“So we should enfranchise babies,” says some imaginary opponent of lowing voting age.

Do you believe that this is a good reductio? If not, please explain where we should draw the line. If so, please try to argue that any line is unjustified.

The proposition that “we should enfranchise babies” is a poor reductio as it suggests that we should enable everyone to have the ability to vote; however, it will inevitably lead to an absurd outcome, that would leave the political system in turmoil. An issue that overarches this claim is that babies do not have a sound understanding of politics, therefore posing a threat to democracy. Additionally, a child’s views can be easily manipulated by those with higher authority, such as parents, which may lead to unwarranted bias surrounding their vote. While the idea of enabling everyone the right to vote is plausible in a democratic government, there should be a line drawn to ensure the stability of a political system. Ultimately, the concept of enfranchising children is flawed as it would lead to profound outcomes regarding elections and decisions made within parliament, therefore there should be a minimum age enforced that excludes children from making uninformed and potentially influenced decisions.

Due to babies having little political competency, their vote would be uninformed and could cause for an unwanted outcome for the wider community, who are informed of who they are voting for. It is assumed the voter has a sound understanding of political parties, the politicians background and more importantly their intentions. A child’s view is likely to be negligible as their priorities do not align with what is needed in society, let alone a baby who has not had the opportunity to develop. Jason Brennon states in his journal, Against Democracy, that “if the individual’s cognitive process of deliberation is flawed, the system is corrupt, and the results are illegitimate,”^[1] recognising that children do not uphold the competency necessary for making such influential decisions. Furthermore, Timothy Fowler argues that political competence “entails reaching a certain level of rationality and reasonableness, which allows one to form and revise one’s conception of justice and the good, and to understand and abide by fair terms of cooperation.”^[2] A child’s political competence proves to be insufficient and could cause dire consequences, such as swaying votes towards an unfavoured politician with promises that discard the needs of society. Thus, a baby’s inability to make informed choices suggests that they should not have the right to vote as they are likely to make irrational decisions that do not account for what citizens need.

Moreover, while children are unlikely to understand their role in voting, they are also vulnerable to manipulation if they were to gain the right to vote. Throughout adolescence, children develop their own views; however, the nature of ‘positionality’ entails that their views are influenced by external factors, such as the media and in particular people of authority. As revealed by a political science professor, Lisa Argyle, “political science research shows that families are typically the ‘starting point’ for someone’s political views,”^[3] demonstrating that if a child were to vote, it is likely that their political views would align with their parents. Argyle’s claim suggests that this period of adolescence is a time of developing one’s own views, rather than expressing them in such a way that may impact the wider community. As such, the voting age is 18 in most countries as it is an age where most individuals have matured and formed their own beliefs, which they should be entitled to express instead of an early age. Another factor to consider is religion, as religious values may align with the values of certain political parties. For instance, a Brigham Young University student, Hans Lehnardt, acknowledges that his faith corresponds with the values of the democratic party in the United States of America, claiming that they “are more about helping the poor and the needy and helping refugees and allowing immigrants to come in.”³ Thus, the religion a child is born into has the potential to inspire a child’s political views, reiterating the influence parents and people of authority in a child’s life has, therefore raising light to political bias if they were to vote at this adolescent age.

While children being enfranchised would likely damage a democracy, from an equal rights standpoint, it is plausible that children should be provided the right to vote regardless of their competency surrounding political views. It is almost certain that children do not have the capacity to make informed decisions if they were to vote; however, this argument does not consider that adults similarly may not have the necessary competency to vote either. An Assistant Professor at Doshisha University, Kei Nishiyama, argues that “States grant suffrage to adult regardless of knowledge, skills, literacy, intelligence, or even cognitive impairment or dementia,”^[4]posing the argument of double standards surrounding suffrage. Additionally, a research associate from the University of Cambridge, Harry Pearce contends that “the fact that adults don’t need to show franchise credentials or an independence of mind shows that voting is not a privilege of competency, but rather a right of citizenship,”^[5] furthering Nishiyama’s concerns surrounding the legitimacy of child disenfranchisement. However, the overall implications that would follow if children were to be enfranchised, particularly babies, outweighs arguments suggesting that adults may also make ill-informed decisions when voting. The idea of enfranchising babies is an invalid reductio as it would give children the opportunity to make decisions that would not consider the impacts on the community. As such, child enfranchising should not be an equal rights issue, but instead an argument on whether such power should be permitted to those who have yet to develop their own views.

The concept that “we should enfranchise babies” should be discarded due to the implications it would have on democracy. While democratic views advocate for equal rights for all, it is important to draw a line when it comes to issues that may impact the wider community. There comes an age where people have the capacity to form their own views and values without external influencers, justifying why lowering the voting age is absurd and an illegitimate reductio. As such, children require the opportunity to mature and develop such beliefs without the threat of manipulation, and should not have the opportunity to harm democracy due to ill-informed decisions.

^[1] Brennan, J. (2016). Against Democracy. Against Democracy. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400882939

‌

^[2] Fowler, T. (2013). The status of child citizens. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 13(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x13483482

‌

^[3] Holbrook, K. (2020, October 30). How family and religion influence young adult political views. The Daily Universe. https://universe.byu.edu/2020/10/30/how-family-and-religion-influence-young-adult-political-views/

‌

^[4] Wall, J. (2023, May 5). 🦋 Why democracies need children’s suffrage. The Loop. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/why-democracies-need-childrens-suffrage/

‌

^[5] Pearse, H. (2022, December 28). Why aren’t children allowed to vote? An expert debunks the arguments against. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/why-arent-children-allowed-to-vote-an-expert-debunks-the-arguments-against-187497

‌