It is great news to hear that, after extending the franchise to 16 year olds in 2006, the Isle of Man is going to the polls today – and for the first time including 16 & 17 year olds!
However, (and it seems almost always) we are rather slow in enriching our democracy, whether it be changing the voting system, reforming the House of Lords, or extending the franchise to 16 & 17 year olds.
It is something both Liberal Youth & the British Youth Council have campaigned hard for. Even our Leader, Nick Clegg, who holds special responsibility for political and constitutional reform, supports Votes at 16:
Yes I am a big supporter of votes at 16. The state can ask a 16 year old to fight and die for this country, why not vote too?
Although now a 16 year old can’t be deployed into active service, they can have a job, start a family and take responsibility for their healthcare. It therefore seems daft that the UK doesn’t follow the progress the Isle of Man, Austria and some regions in Germany in extending the franchise to 16 year olds.
Extending the vote to 16 year olds will also help to curb apathy – politicians will have to pay more attention to the needs of young people, rather than in previous years, go after Middle Class England. Part of why the riots happened is because young people felt ignored. Giving them a say over who governs them empowers them to take responsibility – something young people have lacked in previous years. It liberates them.
It’s a small change, but an important one. Let’s follow the Isle of Man’s example and give young people the freedom to choose their representatives.
Harry Matthews is England Convenor, Liberal Youth.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The AI world and some fallacies about it
Yet another government makes a mess of local government reform
The Joy of Six 1574
Front Street looking great
Should the Reform UK leadership take responsibility for violence at their conference?
David Evans
Mick Taylor
Jana
Michael BG
Michal Simon
5 Comments
My biggest issue is not with voting as such but with criminal law. Would I want more young people sitting in the jury box? No I certainly wouldn’t. I sat on a jury back in 2004 and I was only 20 but the three younger people on the jury all wanted to go guilty without actually going through the facts of the case. I would actually raise the age to which you can be called for jury duty to 21 as I do not think a lot of people 18-21 are in a position to objectively decide a criminal case.
As we are in a situation where jury duty is linked to the Electoral Roll then there is an issue with that as I do not want to see 16 or 17 year-olds anywhere near a jury any time soon.
On the actual voting issue I don’t have an issue with it as I doubt many people under the age of 18 will even bother let alone do the research to objectively decide who to vote for. Those that are interested will (just like everyone 18+) and those who don’t won’t.
At 16/17 are you responsible enough to make a 1 in 70,000 odd decision on the future of an MP? Yes. Are you mature enough to make a 1 in 12 decision on a jury? I’d say a lot of 16/17 year-olds would not be.
So whilst jury’s are selected via the Electoral Roll then I couldn’t back this change. They would need to put in new laws to change the way jury’s are called up for me to back this one.
Lastly when I was 16/17 I personally didn’t feel apathy at all. I had an interest in politics so I followed it. Those that are interested will take an interest whatever the voting age is. Those that don’t won’t. I do not think that lowering the age at which people will vote will change this significantly.
100% Correct.
No taxation without representation.
@Neil M
Actually jury service is NOT tied rigidly to the electoral roll. I can’t serve on a jury, though I am a voter and a School Governor, because I’m 70, so narrowing the range of jurors on age grounds is already done.
The late Government had plans to lift this restriction, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8571930.stm partly on the grounds that oldies wouldn’t need payment for loss of earnings. (This is not 100% true – for instance, my 71 year-old wife works, as did my uncle, until he died at 92).
@Andrew Emmerson
Lots of people pay tax without representation, here and in the US, by paying various sales taxes on things they buy.
I knew many restrictions had been lifted but thought the age one had as well. It hasn’t as explained above. There would need to be that caveat in any lowering of voting age for me as I think it is very important but as I said – I have no quarms with 16/17 year-olds voting. Those that do will be the ones interested enough to do their research so will make an informed opinion.
As for the tax issue – as said above – everyone pays indirect taxes on many things that they buy.
Interesting. I just wonder how long it would be before someone played the “all our canvassers have to be CRB checked, just to prove we are taking child safety seriously” card?