In the past, barriers such as race and gender denied some the vote. Nowadays, it seems silly that such factors could have had such an impact on a person’s life. But, although we have come a long way in breaking down the constraints that have afforded certain groups greater representation in society, we still have a long way to go – especially in terms of the age at which you are allowed to vote.

Age is often not considered a target for prejudice, but in the current political climate it has become clear to me how much the youth of the country are being cast aside. Their voices are going unheard, and, ultimately, they are having their rights as citizens denied. Not only does this mean that the outcome of an election may not be representative, but a great opportunity is also being missed to raise some real issues that may affect those under 18 more than those who are able to vote.

The main mission of the upcoming General Election is, supposedly, to give people from all walks of life a free and fair vote, as well as the chance to show their passion for politics. But this is not necessarily the reality. Thanks to the Scottish independence referendum, it is now clear that 16- and 17-year-olds have the capacity to make decisions regarding politics. Despite this, however, on 7th May, those under 18 will be deemed unfit to vote, an arbitrary cut-off which fails to consider people on an individual basis.

Thus, your age has the power to influence what you can achieve and how your life turns out, in complete ignorance of cognitive capacities. This is wrong. I am 17, yet have completed my first year at Cambridge, so surely possess the level of intelligence required to make an independent decision when it comes to voting. In contrast, my grandma, who has Alzheimer's, cannot remember who the Prime Minister is, what the main political parties are or even what UKIP is, but is able to vote, despite her diminished cognitive state.

Perhaps it is necessary, therefore, to create a test, like the Life in the UK test, which must be passed in order for foreign nationals to become British citizens. It focuses on British values and history, with questions such as "which flower is traditionally worn by people on Remembrance Day?”, giving a choice of four possible answers. For a migrant to gain citizenship, they must score at least 75 per cent.

Similarly, I believe that, in order to vote, you should understand the values and history of each party and of the British political system, all of which could be assessed in the same way. Passing this test, which would not be age-dependent, would show your opinion to be valid and reliable, and, more importantly, show that you have the right to be heard.

I have seriously considered following in the footsteps of my Suffragette sisters in voicing my anger at the blatant discrimination that is the current legal voting age. Yet I doubt chaining myself to King’s railings, or throwing myself in front of the Oxford crew on Boat Race day, would do any good. The passion may be great, but the Thames is cold!

Instead, I hope that, by reading this, you, dear reader, will acknowledge the fact that numbers should not define us. We are qualitative individuals, rich in depth and detail, and our behaviour and actions should not be determined by something so simple as age.

So, although I may not be able to legally vote in the upcoming election, I do vote for the end of age discrimination, and the start of equality.