From climate change to housing affordability, it’s young people who will face the long-term consequences of today’s political decisions. The U.K. has announced plans to lower the voting age to 16, bringing new momentum to conversations around youth political engagement.
While critics often say young people are apathetic or disengaged, research paints a more nuanced picture — of youth whose political participation is always through traditional channels.
“Young people are already deeply engaged in civic life,” says Kristina Llewellyn, professor in the Wilson College of Leadership & Civic Engagement. “They’re organizing, protesting, creating change in their communities. What they need now is to be recognized as full political participants.”
Here, she talks about youth engagement and how policy changes, like lowering the voting age, could help bridge the gap between youth activism and formal political power.
How do you respond to the common narrative that young people are apathetic or disengaged from politics?
We typically think of youth engagement as being about electoral politics. And it’s true that there’s been consistently low youth participation in elections since the early 2000s. For example, Elections Canada reports that voting rates among 18-to 24-year-olds have hovered around 47 per cent, compared to 75 per cent for those 65 to 74.
That’s a problem. We need youth to be involved in formal democratic processes like voting, because those are the mechanisms that determine political priorities.
But the idea that youth are disengaged across the board is incorrect. Research shows that youth are differently engaged — often at a cultural or grassroots level.
Young people are using pop culture and social media to influence political discourse. They’re active in local community efforts, protests, petitions and even legal mechanisms to push for change. For example, we’ve seen youth take legal action to force politicians to address climate change.
So, while they may be less engaged in electoral politics, they’re deeply involved in civic life.
Do you get the sense that lowering the voting age would help combat that disengagement at the voting booth?
Yes. Research shows that youth disengagement from electoral politics stems from two major issues: A sense of disconnection and a lack of information.
Young people are often framed as “citizens in waiting,” and politicians tend to focus on issues that affect adults, like taxation or home ownership, which feel distant to youth. As a result, young people don’t feel represented and question whether their vote matters.
The second issue is young people feel like they lack knowledge or understanding about the electoral process. Many young people don’t know how to vote, how to make informed decisions, or which candidates represent their interests.
Lowering the voting age addresses both issues.
Studies show that if young people vote the first time they are eligible, they’re more likely to become habitual voters. If they do not vote the first time they have the chance to, they’re more likely to say it doesn’t matter. Catching them early, especially when they’re supported by family, peers, and schools, can turn the tide on generational disengagement.
In Latin America and parts of Europe, lowering the voting age to 16 showed that youth were more informed and felt more connected to the process.
When politicians know young people are voting, they start paying attention to their issues. That sense of being heard is critical.
Some critics argue that younger teens lack the maturity or knowledge to vote responsibly. How do you respond to those concerns?
There’s always been pushback when it comes to lowering the voting age. Historically, we saw it when the age dropped from 21 to 18 in 1970, and we’re seeing it again now.
One of the most common arguments is that young people lack the critical thinking skills needed to make informed decisions. But that’s a myth — one that’s been debunked by psychologists studying brain development and decision-making.
We ask young people to think critically every day in school. At 16, they absolutely have the capacity to engage thoughtfully with political issues.
Another concern is that youth are easily manipulated by peers or online misinformation. But interestingly, research shows that political disinformation is most often spread by people over the age of 65.
Young people, on the other hand, tend to have stronger media literacy and are often better equipped to spot misinformation.
If anything, youth could help shift political discourse toward more accurate and inclusive conversations.
They’re also more likely to prioritize issues that are often overlooked by older voters, like climate justice, housing insecurity, and systemic inequality. These are concerns they’ll live with for decades to come.
And when we engage marginalized youth, we get a broader diversity of voters and a richer set of political priorities. That could lead to more responsive and representative governance.
So yes, lowering the voting age could truly transform our political landscape.
Is there action we can take now to address youth political apathy — beyond lowering the voting age?
Absolutely. One of the most overlooked but important steps we can take is to treat civic and political engagement as a human right.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child affirms that children should have a voice in decisions that affect them, yet we often deny them that voice in political matters, even while granting them responsibilities like driving.
If we want young people to be politically engaged, we need to ensure they’re supported in developing the capacity to participate meaningfully. That starts with civic education, which is currently under-prioritized in Canada.
Right now, students in Ontario might experience a mock election in elementary school and then take a half-credit civics course in Grade 10, which is often taught by teachers who don’t specialize in the subject.
And this civics course is paired with career education, reinforcing the idea that youth are “citizens in waiting” until they are gainfully employed rather than active participants in our democracy today.
We also tend to promote a charity-based model of civic engagement, like the 40 hours of volunteerism required in high school. While volunteering is valuable, it doesn’t necessarily build political knowledge or engagement.
If we want to foster informed, active citizens, we need to rethink how we teach civics by making it more robust, relevant and connected to real political issues.