Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Voting at 16?

23:09 / 06.12.03

So apparently Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor wants a debate on the possibility of lowering the age people are eligable to vote - details here

So what do people think - a good way to get younger people interested and engaged with the political process or a sign of desperation on the part of an establishment attempting to promote political enfranchisement to the young? Is 16 too young? Or should people who are old to have sex and fight in the armed services be fully entitled to have a say in the running of their country?

What do you think?

23:25 / 06.12.03

Well, I'm a member of the UK Youth Parliament and we're very keen to see this happen. If you can work full-time and be a taxpayer, then you have the right to decide where your money should be spent. If you can fight in the Army, then you should be able to choose the government that decides to send you to risk your life. And if you're old enough to start a family, then you must be able to have a say in the education and healthcare provided for you and your children.

Some people would choose to cast this debate in a purely practical way - are young people too easily manipulated? will many young people be bothered to vote? etc etc - but as a young person myself, I believe that it's simply a question of whether 16 - 18 year olds have the democratic right to vote. No one would propose raising the voting age to 25 in response to decreasing voter turnout in that age group, because their right to vote is a matter of principle.

That said - there'd be positive effects to this change. Young people engaged with politics from an earlier age before cynicism sets in, a tendency to favour progression & innovation over traditionalism, and more i'm too tired to think of.

12:40 / 07.12.03

I suppose an additional issue is should the age that a candidate can stand for parliament also be brought in line with the age at which one can vote (be that 18 or 16) as a further measure to engage more taxpayers with their elected reprisentatives?

While I can see little wrong extending the franchise to all those who have left compulsory education I do not think that this is necessarily enough. I think there is an increasing grass roots disenchantment with many parts of the election process including the first past the post system - problems which need to be addressed by any party that is serious about increasing levels of voter turn out.

Phex: Dorset Doom

16:40 / 07.12.03

Right now 'Fat' Mike from shitty pop-punk band NOFX is trying to get 'the kids' to vote to oust Bush with his website punkvoter.com. and a tour featuring NOFX and some 'hardcore' socialist automata. Of course nobody of voting age would actually listen to NOFX or anything they have to say so lowering the American voting age to around 12 would probably usher in some change.

On this side of the Atlantic I think it's a great idea, I haven't been 16 for a while and I'm unlikely to be again, but I had political ideals when I was younger. Combined with a 'None of the above' box on voting slips this could change the electoral process for the better.

17:28 / 07.12.03

two more questions

What posative difference would a none of the above box on ballot papers achieve?

What do the major parties have to gain from electorial reform or even a higher turn-out?

11:29 / 08.12.03

From a politically selfish point of view, I favour the idea due to the fact that those 16/17-year-olds who do vote are probably more predisposed than average to vote for leftwing parties. Extending the vote to just about anyone unlikely o vote Tory or Labour would have my support...

But all that aside, I think there's something to be said for people being able to vote when they're at, or at least much closer the time they leave, school; I'd think it's be much easier to encourage kids to start voting while they're still at school than once they've left, particularly if when voting opportunities arise, they're allowed to escape their prison for a couple of hours.

Still, as sleazenation says, there isn't much in it for the major parties; a higher voter turnout, particularly a younger one, isn't likely to work in their favour come polling day, even if it is more "democratic". I'd think it pretty reasonable to assume that just about anyone in the Labour party could see the benefits of proportional representation... but not for them.

Phex: Dorset Doom

11:43 / 08.12.03

The 'None of the above' box on a ballot paper was discussed here previously (quite a while back now). The basic idea is to give people who don't want ANY of the parties on the voting slip to be in government (for whatever reason) to be able to express this without being lumpen into the category of 'just too lazy to vote' when they abstain from the electoral process. The knock-on effect would be that parties would listen to this 'silent majority' and change their policies accordingly.
The voting age change thing could be just a cynical and misjudged attempt to reach an 'audience' who the government percieve to be ill-informed, in the same way that advertisers for age-nuetral products (like Coca-cola) target teenagers because they mistakenly believe them to be 'soft targets'. Bring back Blair on his guitar, put Jeff Hoon on a skateboard grinding on the desks of the 'Hizzle of X-treme Parliament.com' and you'll get votes (To the Max!!!). I'd like to think this is doomed to failiure.

(NOFX are still fuckhats by the way)

21:27 / 08.12.03

I remain unconvinced by the case for a 'none of the above box' as any kind of serious political action - how can what you describe as a silent majority when it is silent?

Neither of the main parties are significantly hurt by falling voter turn outs - its just mildly embarassing - it doesn't stop them carrying out their policys. It has less impact on the political landscape for the the main opposition or even for a third/alternative party.

14:31 / 09.12.03

I don't know, I can see the benefits of having an offical point to register your discontent as a positve step. It'd show the contrast between voter apathy and anger at the political parties. However, I can't see any Goverment ever putting this in place as a matter of policy - why would they push for something that might show them up significantly?

I've just started a thread in Conversation which is relevant to this discussion ("Nostalgia for the Left") as it's asking about the political attitudes of da yoof of today.

23:23 / 09.12.03

When its put like that, as Guy P said, it seems impossible not to agree.

An argument against it was that it was pretty much having an extension of your parents vote. Im not very sure about the truth in this, cause I only have mine to go on- and if i were to vote, it'd probably be lib dem, as my parents vote. So I dont know if its true for most people or not.

But I say yes. Wont even effect half the people- the ones who fall 16-18 between election years. But yes, we should.
Actually, lets bring ages for everything down to 16. Til next october anyway.

13:04 / 12.12.03

I have mixed feelings about this, really. On the one hand, lots of 16-year-olds are highly and validly politicised and their viewpoints should be made at the ballot-box. And with plummeting voter turnout it might pull things around a bit.

On the other, a lot of 16-year-olds would possibly write "I vote for Britney if she gets her tits out" on their ballot paper.

And there's also the argument that, you know, you should just let kids be kids. And 16-year-olds are kids. Why saddle them with the responsibility of voting the Government in.

Of course, to follow that argument through you'd have to stop them shagging, getting married, joining the Army, and drinking Lambrini in restaurants with their parents on a Sunday afternoon.

Which, depending on your point of view, might be no bad thing.

13:39 / 12.12.03

i think the age of full criminal culpability would have to be lowered too. other than that it seems only reasonable. i think the 'none of the above' would work [party not allowed to take government if the vote for 'nones' is higher than the vote for them] if further alterations to the voting system were brought in - i'd be happy to see voting made compulsory as in australia.

21:50 / 12.12.03

I'm not sure that there is any milage in the argument 'they're all feckless, hormone-addled slug-abeds who'll sell their votes for a packet of crisps' or such-like. I can be as elitist and as despairing of the great unwashed as the next man if you catch me in the wrong mood, but that's the price of universal sufferage. Our vote is predicated on a moral right/responsibility of citizenship. We don't impose an IQ test or a political awareness exam on adult voters because to do so would make a mockery of the basis of the system. Similarly, the question is not, are 17/18 year-olds capable of voting responsibly, sufficiently informed or ready to take their place in the political nation; but rather are their entitled to full citizenship - do we owe it to them?

The Guardians quick straw poll of teenage political views last week was frightening (apparently all but one of them think we have the death penalty and we should tax anything they dispprove of morally or aesthetically) but, to be fair, we voted the Tories in for 18 years so glass houses and all that. I think that there is a case to be made for unifying our statutes age of majority and bringing military service, marriage, drinking, smoking, driving, jury service, voting and criminal responsibility to the same point. Whether this point should be ones 16th, 17th, 18th or 21st birthdays is a trickier point, but if we take as a precept that at a certain age, an individual is considerered to be fully autonomous, responsible for their actions and capable of making all decisions for their life then I would agree that they should be free to vote at this point. If, however, they still retain a special status in some areas such as tax breaks, treatment under the law, or any other situations in which they are exempted from duties placed on other adults, then they have not yet 'earned' the right to vote. If you're contributing just as much to this society as an old fart like myself, then I have no right to vote when you can't.

11:34 / 13.12.03

Aren't you legally culpable age 10 and above?

12:22 / 13.12.03

Yep the age of that you are legally aware of the difference between right a wrong is 10, but you can't be sent to prison until either 16 or 18 (I forget which) .

11:19 / 15.12.03

"Well, I'm a member of the UK Youth Parliament and we're very keen to see this happen."

Oh my sweet Lord, Guy Parsons, you are such a geek. I love that. How did you get in to the UK Youth Parliament?

My first reaction to this was that it shouldn't be lowered. I think 16 year olds are big enough and clever enough to vote but... is there a huge problem that things have to be changed?

But, wehn we start talking about paying taxes, and joining the army and lambrini I don't think you could really begrudge a 16 year old the right to vote.

20:09 / 15.12.03

A slight sideline, but wonderful anyway.

Richard Dawkins is by no means the first to be taken in by the Teens page.

22:50 / 16.12.03

I'm not a geek! (Am I? Oh god...)

Kind of stumbled into the UKYP on a bit of a whim, admittedly. Elections happen up and down the country, with 400 MYPs in total, who all meet once a year to come up with a manifesto which we then present to the government who then give us a response (and ignore the bits they've done jack-all about.) Although all I had to do was sound vaguely enthusiastic to a room of forty teenagers, in Kent more young people voted in the elections for the UKYP than adults in the local elections which is pretty impressive.

Anyway, we don't agree on much, but votes-at-sixteen is kind of a unifying issue. That and not being allowed to snog (the all-new Sexual Offences Bill) or hang out in public (Anti-Social Behaviour Act).

Orr: the Guardian thing was frightening wasn't it? the funniest idea was giving fines to the parents of fat kids.

07:55 / 08.01.04

Will the 16 year olds be able to vote on this issue? I wonder how many of them would vote "no."

If 16 year olds could vote in Amerika there's no way Bush would have won the election. Third parties would have gotten a lot more votes.

A vote for 16 year olds being able to vote is a vote for the left. It's good if you wanna protect human rights, but bad if you wanna see riots.

As they used to say, Phex, "LOL." Lower the voting age to 12 in Amerika and Jello Biafra is the clear winner.

13:34 / 08.01.04

"Jello Biafra"?

You're not really Rage, are you?

16:51 / 08.01.04

Of course not!