Cases for votes at 16 that you haven't heard before

Like debating the introduction of the proportional representation system in Britain, or simply whether to get a new mattress, the ‘votes at 16’ discourse will periodically but predictably rise from its dormancy and nestle as if into memory foam into foreseeable arguments, before its dismissal as more pressing issues emerge. In an exchange during Prime Minister’s Questions in 2018, Sir David Lidington and Emily ornberry made traditional arguments, such as how 16 year-olds should wait until adulthood to enjoy full citizenship rights – while ornberry cited lower ages in Wales and Scotland, and how if other civic opportunities such as paying taxes, serving in the armed forces, or leaving home are available at 16, then voting should be too. With the British public’s trust in the government reaching perennially low levels, it’s time for the public to be reengaged and more voices to be heard.

A positive reason in favour of introducing votes at 16 is that it boosts long-term participation. Research has found rst time voters aged 16 and 17 had a higher turnout than those aged 18 or 19 in the 2021 Scottish Parliament Election. In addition, those who were given the vote at 16, rst voting in the 2014 Scottish Referendum, and aged 22-24 in the 2021 election, had a higher turnout than those aged 24-26 who voted at 18-19 for the rst time. is would make our democracy more representative through a higher lifelong participation, signi cantly bolstering the calls for lowering the voting age.

A surprising bene t to lowering the voting age is that it has a ‘trickle-up’ e ect for improving turnout. Analysing four Danish elections, Jens Olav Dahlgaard found that ‘when Danish children come of age, their parents’ turnout rate increases, and one out of nine who would have abstained are mobilized’. e study nds that parents were only mobilised if they live with their children. Over 90% of 16- and 17-yearolds in the UK live with at least one parent, presenting a strong case for lowering the voting age as it further maximises the percentage of the population expressing how they think the country should be run. e trickle- contended. is is both unlikely and unreasonable. e downward spiral argument is unreasonable because the change from 18 to 16 incorporates factors that a change from 16 to 14 might not. Also, other arguments for 16 speci cally may not apply to ages under 16, thus local issues than some older voters in the same area.

Conservative Party members as young as 15 already enjoy full voting rights for leadership elections, which means that 15-year-old Tory members may have elected our last 3 Prime Ministers. It is sensible to infer that young Conservatives up e ect also helps refute the political expedience rebuttal to more ‘le -leaning’ politicians of lowering the voting age, since more typically conservative older voters are also mobilised. e descent into a chaotic spiral of lowering the voting age until it is measured in months is o en a concern with lowering the voting age. So, what is special about the age 16 and why would its lowering stop there? First of all, the sheer number of civic opportunities that become available at 16 such as paying taxes, serving in the armed forces or leaving home rightly follows from our country’s belief that at age 16, we are of reasonable mind to make such thoughtful decisions.

Introducing the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds could introduce a further 1.5 million voters into the electorate. Whilst critics argue this will lead to lower percentage turnout, it ignores the voting gures that actually signify a represented democracy: the absolute value of turnout. It signi es the strength of a mandate more suitably as, given a country’s population, it means that a higher percentage of the British population are having a say in how the country is run.

For a dramatic perpetual lowering, the broadly accepted age of 16 for many civic activities would have to be universally lowered in order for a voting age less than 16 to be seriously compromising support for lower ages.

Voter maturity is seen as the argument du jour of the ‘votes at 18’ crowd when they contemplate the assumed tidal wave of teenagers who will supposedly ood their democracy. Firstly, I believe that discussions on the maturity to vote mislead us on what it exactly means to have been deemed mature enough to enjoy such rights because having membership is seen as a signal of su cient interest and engagement with politics. erefore, a similarly deliberate process such as registering to vote should also be seen as demonstrating the appropriate engagement to be given the vote. e lack of lived political importance of a healthy degree of wariness. However, my discomfort is that it stipulates that those who have lived through certain experiences can extrapolate their past political experiences more e ectively than those who have to use their own research or even than those who have not done so at all! A er all, there may well be cases where due to vastly signi cant societal or economic changes, no extrapolation attempt rather than an amateur’s mis tted one may be more helpful for approaching current issues.

It's time for a positive improvement in political engagement that leads to more accountability and better politicians. 16- and 17-year-olds being given the right to vote gets more people of all ages involved in elections and participating