#CivicEngagement

A leading neuroscientist is reigniting debate over the voting age by arguing that 16-year-olds possess the cognitive skills needed to cast ballots responsibly, citing both neurological development and international examples as evidence. The discussion, sparked by a recent article in The Times, is gaining traction in countries considering electoral reform—including those, like Thailand, where youth political engagement has surged in recent years.

At a time when several democracies are weighing whether to lower their voting ages, neuroscientific research offers powerful new insights. According to the neuroscientist interviewed by The Times, teenagers aged 16 can reason, reflect, and make considered decisions—skills grounded in “cold cognition,” or logical thinking in calm settings. These cognitive abilities, the expert explains, develop enough by mid-adolescence to underpin mature choices at the ballot box.

Groundbreaking neuroscience research has ignited international debates about democratic participation by demonstrating that 16-year-olds possess the cognitive sophistication necessary for responsible electoral decision-making, challenging traditional assumptions about adolescent political competence that could transform Thailand’s approach to youth civic engagement. Leading brain scientists present compelling evidence that teenagers develop crucial “cold cognition” abilities—logical reasoning under calm conditions—that enable thoughtful ballot choices, while Thailand’s recent surge in youth political activism provides real-world validation of adolescent civic sophistication that demands serious reconsideration of voting age restrictions.