Sir, – Senator Malcolm Byrne acknowledges (Letters, May 4th) that a letter writer (May 3rd) is correct in stating that we should not make a decision to lower the voting age based on the views of a handful of young people.
However, he goes on to say that in 2013 the Constitutional Convention strongly supported the proposal to lower the voting age.
My recollection is that the anticipation at the time was that the convention delegates would indeed strongly carry the proposal in view of the Children’s Rights Referendum the previous year. In fact, having listened to the views of both sides in the debate, the convention vote was 52-48 in favour, hardly an overwhelming endorsement.
Senator Byrne also points to a number of countries that currently have voting at 16. We should not forget that there are a number of other countries which also do, such as Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan and that paragon of democracy, North Korea.
I think the unintended consequences of lowering the voting age have not been thought through.
Legally those aged 16 and 17 are children, not adults. If they are allowed vote at 16, can they then marry at 16, take out a mortgage, engage in a legally contractual agreement, buy cigarettes and alcohol? Should their anonymity in court cases be continued?
The right to vote is one of a citizen’s most cherished responsibilities and in my view, is an adult one.
Those who today are 16 and 17 will have far, far more opportunities to vote than, for example, their parents and grandparents, as they will be fortunate to live longer lives.
Let children live out their childhood then until they are 18. That will not deprive them of anything, really. They will just have to wait to vote, but then, having to wait for some rights makes them all the more valued.
I do agree with Senator Byrne’s closing remarks that a broader public debate on this issue is necessary. – Yours, etc,
NOEL HOWARD,
Kilworth,
Co Cork.