Debate contribution: Voting Age: 16- and 17-year-olds
Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 24 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Voting Age: 16- and 17-year-olds
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4644853
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion and the amendment. I take on board the point that the Member for North Antrim made when she proposed the amendment. She said that we should not refer to children as "the future", and I totally understand what she was saying. However, I find it impossible to disagree with Whitney Houston. I believe that "children are our future", but it is what you infer from that. It is not about saying to children that the future will be theirs at some stage and that they should just wait until that time. Instead, it is about recognising that our young people should have a say in what their future looks like, and that gets to the heart of what the debate is about. We in Sinn Féin believe that we should extend voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds because they work, pay taxes and contribute to the system, and, therefore, they should have a say in how we are governed. This is fundamental to many of the debates in the Chamber about equality, inclusion and rights: in order for us to recognise people's views, they need an opportunity to have their say. We cannot govern for people and take on board their particular perspectives if they are not included in the democratic process. For that reason, 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to vote. We know that teenagers now face pressures that most of us could not begin to imagine. I will counter that by saying that I might be closer than some in the Chamber to understanding their particular pressures. Look at, among other things, social media, the prevalence of bullying, peer pressure and the rise of drug and alcohol abuse in our communities.
We do not know how to tackle those pressures, and we need the views of our young people when we are trying to do so. For that reason, they should be included in the electoral process.
In other examples around the world, we have see how, when progressive voices are included at the table, we have more progressive politics and better and more informed solutions to problems that we face. That is another reason that our 16- and 17-year-olds should be granted the right to vote. They have an important contribution to make to society, and that should be reflected in our electoral system. I agree with those who have spoken in favour of extending voting rights. Obviously, Sinn Féin, coming, as we do, from a place in the world where, at one stage, the right to vote was not even granted to every 18-year old, a right that a civil rights campaign eventually saw extended, would like to see more people involved in our democratic process and the franchise being extended. I urge Members to support the motion.
467 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.96 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.