Although in the United States the voting age is 18, lowering the voting age to 16 has been a recurring debate, often raising concerns about maturity, responsibility, and decision-making. Neuroscientist Dean Burnett argues that, far from being unprepared, teenagers have every reason to be trusted with the right to vote. His perspective directly challenges some of the most common objections raised against younger voters.
Burnett believes that the criticisms often aimed at teenagers are either scientifically inaccurate or inconsistently applied. He explains that the very same arguments used to exclude 16-year-olds could easily apply to older voters as well. With that in mind, he lays out four central reasons why dismissing young people from the democratic process is flawed.
Why Dean Burnett thinks 16-year-olds deserve to vote
The first objection he tackles is the claim that teenagers don’t have fully developed brains. Dean Burnett calls this argument misleading, since brain performance peaks in the mid-20s but also begins to decline soon after.
If voting rights were based solely on “optimal brain function,” then only people between 25 and 35 should be allowed to participate. In reality, maturity and civic judgment can’t be reduced to brain scans, making this a weak justification for exclusion.
Another common criticism is that teens are prone to crime, particularly violent offenses. Burnett pushes back on this idea by pointing out that criminal behavior exists across all age groups. If crime were grounds for removing voting rights, then large portions of the adult population would also be disqualified. Singling out teenagers, he argues, is unfair and rooted more in prejudice than in evidence.
The issue of “life experience” also comes up frequently. Skeptics claim that 16-year-olds don’t understand enough about the world to make informed choices. Burnett dismisses this as arbitrary, noting that many young people already handle adult responsibilities, from caring for family members to making important financial decisions.
Meanwhile, countless older voters make misinformed choices despite decades of experience. To him, equating age with wisdom is an unreliable measure.
Finally, there is the accusation that teenagers are too gullible and vulnerable to misinformation, particularly online. He acknowledges that young people are active on social media but highlights research showing that older demographics are actually more likely to believe and spread false information. Gullibility, in his view, is not a teenage trait but a human one, and excluding only one age group on that basis makes little sense.
A case against age-based exclusion
The neuroscientist concludes that every supposed reason for denying 16-year-olds the right to vote applies equally—or even more strongly—to older groups. Cognitive development, crime, life experience, and susceptibility to misinformation are not limited to teenagers. Singling them out reflects bias rather than logic.
By reframing the debate through neuroscience and fairness, Burnett shows that the exclusion of younger voters is harder to defend than many assume. For him, giving 16-year-olds a say is not just a political decision but also a recognition of their capacity to contribute meaningfully to society.
In the end, his position challenges us to rethink how voting rights are justified. If democracy is truly about representation, then arbitrarily cutting off a group of citizens simply because of age may be the least democratic move of all.
