Voting age reduction to 16

[Dave2002]

Any questions/Any answers today had one or two interesting topics today, plus the usual comments from people, both on the panel and off, who haven't a clue.

One was about reducing the voting age in GEs to 16. The argument that people aged 16 are too immature and uninformed to vote doesn't wash with me. It is highly likely that that is true, but it is equally likely that most of the people in the country aged 21 and above - all the way up to 80 are equally ill informed and not fit to vote, so why not let the 16 year olds have a go. One guy who was at the older end complained that he didn't want young people deciding about matters which affected him - but clearly did not understand the reverse argument for younger people. There were also complaints about "liberal attitudes" regarding prisons, and "illegal" immigrants.

I suspect that most of the respondents just did not have a clue about the kind of difficulties that some people face, and they think that everyone is clever enough, or at least not stupid enough, to do anything anti-social, or get into trouble. They have no idea about the fact that at the lower end of the scale there are people who really are functionally illiterate, or just do not understand "normal" social behaviour. That doesn't make them "bad" people, until they do something which society has to take action on. Some people are medically ill, but end up in prison for the wrong reasons, and that often leads to a downward spiral.

I am not an unreasonable "liberal" person, but I do think that some people should be given a chance - and much better support before they do something which attracts the attention of law enforcement, sometimes with sad results.

[RichardB]

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.

[french frank]

I was misled by the thread title I thought it had been announced.

I'm not at all sure that I agree with Richard that reducing the age to 16 would "almost certainly" produce a swing to the ideological left (though right-wing politicians may fear so). No more would I agree that 16-year-olds are more (politically) immature than the average voter. I think the new voters would be a broad cross section of views, knowledge and sophistication based on background and education. It may be depressing, but just consider the hordes of boys and young men 'influenced' by the ideas of Andrew Tate, the teenagers engaging with Nazi/terror groups, the racial attacks committed by youngsters: plus ça change.

[RichardB]

I'm not at all sure that I agree with Richard that reducing the age to 16 would "almost certainly" produce a swing to the ideological left

If only by reducing the proportion of old people in the electorate, since these are more likely to be conservative in their views, I think it's uncontroversial that many people tend to become more conservative as they get older, although it hasn't happened to me (yet).

[Joseph K]

FF, observe -

[RichardB]

FF, observe

That is fairly convincing to be sure. But there is the matter of younger people perhaps being more influenced by the politic of their families - my parents were among the inexplicably large number of people who would always vote Tory despite never having been affluent enough to have actually benefited from Tory policies. I might have voted with them at 16, whereas by 18 I had left that influence behind.

[Joseph K]

That is fairly convincing to be sure. But there is the matter of younger people perhaps being more influenced by the politic of their families - my parents were among the inexplicably large number of people who would always vote Tory despite never having been affluent enough to have actually benefited from Tory policies. I might have voted with them at 16, whereas by 18 I had left that influence behind.

Perhaps. But these days I'd say it's more difficult for young people to 'get on' and move out, so they're likely to still be at home at the age of 18. So a good proportion will still be around older people who are less likely to vote Labour than them. Young people voted for Thatcher but the Tories now have really trashed many young people's opportunities. Incidentally, my mum has fortunately been a life-long Labour voter. My dad, who has lived in America for most of my life comes from a mostly Tory family but votes Dem...

[RichardB]

these days I'd say it's more difficult for young people to 'get on' and move out, so they're likely to still be at home at the age of 18.

Right. But they are also often going to be a lot more concerned than their parents about issues like the ones I mentioned before, to say nothing of asking themselves why they can't afford to move out of the parental home. Anyway, there may or may not be advantages to extending the vote to younger people in terms of supporting more progressive politics, but it seems to me like a good idea in itself, at least I can't see much in the way of convincing arguments against it.

[Bryn]

That is fairly convincing to be sure. But there is the matter of younger people perhaps being more influenced by the politic of their families - my parents were among the inexplicably large number of people who would always vote Tory despite never having been affluent enough to have actually benefited from Tory policies. I might have voted with them at 16, whereas by 18 I had left that influence behind.

So true of my experience, too, though my Mother always voted Labour and my father Tory (until his 70s when he switched to UKIP). Yet for all of my formative years, both were anti-racist and my father's practical politics were ever to the left of my mother's. Indeed he was a close friend of Paul Stephenson when they were fellow students at Westhill College, Birmingham, studying youth work, and got up to some fine japes together. As both parents aged, both, however, moved to the right, (My mother to right-wing Labour, then Thatcher). In my mid-teens I tended towards the Tories in school mock elections but by the time I went to Reading Tech in my later teens, I was on the left and headed further leftward as I got older, until confronted more and more by Green politics while working in insect 'pest' research at the then Overseas Development department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. These days I would vote for the candidate with the greenest practice, rather than on the basis of their party political place on the left/right spectrum.

[Joseph K]

These days I would vote for the candidate with the greenest practice, rather than on the basis of their party political place on the left/right spectrum.

What's the saying - that green policies without socialism is just gardening?

[french frank]

FF, observe -

I agree it's a very convincing graphic.

Though, thinking about it, it doesn't convey how significant the swing would be, being just more than half of that 18-24 (7 years) cohort centred on England and Wales as against potentially just more than half of the 16-17 cohort (2 years). Put another way, the red (and blue) of the map present a very black (and white) picture So what I'm suggesting is that, yes, there would be a swing to the left but how great would the effect be, especially given than younger people are also less likely to vote, whereas the map is - I presume - indicating only those who did vote?

[Bryn]

What's the saying - that green policies without socialism is just gardening?

Hence i referred to green practice, rather than policies, which latter are all to often not worth the recycled paper they are written on.

[RichardB]

especially given than younger people are also less likely to vote

But do you think it's a good idea or not?

[french frank]

But do you think it's a good idea or not?

Voting or giving the vote to 16-17-year-olds? I think both are very good ideas.

[smittims]

I'm afraid I'm disqualified here, having lost respect for parliamentary democracy over recent years. A system that produces Trump and Johnson needs, at least some radical reform, IMHO.

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