Voting age reduction to 16

[RichardB]

why stop at 16? Why not twelve? I don't think there's an age at which very person suddetly becomes responsible.

It's a question of what can be expected of people under present social conditions, particularly regarding the education system and the social consensus on when various "milestones" are reached by most people, constructions which of course have developed over the entirety of human history, based ultimately on w view of how people mature. I think people with children will generally recognise this (does that include you?). Of course, people do mature a lot earlier than they used to, in the sense of getting through puberty, which perhaps isn't recognised in the aforementioned structures as much as it ought to be. The watershed of 16 is culturally significant in many ways: according to present laws they can engage in sexual activity, leave school (or decide on their future specialisation), etc. It's not that people become responsible at that age but that tradition and legal structures deem that they do, which in turn makes a difference to the way people think of themselves an others. So in principle the age could be reduced further, but this would imply more wide-ranging changes in social organisation.

The fact that the "democratic system" needs fundamental reform is no doubt beyond question. One could argue that enfranchising a larger proportion of the population (that is to say, more democracy rather than the decreasing amount we have experienced during the neoliberal period) can only improve that situation, or at least that it probably wouldn't make it any worse (except for those who depend on the support of older voters).

[Dave2002]

The "problem" with allowing 16 year olds to vote is that it would almost certainly bring about a huge leftward shift in the voting population, especially as regards issues like the climate crisis, racism/immigration, and gender/sexuality, and put the Tories out of power permanently.

... and that would be a bad thing ....????

Actually someone noted that with the current system, there's only around a 40% chance that someone in the appropriate age range would not be able to vote in a GE if they are constrained to be every 5 years [would be better with 4 year periods], so it wouldn't actually make that much difference.

Someone who's 14-16 now would not be able to vote in the next GE assuming it's in just over a year's time.
Someone who's more than 16 and a half now might be able to vote in the next GE under the current rules.

Plus the "fact" that the assumption that most people vote rationally and sensibly is likely false, so adding in a bunch of 16 year olds would probably give a slight change of direction, plus a lot of random noise - just like happens in almost every other age band.

I think you are exaggerating by using the word "huge".

[Bryn]

and that would be a bad thing ....????

Not an implication that I would draw from Richard's post.

[Dave2002]

Not an implication that I would draw from Richard's post.

It was referred to as a "problem", though perhaps we are expected to know - not for Richard. I guess we were expected to know how he was using the quote marks round that word.

[french frank]

Not an implication that I would draw from Richard's post.

I think the quotes round "problem" would tend to confirm your view: the "problem" would be for a Tory government contemplating reducing the voting age.

As for smittims' point, "I don't think there's an age at which [e]very person sudde[n]ly becomes responsible", does that mean that every person should take some sort of test to establish their capability? Or perhaps make a safe estimate that certain people would be 'responsible', equal to the task of electing Parliamentary representatives e.g. male, over the age of 30, property owner, something along those lines?

[RichardB]

As for smittims' point, "I don't think there's an age at which [e]very person sudde[n]ly becomes responsible", does that mean that every person should take some sort of test to establish their capability?

Some might say that putting one's vote behind a party clearly committed to remaining in power by further enriching the wealthy and doing little or nothing to address the climate crisis (to name only this) is the height of irresponsibility (mentioning no names of course) and yet millions of people do it, plenty of them flying in the face of their own interests, let alone those of their descendants (if any), as we've said. If the voting age were reduced to 16, political organisations would have to start thinking more clearly about how to appeal to that demographic. That would have to be a good thing (apart from the demand for free smartphones for all etc. )