Should people get paid to vote

Pros & Cons - votes at 16 - a good idea?

Votes at 16 - a good idea?

On Thursday, a National Council commission will decide on the introduction of the active voting and voting age of 16. Glarus is already familiar with this at the cantonal level, and the Uri District Administrator is also in favor.

Yes - "Letting the youth vote is nothing but fair"

Approving voting and voting from the age of 16 is a good idea either way. The corona crisis provides an additional argument. First to the basic arguments.

By the age of 16 at the latest, adolescents look for an apprenticeship or study for the examination at high school. So you set the course for your career. Why shouldn't they vote on what the political guard rails of their future will look like? Thanks to the internet and smartphones, young people are now better informed about politics than their previous generations. The climate demonstrations also show that many young people have a pronounced political awareness even before they come of age. It is therefore only logical that they should also be allowed to vote and vote.

The reservation of a lack of maturity does not apply. A look at our neighboring country is enough. Chancellor Sebastian Kurz is only 33 years old, and 16-year-olds are of course allowed to have a say at all levels. Why shouldn't that also be possible in Switzerland? In addition, the canton of Glarus shows that democracy is not becoming a kindergarten in Switzerland, just because teenagers have a say. Since 2007, the canton, which celebrates its democracy in rural communities, has had the generous voting age.

Attempts in numerous other cantons have so far failed. But it doesn't have to stay that way. Because the corona crisis provides new arguments. Isn't it the youngsters who have to pay the bills for economic rescue? If we are already living at the expense of the next generation, then it would be fair to give them a say. Not much would change anyway. Young people exercise their voting rights less often. And even if every infant could vote, 60 percent of the electorate would still be over 20 years old.

No - "The youth already have a great influence today"

16-year-olds have sex, drink beer and choose a job, which is why they can be trusted to have a say in politics. This is what the proponents of voting age 16 say. One could reply just as polemically: Yes, but they are not allowed to buy cigarettes, nor are they allowed to buy hard alcohol, and tongue piercing requires parental consent. You don't trust young people with much responsibility. Polemizing doesn't get us any further. It is a serious debate. Politicians have been discussing lowering the voting age for years and over and over again. It is true that the climate youth has mixed up the debate, put pressure on politics, especially visible with the CO₂ law. But climate policy is a wonderful example of how well young people can make themselves heard today, if they want to. You are creative and innovative and can drive established politicians in front of you. So they already have influence. Then what is it about? Increasing political participation, say some. Breaking the old people's dominance at the ballot box. But - is it really the problem of the older population if they vote more? This argument is discriminatory. The boys also go to the ballot box, but much more selectively. A study shows that they are particularly good when it comes to templates that concern them directly, have a greater media presence or - attention - are less complex. Voting is associated with rights and obligations. It can be really tedious. National, cantonal, communal templates. And then this déjà-vus at regular intervals, because the topics repeat themselves. See voting age 16. So a colleague told me: Young people should demand and complain, that's their right. But they should also be happy that they are only allowed to vote from the age of 18. Because: The anticipation is known to be the greatest joy!