This article about raising the voting age to 21 is ridiculous. So much so that it's actually kind of funny. The argument is kind of along the lines of this:
a) There's really low voter turnout with the kids;
b) A lot of the kids really aren't responsible enough to vote;
c) Therefore, we should raise the voting age to 21.
Something tells me that the kids who aren't responsible enough to vote are probably the same kids who aren't voting. Therefore, you'd be raising the voting age in order keep people who aren't voting from voting. It seems like a bit of a waste of time. Plus, of course, there are those 38.7 per cent of Canadians aged 18-21 who actually, you know, exercise their franchise, who you'd be stripping of the right to vote.
The article also notes that, in the United States, "Nixon was a leading supporter of the change south of the border and gushed about the benefits of extending the franchise to 11 million new voters -- many of them barely out of high school. 'You will infuse into this nation some idealism, some courage, some stamina, some high moral purpose,' Nixon said." But it doesn't mention the number one reason that the American voting age was lowered to 18 from 21 in 1971: the Vietnam War. The United States was drafting kids who were young enough to die for their country, but not old enough to vote.
And that's the number 1 reason why the voting age should not be higher than 18. If you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to help decide how that country is run.
Anyway, I suspect the Maclean's article was really just one of those reverse psychology things. Like this guy.