Here we go again! Elections: endless campaigning, debates, discussions with friends, family members, plenty of promises from all parties to convince the electorate to vote for them.
I find the whole election process fascinating. How do people vote? Do they vote in line with their conscience and political beliefs? Do they, to deselect the opponent, decide to support the “lesser evil”, as we often say in Poland? Do we actually believe in what we hear? Do we trust our politicians?
These elections will be no different. They will, in my opinion, magnify the political polarization. We will inevitably be talking about the immigration, NHS, education, social care, the economy, and the very challenging geo-political landscape. I don’t think that any of the main parties can offer a set of meaningful solutions to address a mountain of problems and issues that we face.
I was actually quite surprised when the Labour Leader suggested to potentially allow 16 and 17 years old to vote. It was one of the first policies that he announced. I actually like the idea. I think that it is really important to enable younger voters to shape our communities and their neighbourhoods. It is a no brainer, isn’t it? If you are 16, you can work, open a bank account without parent’s permission. If you are 17, you can hold a licence to drive a car.
To ensure that my opinion is evidence based, I asked this question to my daughter, who is currently taking her A-level exams, one of which is politics. I was actually surprised as my daughter thinks that it is too early for 16 year olds to vote. She also said that they can be easily influenced by their parents and in some cases, their schools. She also said that not all, but many teenagers are disconnected with the democratic process and therefore they are not “civically mature” to cast their vote. I disagreed and said that many adults might not be interested in the political process and often, their decisions are easily influenced by e.g. social media and/or by seeing a particular heading in one of the national newspapers. Do we, often enough, conduct of our own research to determine and decide our political choices?
However, there is one point raised by my daughter, which I would fully support. Particularly today, when so many people are simply fed up with “ping-pong politics”, negative campaigning, we need to do so much more to encourage healthy democratic debates. Our schools should teach, from a very early age, our children and grandchildren how politics tangibly affect lives. And it does! Some of these “civic values” should be strongly embedded in our curriculum so that we all understand the process behind making any informed decisions.
As a councillor, I try to encourage this as much as possible. Visiting schools, taking groups of children to Council Chambers, discussing the role of MPs, Parliament, to setting up specific workshops on issues, which impact the lives of young people e.g. youth provision etc. give me immense joy. This is how we build real Community Champions and Ambassadors for our town and cities. No one should be excluded from this process and therefore, the Central Government and the Local Authorities should be the enablers and creators of “laboratories for democracy”.
Let’s hope that, even when the times are tough, none of the political parties forget about the importance of setting good examples in relation to political dialogue, respect and authenticity. We must, at all costs, adhere to treating each other as we would have wanted to be treated.
* Michal Siewniak is a Lib Dem activist and councillor for Handside ward, Welwyn Hatfield.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The latest connections from our Trivia Desk
Failed State: why our government is broken and how to fix it
Unease grows within Labour ranks
Digital Skills Training for people over 65
Jennie
Robin AG Bennett
Peter Davies
Chris Lewcock
Simon R
31 Comments
@16….Can’t drive …No tattoos…No cigs …No Alcohol….No betting …But mature enough to vote ..
I’ve never understood the argument that says, At age X, you can do A, B and C, therefore you should be able to vote too. That seems to be based on an assumption that at some arbitrary age, you stop being a child and the very next day start being a fully responsible mature adult, and therefore you can suddenly go overnight from no responsibilities to all adult responsibilities. We all know that’s not how people develop: We gradually change from being a child to being a (hopefully, responsible) adult over a number of years. That’s why it makes perfect sense that we have different ages at which you are able to do different things (bank account at 16, drive at 17, vote at 18, etc.) – reflecting the gradual onset of adulthood. Obviously, for each right/responsibility the age we set is arbitrary – because you have to choose something, but 18 feels to me like the right age for someone being able to vote. I don’t see any pressing need to change it.
I suspect Starmer is motivated in part by trying to do something that looks progressive and pleasing to Labour’s left wing, and in part by younger people being more likely to vote Labour than Tory.
Voters don’t decide policies, they decide who decides policies. We need those representatives to be aware of a duty to represent young adults because they have interests that are not the interests of their parents.
Simon R 31st May ’24 – 1:25pm……… but 18 feels to me like the right age for someone being able to vote. I don’t see any pressing need to change it….
I remember EXACTLY the same argument being used when I had to wait until I was 21yo to vote..
Anyway I have always thought lowering the voting age was a LibDem policy?
Age-based voting eligibility is both an inevitable/unavoidable and an inherently arbitrary exercise given it does not take into account individual faculties/competencies.
A political community has to take a consistent view as to the age of majority and apply it across all legal categories, including the right to vote.
Notably, the general trajectory has been to reduce the age at which persons are enfranchised, whereas in other matters (e.g. marriage) the trajectory has been the opposite. I struggle to identify a consistent approach.
Ultimately, whichever decision is adopted , it must never be guided by party political considerations.
@Dr Ruvi Ziegler
“Notably, the general trajectory has been to reduce the age at which persons are enfranchised, whereas in other matters (e.g. marriage) the trajectory has been the opposite. I struggle to identify a consistent approach. ”
That might be for a very good reason.
One issue is the minimum age for driving. Young drivers don’t have a great track record for safe driving – in the age range 17-24 they kill and seriousky injure other people in numbers out of all proportion to the numbers of young drivers on the road.
Interesting article written by a young person –
https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/youngreporter/17269159.legal-driving-age-lowered-16-tiah-talbot-reigate-college/
Note in particular the comment from the author;s driving instructor – who thought :
“the minimum age at which you should be able to learn how to drive should be 20 and that 21 was an acceptable age to purchase and drive a car. His reasoning behind this, was that young drivers can be reckless and would be more likely to end up in a car crash. ”
While I see no problem in someone learning to drive OFF the public roads below the age of 17 in no way should they be driving on the public highway.
AI is already a safer driver than the average teenager. It will probably get better faster than they do. The first generation that will never need to learn to drive has already been born.
@Martin Gray
Young people in Scotland are viewed as old enough to leave home and get married. It is bizarre to argue that they are old enough to commit to a partner for the rest of their lives while not being old enough to choose a representative for 5 years.
18 for me.
However the argument that you are old enough to vote at 16 when you can join the army at 16 (and therefore die for your country) has a certain traction. But surely joining the army at 16 is too young?
On the other hand, people under 25 who get convicted of offences get lower sentences due to their brains being not fully developed which impairs their judgement. Should people be entitled to vote if their age means that their brains have not fully developed and their judgement is impaired?
@Peter Davies
I think you’re being optimistic about AI
@Tristan Ward
Inclined to agree with you about joining the army – but it seems there are restrictions which would apply https://jobs.army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-apply/age/
@Mary , I dare say many a couple have enjoyed a long & lasting relationship after a visit to Smithy’s Anvil..All I had at that age was a well worn copy of Health & Efficiency – stashed away in my bedroom …
I have argued for votes at 16 since I was 16, and have very little time for the ‘aren’t mature enough/might be influenced by others’ arguments. Though I don’t doubt the sincerity or good intent if those who make them, those are the arguments made whenever a change like this is proposed. For once I can completely align with Kier Starmer’s arguments about what else you can do at 16, while admittedly doubting the depths of his late conversion to it. As for whether 16 and 17 year olds actually will vote, and whether overall turnout percentage will be lower, I don’t buy that being a problem within two elections. If I did though, my counter-argument would simply be that the right to do a thing is morally meaningless without the right not to do it. If enfranchised people choose not to vote, that is depressing and deeply regrettable, but it does not invalidate the inherent value of the right to vote. I want full fat democratic reform – votes at 16, a mixed member German style voting system, and an elected second chamber 😊
This was a very thoughtful and good article. I definitely agree in creative a climate on less negative politics for younger people. Tbh, just less negative anything for YP as it’s just so toxic and unwelcoming at times.
My view, I believe we should allow people at 16 to vote. At 16 year old, you can get a job and contribute to society by paying taxes (income, national insurance) or you can get a house/pay rent, or access benefits or join the Army. If we use business models here, someone who contributes society in that they can get a job, pay taxes or can access benefits they they are essentially like shareholders that have a stake into it – shareholders hold voting rights. In this sense, they are essentially stakeholders to our society! Why can’t they have a voice in that.
And, I don’t get the whole brain development thing. Some people’s brains develope a lot quickly and actually their is an argument that because we have better access to foods and our diets have changed that young people are hitting puberty much earlier than in their past so doesn’t stand to reason peoples brains might be. And also, technically, the current science says our brains don’t develop until 25. So should we really start saying no votes until 25. And this becomes a slippery slope, what about mentally handicapped or learning disabilities, do we then say no votes for them. I find the maturity just a weak argument. Yes, votes for 16.
@Jack Nicholas
I agree with your ideas of expanding democratic infrastructure. Votes 16, German mixed member PR system and elected second chamber. I’d probs would ideally like the Monarchy scrapped if I could rewrite history but NOT have a presidential system, just make the Speaker of the House the head of State. But that’s just my view
Trouble with extending the voting franchise is that you’re bringing young people into a rubbish system where votes are unequal and are mostly wasted/don’t count. Voting at 16 – disillusioned and alienated at 21? This is why any democratic reforms must go hand-in-hand with – or preceded by – with scrapping first past the post in favour of a representative, proportional system.
It may come as a surprise to LDV contributors living ‘Down South’, but 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland have had to right to vote in Holyrood and Council elections ever since 2015.
It’s about the concept of citizenship and participation in a democracy – elected by a form of PR – so what’s the problem for Lib Dem’s about that ? Once again, Scotland sets an example and takes the lead.
For those who wish to pursue it, Edinburgh University recently produced an in depth study showing very positive outcomes. It’s available on the web.
I think it’s wrong that voting gets viewed in terms of “maturity” at all. Driving, joining the army, taking drugs, etc. we age-restrict to protect the young person themselves and in many cases the people nearby.
No matter *how* badly you vote if you’re old enough to make a mark on a piece of paper without trying to eat it instead you’re not going to do yourself or the other people in the polling station any measurable harm, while age demographics of constituencies and current electoral law mean that any candidate who actually wins must have also had the support of a significant number of over-18 voters, and voting for a candidate who doesn’t win has the same outcomes as not voting, so it’s hard to argue that any under-18 voter can be making a uniquely bad political decision which they must be protected from the consequences of.
(Restricting *becoming a candidate* to 16/18+ I think is reasonable for the same reason we restrict full-time work to those ages. That’s a different matter to the vote itself)
A good piece with lots of interesting comments! I tend to think that 16 would be fine as a voting age. I do think though that any change of minimum voting age should go hand in hand with a change to the electoral system and the replacement of the House of Lords. Finally, on another age related matter, the age of criminal responsibility needs looking at and perhaps brought in line with 16. In England and Wales it is 10. My feeling is that anyone under the age of 16 should be treated completely differently to anyone over that age.
@Cim .. My great grandchildren in nursery can draw an X without eating paper – would they qualify for a vote ? ….The ballot box would have to be reduced to a certain height to accommodate…
@Martin Gray Yes, sure. My local polling station already has a low-height booth for those who need it and I hope isn’t atypical in that respect!
The simple answer is yes, the voting age should be reduced to 16. It is so much a truism that it seems trite to observe that young people are the future and the age group upon whom the impact of government, poor, indifferent and good, has the most impact.
If an impact of lowering the voting age puts greater stress on including the political processes and citizenship in educational programmes, so much the better.
For our Party there is another dimension: we need to present ourselves attractively to younger voters. This should arise naturally from our roots founded in the philosophical outlook of modern Liberalism. Currently I do not think we are doing nearly enough to appeal to young voters and young potential voters. With the voting age at 18 we already risk disenchantment with political processes before having had the right to vote. We have to advocate that with political engagement, change is possible. As David Raw succinctly observes: “It’s about the concept of citizenship and participation in a democracy”. l
Boris Johnson has got the vote, the Tories even made him Prime Minister and nobody has ever accused him of being mature, sensible or competent! I am sure I am not the only one who knows of some older people who shouldn’t be allowed out with a vote. Some of them are even councillors!
@Martin B If the voting age should be lowered because young people are the future, then why not lower it to – say 2 years old? After all, toddlers are also the future!
Proposing to lower it to 16 in order to appeal to young people makes no sense in terms of attracting votes in this election because the people you’re offering it to do not have a vote (rightly I’d argue because they are to some extent still children). I think Keir Starmer has calculated that 16-18 year olds are less likely to vote Tory, which is true today, but there’s no reason why that should remain true in the future when political circumstances are different and the Tory party possibly reinvigorated (I believe that for example in France, young people are more likely to vote for the extreme right).
Government actions can have an impact on all age groups. I don’t see any reason to suppose that impact on 16 year olds is greater than – say – the impact on 40 year olds or 60 year olds.
Some EU countries, such as Germany, have recently reduced the voting age for EU elections to 16 but have kept to 18 for for the Bundestag. Most of the EU has settled on 18.
So 18 seems a reasonable choice for UK elections too. You’re never going to get anything better than ‘reasonable’. There’ll always be some younger people who are potentially capable of casting a sensible vote. There is always going to be an argument that the young should have more voting rights because they have longer to live. But I doubt if anyone wants to go as far as linking voting rights to actuarial lifetime expectancy tables, perhaps with the result of a medical examination factored in. This would be the logical conclusion of such an argument.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2023/749767/EPRS_ATA(2023)749767_EN.pdf
Simon R:
Is it not obvious that 16 year olds can expect to have longer to live than 60 year olds. From a hospital ward in some pain and expecting a cancer diagnosis, I can assure you this is obvious to me.
Most of my life, I have been involved with 16 and 17 year olds, their political judgements are diverse and generally no less well informed than their elders. In the UK, 16 is the age when a broadly based education ends and they are expected to make career defining choices. Your slippery slope argument is ridiculous and might just as easily be applied in the opposite direction.
@Martin B. Yes, most 16 year olds will live longer than most 60 year olds. But it is also obvious that Government policies evolve substantially and are constantly revisited over time. What the Government does today is not set in stone for all eternity! 🙂 Hence, for anyone who’s 16 today, their overall lives will be mostly impacted by the accumulation of what the Government does over the next 70-odd years, with what the Government does today forming only a tiny part of that.
Or do you believe that whatever the Government chose to do for the two years between when you were 16 and when you were 18 outweighed what the Government did throughout the subsequent decades (depending how old you are)?
And sorry to hear that about you hospital situation. I hope you are able to get the care you need to recover.
Martin, I’m shocked by the news of your illness. All my best wishes for you.
@ Martin,
I, too, am sorry to hear the news of your illness.
Let’s hope the diagnosis and prognosis turns out to be much better than you’re expecting at the moment.
Votes at 16 like electoral reform as well as being inherently a good thing is also a catalyst for a transformation to our democratic processes. Head teachers will have more reason to include democracy training to their pupils’ education. As mentioned it will also have an effect on their parents’ engagement with the electoral process.