Lowering the voting age

I also think that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote.  A lot of them have a very good understanding of politics and world issues.

One might say a lack of plasticity can be a disadvantage.

So why not 21 where it used to be? I mean people who are 18 will mostly live long enough to be 21? But in that time most of them will go through uni or an apprenticeship etc. The interests of a 18 year old are quite different than say a 21 year old. The same is true between 16 and 18. The best way to make sure a demographics interest is well represented in parliament is let that demographic actually be in parliament. Because if there is even one 16 y/o in parliament banging on about the issues they care about its suddenly much harder to keep that topic off the agenda. It's the same with popular and controversial views. Once you get one 'extreme' MP in parliament it is much harder to keep discussion of 'extreme' views of the agenda ... extreme view like 16 y/o should be allowed to buy plastic knives in this case.


Absolutely! 

I just hope the schools are giving these voters decent classes in citizenship first.

New voters rarely vote for the incumbant government that they've grown up with and become politically aware under, so it's as likely to backfire on Labour as help them.

This is why Democracy is a waste of time; in my honest opinion.

It's just Labour getting more of their Minions on the Electoral Register.

Trying to make everyone part of the herd only further alienates the, already, alienated. Labour want to rule FOR AN ETERNITY. All Left-Wing Parties, throughout the World, are the same. This is Dictatorship in the waiting.

Rip it up, and Start again! We need a whole new system, and paradigm. Based on Mutual Respect, rather than Majority Rule. Where money is used for voluntary transactions, rather than a means to an end.

However, the Youth are easily swayed by 'Trendy' Teachers, and Online 'Influencers' with their own agenda. Mums try too hard to be the kids' best friend, and the Dads are mainly non-existent; by fair means, or foul.

Telling everyone to 'Be Kind' is as likely to generate respect as Harry Kane is as likely to join Arsenal.

Quite. Imagine how many of those people voted to leave and are no longer around while people 70 years younger didn't get a say and have to live with the consequences.

Given how the other end of the age spectrum screwed over the country in 2016, the 16 and 17 year olds can hardly do a worse job as electors.

Packet said:

without being required to adopt any particular ideology

This will be incredibly hard to ensure as the environment they are being educated in is run by and staffed by primarily left leaning adults, so bias is inevitable.

Packet said:

I also believe their unique neurochemistry—whether they are going through or have not yet experienced puberty—offers perspectives that many adults may overlook.

Their life is not tempered by experience yet and this is the key reason (in my opinion) why they need to wait until 18 to be able to vote.

Admittedly these days not many leave school before 18 but there are more adult experiences to be had once past 16 that give a better insight into the real world and how those running it can impact it.

Until this the children (in a legal sense) rely on what they are taught and to a degree what they can research, but with so many echo chambers of political opinion it is really hard to find the truth amongst so may opinions.

Packet said:

If we used those criteria to disqualify voters, we’d risk disenfranchising neurodivergent individuals like ourselves.

I don't think the comparison is fair here - we are talking in this thread primarily about the majority (95% of the population) who are not autistic as they will have the impact with their votes.

These are interesting points you raise and I'm not saying they are bad, just offering my views on how I see them with 6 decades of lived experience to draw on.

Maybe part of the readiness you mention should come with a form of earning the right to vote. Some form of national service from ages 16 to 18 (not armed forces) would be great to earn life experience, real world work experience and some useful skills that the country needs.

Perhaps a longer summer break where the student can be used for agricultural labour, clearing derelict areas, keeping the beaches clean etc - but with mandatory classes in how to interview, how to do a tax return, how to manage difficult customers, how to change a tyre / perform basic preventative maintenance on a car, how to deal with a first aid emergency etc.

In some ways the cheap labour will cover the cost of the training and the improvements in produce will keep prices lower for the consumer.

Just a thought.

That's not an equivalent situation. You wouldn't say to a woman that she could only be an MP when she stopped being a woman. 16 year olds will become 18 year olds and at that point they will be able to stand.

To your other point, people of all ages are capable of making bad decisions. Wherever you put the age limit you could say "but aren't xx year olds capable of making bad decisions?"

I would say that 16 year olds, in general, are capable of deciding who they want to vote for and casting that vote. Those that aren't, probably won't. I don't think they are capable of being a member of parliament with all that entails. Those that are won't have long to wait.

I disagree. Imagine saying women can vote but not be MPs? (this used to be the case) You might say "OK but women have special interests and points of view that maybe are best represented in parliment by women" I think the same argument holds equally true for 16 year olds. Are 18 year olds not at danger of exploitation and making bad decisions? How many students do you think drop out of university every year because of bad deccisions?

If I was 16 and went into my local supermarket and was told I couldn't buy a plastic knife I'd write to my MP and if I had the vote that MP would be silly not to listen. And the fact that an MP might tend to dismiss the opinion of a 16 year old voter is exactly why 16 year olds would also need to be able to stand in elections to fully have their voices heard.

Well those links don't quote much origional reserch. They're just pop science. The few refrences to origional reserch in them are MRI studies and I caution that interpriting how anotomical changes in the brain efect its function can be very subjective. For example this profesor derived a theory of the brain structure underlying psycopathy based on MRI scans. then scaned his own brain and descoved he met the critera inspite of being relitivly well adjusted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fallon)

But lets just take it as read that you are right about brain stucture? So what? Alcoholics have impaired prefrontal cortexes. Some people have surgicaly removed Corpus callosum. 2 of the brain reageons refrenced in you links. Should they not be allowed to vote? Why should impulse controle be a factor for voting? Lots of people with ADHD have impaired impulse controle. 'Abnormalities' in the prefrontal cortex are implicated in autism. Should we not be allowed to vote?

For better or worse in this country the current standard for adults voting is mental capacity which is based on the abilitity to reasion about information; not judgment which is a broarder and I would argue more subjective consept. The mental capacity act spicificly says poor judgment doesn't invalidate capacity. ("A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision.") So why should the 'judgment' matter at 16 but not 18 where the ability to make reasoned dessisions is enough?

DormouseAtRest_25 said:

Depending upon the progress (through the current Parliament) of the proposed Elections and Democracy Bill; it would mean that, sometime between now and 4 years time: 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote in the next general election

I have my doubts.

The government even did their own survey and significany more of those who voted are against lowering the age:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/15/adc55/1

The voting numbers are still low at the moment (4-5k only when I saw this)

I tried to upload the current snapshot but the forum is blocking uploads to this thread at this time.

The stats as I saw them are 50% against and 37% in favour with the others as "don't know"

I am in favour of 16 / 17 year old young people in the UK being able to vote in the next general election.

Nearly 100 years ago the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 granted women the right to vote on equal terms with men, at the age of 21, and it is over 50 years since 18-year-olds gained the right to vote.

Since then, England has fallen out of step with Scotland and Wales where, since 2016 / 2020 their 16 and 17 year olds have been able to vote in local elections / vote to elect representatives in their devolved parliaments.

So, to me, it does not feel as though the UK has exactly "rushed" towards the 16 / 17 year olds becoming able to vote in general elections.

Depending upon the progress (through the current Parliament) of the proposed Elections and Democracy Bill; it would mean that, sometime between now and 4 years time: 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote in the next general election.

In the meantime, most 16 / 17 year olds remain in education to age 18 - during which time the civic education framework has the opportunity to help young people explore the topic and to become even more informed and prepared - as they approach their first (earlier) voting age experience.

Civic duty education of our society's young people is not the sole preserve of schools / colleges / politicians.  Conversations within families and with other trusted adults across our wider communities have their role to play too.  I believe everyone should expect and support conversations with our young people - as they navigate this news of voting age change.

Within other countries e.g. Sweden: they have the concept of "the total defence framework" (a combined framework including both military and civil defence duties).  In Sweden, all citizens between the ages of 16 and 70, regardless of gender, are liable for service within the total defence framework.

If the UK were to ever, potentially, find it necessary to formalise and extend in practice; it's own concept of "whole-society resilience": to me, it would seem reasonable that 16 / 17 year olds, via election voting rights, ought to be part of shaping the electorate's feedback on the mandate for the government of the day.

I'm surprised that so many people are against this to be honest. In my mind it's long overdue. I don't see much equivalence between a lot of the things on your list and being able to vote. A lot of the things are on that list to protect 16 yr olds from bad decisions and exploitation.

I also don't think it follows that if you can vote for an MP you should therefore be able to stand as one. These are both completely different. In fact I would argue that the lower age limit for standing for election could be a bit higher.

Those politicians opposed are playing up the list of things you can't do at 16 as being nonsensical if you are lowering the voting age. I think this is disingenuous and just a way of opposing a change that they don't think will benefit them, without actually addressing the change itself. Different things are allowed at different ages because those things are different. There is no sensible reason why we should have one single cut off age for everything.

I get London news, the different news agencies seem to have carried out various polls. I imagine differing results are possible, based on geographical location,

The poll I saw last night suggested that many would vote for a new Corbyn led party, slightly more than would vote Labour, but quite a few would vote Reform, there were quite a few Greens too. The Tory's were very low down on the list around 10%.

In Wales and Scotland we have the SNP and Plaid Cymru to opt for too. 

The survey also stated that 32% of those willing to vote would vote Labour, followed by 20% who would vote Reform. The Conservatives came in last at 10%.