The Lowering of the Federal Voting Age to 16 in Canada: Normative, Political, and Constitutional Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I argue that Canada's federal statutory voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16. The argument is developed through three concurrent fields of research: normative political theory, comparative politics, and constitutional theory. The proposed institutional change would be consistent with the evolutionary nature of the federal franchise since late teenagers, through the concurrent processes of mobilizations–concessions, and constitutional litigation, could extend it as other social groups did. A federal voting age of 16 in Canada would not lead to habitual non-voting, as was demonstrated by the outcome of the lowering of the minimum voting age to 16 in Scotland in 2015. The reduction of the minimum voting age to 16 would also resolve the unjustifiable inconsistency between the federal disenfranchisement of 16- and 17-year-olds and their democratic and equality rights, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (through section 3 and subsection 15[1]). The analysis of the constitutionality of section 3 of the Canada Elections Act is further substantiated by references to New Zealand`s judicial treatment of the disenfranchisement of 16- and 17-year olds and the transnational discourse concerning the disenfranchisement of persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, who are excluded from suffrage based on political immaturity in the same manner as late teenagers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".