POTENTIAL IMPACT on Urban & Rural
Communities
Our campaign recognizes that young voices matter, and their inclusion in local decision-making processes holds the key to creating stronger, more vibrant, and responsive communities. In this section, we'll explore how the Vote16MO initiative fosters positive change in both rural and urban settings, highlighting the shared benefits that extend beyond geographic boundaries.
Missouri's diverse communities, from the bustling urban centers to the tranquil rural landscapes, face unique challenges and opportunities. By engaging young people in the democratic process, we aim to bridge the gap between generations, cultivate civic responsibility, and pave the way for a brighter future. Join us as we delve into the ways in which the Vote16MO initiative empowers communities, enhances representation, and promotes a culture of inclusive, informed, and active citizenship. Together, we can build a stronger Missouri, one vote at a time.
The Impact on RURAL COMMUNITIES
Lowering the voting age to 16 in Missouri's nonpartisan local and school board elections through the Vote16MO campaign can have several positive impacts on the youth of rural communities. This expansion of voting rights has the potential to address several key issues specific to rural areas and enhance the overall well-being of young people in these regions.
1. Addressing Low Civic Engagement: Research (Oosterhoff et al., 2021) has shown that youth in rural areas often exhibit low civic engagement. Allowing 16-year-olds to vote can be an effective strategy to combat this issue by engaging young people in the political process and encouraging them to be active participants in their communities.
2. Improving Education and Opportunities: Lowering the voting age can lead to increased influence on educational policies and opportunities for rural youth (Hart & Atkins, 2010). With the ability to vote, students can have a direct say in shaping educational programs that better meet their needs. This can result in more tailored and effective educational initiatives that enhance the quality of life for rural youth.
3. Economic Benefits: As rural youth gain a voice in shaping policies, including those related to economic development, there is potential for increased job opportunities and economic growth within their communities (Hart & Atkins, 2010). This could lead to greater prosperity for rural areas.
4. Civic Engagement and Social Capital: Research has demonstrated that civic education plays a compensatory role in political engagement (Neundorf et al., 2016). Allowing 16-year-olds to vote can contribute to the development of civic responsibility and community engagement among rural youth, enhancing their sense of social capital. This, in turn, can have long-term positive effects on their participation in local politics (Xu et al., 2010).
5. Holistic Representation: Research shows that 16-year-olds are capable of making informed voting choices (Wagner et al., 2012). Their inclusion in the democratic process can lead to a more diverse range of perspectives and ideas being considered in decision-making. This ensures that young people's interests are represented equally, benefiting the overall well-being of rural communities.
6. Age-Friendly Planning: The Vote16MO campaign can also have implications for community health and age-friendly planning in rural areas. Age-friendly planning focuses on creating communities that are accessible and supportive for people of all ages (Zhang et al., 2020). By involving 16-year-olds in the voting process, rural communities can ensure that the needs and concerns of young people are considered in the development of age-friendly environments (Warner & Zhang, 2019). This contributes to the overall well-being and quality of life in rural communities.
7. Empowering Youth: Lowering the voting age empowers young people to actively engage in shaping their communities. It fosters a sense of responsibility and ownership among 16 and 17-year-olds, encouraging them to take an active role in local decision-making processes.
8. Community Building: The campaign can foster a sense of community and neighborliness, which are predictors of local political participation (Xu et al., 2010). By allowing 16-year-olds to vote, it can strengthen the sense of belonging and community engagement, leading to increased civic participation in rural areas.
In conclusion, the Vote16MO campaign's efforts to lower the voting age in Missouri's nonpartisan local and school board elections to 16 can positively impact rural youth in various ways. It can address low civic engagement, improve educational opportunities, stimulate economic growth, and foster greater civic responsibility and community engagement among rural youth. All these benefits contribute to the overall well-being and development of rural areas by ensuring that the voices and perspectives of young people are heard and valued in local decision-making processes.
The Impact on urban COMMUNITIES
Lowering the voting age in Missouri's nonpartisan local and school board elections to 16 through the Vote16MO campaign can have a range of positive impacts on urban communities:
1. Improved Educational Environments: Allowing 16-year-olds to vote in school board elections bridges the gap between school administrators and the student body, resulting in improved educational environments. Students gain a direct say in decision-making, influencing policies related to curriculum, school safety, and extracurricular activities. This fosters a more collaborative relationship between administrators and students, enhancing the overall educational experience (Dustmann et al., 2018).
2. Enhanced Representation and Policy Responsiveness: Lowering the voting age in local elections connects elected officials with a larger demographic, including young people. This inclusive representation ensures that the concerns and interests of urban youth are considered in decision-making, leading to more responsive and inclusive policies that address the unique challenges faced by young urban residents (Oliver, 2000).
3. Promotes Economic Growth: Involving 16-year-olds in the voting process can promote economic growth in urban communities. Young people's perspectives and insights can contribute to policies related to job creation, vocational training, and economic development. This, in turn, benefits the overall prosperity and vitality of urban areas (Cameron et al., 1996).
4. Increased Civic Engagement: Lowering the voting age fosters civic engagement among young people in urban communities (Xu et al., 2010). By involving 16-year-olds in the democratic process, urban communities can nurture a sense of belonging and civic responsibility among young residents. This leads to increased participation in local politics and community affairs.
5. Highlighting the Value of Representation: Lowering the voting age underscores the importance of representation for all citizens in urban communities. It recognizes that young people have a stake in the decisions that affect their lives and deserve to have their voices heard. By including 16-year-olds in the voting process, urban communities promote a more inclusive and representative democracy where the interests and perspectives of all citizens are taken into account (Wagner et al., 2012).
6. Long-Term Civic Habits: Allowing young people to vote at 16 can help instill a sense of civic duty and responsibility from an earlier age, contributing to the development of lifelong voting habits and engagement in political activities (Miragliotta et al., 2021).
In conclusion, the Vote16MO campaign has the potential to positively impact urban communities and youth because it empowers them to take an active role in shaping their educational experiences, fosters engagement, enhances representation, promotes economic growth, and emphasizes the value of representation for all citizens. This inclusive approach ensures that urban communities benefit from the unique perspectives and active participation of their young residents, contributing to a more vibrant, responsive, and equitable democratic system.
REFERENCES
1. Cameron, C., Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1996). Do majority-minority districts maximize substantive black representation in congress?. American Political Science Review, 90(4), 794-812. https://doi.org/10.2307/2945843
2. Dawes, N. and Larson, R. (2011). How youth get engaged: grounded-theory research on motivational development in organized youth programs.. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020729
3. Dustmann, C., Vasiļjeva, K., & Damm, A. (2018). Refugee migration and electoral outcomes. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(5), 2035-2091. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdy047
4. Franklin, M., Eijk, C., Evans, D., Fotos, M., Mino, W., Marsh, M., … & Wessels, B. (2004). Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established democracies since 1945.. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511616884
5. Hart, D. and Atkins, R. (2010). American sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds are ready to vote. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 633(1), 201-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716210382395
6. Hobolt, S. (2016). The brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(9), 1259-1277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785
7. Miragliotta, N., Murray, S., & Drum, M. (2021). Values, partisan interest, and the voting age: lessons from Australia. Politics & Policy, 49(5), 1192-1215. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12413
8. Neundorf, A., Niemi, R., & Smets, K. (2016). The compensation effect of civic education on political engagement: how civics classes make up for missing parental socialization. Political Behavior, 38(4), 921-949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9341-0
9. Oliver, J. (2000). City size and civic involvement in metropolitan America. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 361-373. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586017
10. Oosterhoff, B., Wray-Lake, L., & Hart, D. (2021). Reconsidering the minimum voting age in the United States. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(2), 442-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621994221
11. Wagner, M., Johann, D., & Kritzinger, S. (2012). Voting at 16: turnout and the quality of vote choice. Electoral Studies, 31(2), 372-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.01.007
12. Warner, M. and Zhang, X. (2019). Planning communities for all ages. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 42(4), 554-567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x19828058
13. Xu, Q., Perkins, D., & Chow, J. (2010). Sense of community, neighboring, and social capital as predictors of local political participation in China. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3-4), 259-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9312-2
14. Zhang, X., Warner, M., & Wethington, E. (2020). Can age-friendly planning promote equity in community health across the rural-urban divide in the US?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1275. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041275