger generations to use their voice. In addition, McPhedran’s social media campaign will also help weed out those disinterested in voting and catch the eyes of those really interested in politics who are looking to make the world a better place. 

​

I encourage everyone whose interest I’ve spiked during their reading of this article to continue researching, reading, and engaging in conversations regarding #Vote16 – because if there is one key takeaway from this article, it is that every voice matters. ​