So 16 year olds are wise enough to vote, but not fully leave education, buy alcohol, drive a car, join the army and get married without your parents consent, the lists goes on.
robin_reala · 9m ago
There’s no one list. For all the things you mentioned, they are allowed to drive tractors or quads, get married with your parents’ consent, have kids, etc.
kubb · 3m ago
Now they can vote to give themselves the ability to do that.
_heimdall · 4m ago
At least with alcohol, there are chemical factors at play that have less to do with how wise a person is.
burgerone · 11m ago
Social media will have a greater effect on votes than ever before
Urahandystar · 1m ago
I think were past that point with boomers, If anything this generation will be much more wise to the tricks than any that came before it.
heeton · 32m ago
I don’t quite understand why reforming the actual system, and moving away from first-past-the-post, isn’t higher on everyone’s list.
It feels like we don’t have a functioning democracy in the U.K., and that gets in the way of pretty much everything else.
terminalshort · 7m ago
Because the party in power feels like they can win > 50% of the 16-17 year old vote and therefore it is an advantage to them. The do not feel that moving away from FPP is an advantage to them. Functioning democracy is not their goal. Staying in power is.
noja · 4m ago
I think the very idea that a single party would encompass a voter's entire set of beliefs is ridiculous and antiquated.
roenxi · 8m ago
The article suggests that the people in charge of the system want children to be more involved in making political decisions. This signals a lot about what is happening in elite circles.
If that is the nature of the atmosphere then I doubt many important people are going to put their head above the parapet and call for reforms in the direction of adults getting better political expression. The power holders don't think that is favourable to them.
bell-cot · 21m ago
The current first-past-the-post system works quite well, for those who have the power to change the system.
Vs. - in the last U.K. election, which party was the most vocal about that first-past-the-post system needing replacement? What % of the votes were cast for them?
d1sxeyes · 1m ago
This was relatively recently floated (2011) and thrown out to referendum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternat...), where it was watered down to Alternative Vote rather than full PR and eventually rejected. Obviously none of these 16 year olds would have been old enough to vote in the referendum (or indeed have been born when it took place).
One thing to bear in mind is that FPTP limits the influence of “extreme” parties on elections (see UKIP’s vote share in 2015), but at the expense of requiring more mainstream parties to pander to those voters to avoid splitting the vote share. Jury is still out I think on what’s “best” here and probably depends on what “best” means to the person forming an opinion.
like_any_other · 3m ago
The article doesn't feature even a single opinion opposed to lowering the voting age. Interesting. I guess the British public unanimously supports this change?
leereeves · 2m ago
The article does include at least one opinion opposed to lowering the voting age:
> However, Conservative shadow minister Paul Holmes said the government's position was "hopelessly confused".
> "Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" he asked in the Commons.
giantg2 · 2m ago
Why would you need to add bank cards when you cana already request a voter certified ID?
_rpxpx · 10m ago
Good. Given Keir Starmer's abysmal behaviour, this is about the only chance there is of keeping a Tory/Reform coalition out at the next election. I would like to see voting age capped also, at 70. Increasingly senile and racist pensioners in comfortable homes are dominating British politics with horrific consequences.
techterrier · 16m ago
while it seems a bit daft to me, in practical terms i dont think many of these kids are going to turn out
ggm · 12m ago
I think this is necessary but I also think it's not sufficient: FPTP has to go, it's a cancer on British elections and maintained by leftists who believe in the potential for an enduring super majority which cannot be demonstrated to exist: the socialist democracies of Europe with complex coalitions may appear weak but have enduring qualities a British house of commons cannot demonstrate.
That, and finishing reform of the lords. And separating the English parliament from a federal parliament over the separate nations in the federation.
bigfudge · 5m ago
Let’s see how well Germany deals with afd in the next 10 years before getting too complacent about European consensus politics.
leke · 9m ago
This is going to push the legalize cannabis movement forward by 2 years.
netbioserror · 7m ago
Horrific idea. Those paying into the system should have the strongest stake, not those with elementary ideas and no stake at all (or worse, those dependent upon the system's rewards).
hermannj314 · 40s ago
The essence of Democracy is voting for a bond measure whose principal you'll never live long enough to see paid down.
Children voting will ruin the con game.
jackvalentine · 1m ago
[delayed]
_heimdall · 1m ago
What do you mean by "strongest stake" here?
Those paying the most already are more invested in the outcomes of the country, do you mean their vote should count for more or less based on how much they pay in taxes?
optimalsolver · 3m ago
So just men of property, right? Preferably also only direct descendants of Magna Carta signatories.
_Algernon_ · 8m ago
One argument for lowering voting age is given by selectorate theory. Basically it argues that higher coalition size (the number of people that participate in decision making) is what causes democracy to benefit the masses. Because parties compete for votes, they are forced to distribute societal goods back to a large portion of the population instead of only distributing it to their cronies. Arguably the quality of voting in terms decision making is secondary, if it matters at all. By this theory, lowering voting age is a boon to democracy.
"It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet."
"The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so."
"In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part."
> "In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part."
This is a ridiculous claim. If you believe children think at all, they do it with the prefrontal cortex, just like every other mammal.
bigfudge · 4m ago
Should we include an equivalent analysis of the declines in cognitive function after 70. In my experience they are much more marked than any deficits teenagers may have.
_Algernon_ · 1m ago
[delayed]
robin_reala · 14m ago
So… block people below 25 from anything that requires good judgement like choice of intoxicants, driving, operating heavy machinery, joining the military, having children, getting married?
Or accept that growing up is part of life, and that there are short term consequences of political choice too that groups of people are currently denied?
shakna · 7m ago
Since when have the ramifications of political choice ever been "short term"?
Liz Truss was only PM for 49 days. How much impact on the economy did she have?
anonymous_sorry · 7m ago
If adults thought completely rationally they wouldn't vote at all, since the chance of their single vote making any difference is insignificant.
Or even if they did, the amount of effort they'd put in researching, considering and modelling the potential outcomes would would be commensurate to the impact they would expect their vote to have. I suspect for a good chunk of adult voters, this is in fact the case.
So it's not obvious to me that including more voters whose decision-making is more emotional will necessarily produce worse outcomes. It's conceivable it'll produce better outcomes.
poszlem · 23m ago
Absolutely shameful reform, the only reason it's happening is because Labour holds a majority in that age bracket. This will backfire spectacularly once the younger generation flips to some kind of tik-tok popular right wing strongman.
skissane · 8m ago
A radical proposal: there is no minimum voting age, but to enrol to vote you must pass a civics exam-so a 12 year old who passes the exam can vote, but a 50 year old who fails it (or refuses to sit it) can’t.
I really doubt this proposal would ever actually be implemented, but still it is an interesting idea to ponder-in the abstract it seems fairer than a semi-arbitrary cutoff based on chronological age
giingyui · 1m ago
This is precisely what happened in Argentina.
People cry about gerrymandering all day here and then downvote your comment.
nicoburns · 13m ago
> it's happening is because Labour holds a majority in that age bracket
Probably true. But IMO it's a good thing regardless. The impact of this is fundamentally pro-democracy above anything else.
6LLvveMx2koXfwn · 19m ago
Isn't it because if you're old enough to die for your country you're old enough to vote for the people putting you in jeopardy?
robin_reala · 20m ago
Explain why you think it’s shameful?
poszlem · 4m ago
Because this only happens because of the misguided belief that young people will always vote Labour. It's nothing more than age-based gerrymandering to manipulate voting outcomes.
MrBuddyCasino · 5m ago
This is exactly it. The young men are already becoming more conservative for obvious reasons, the women however are drifting towards the extreme left.
bigfudge · 2m ago
We should be clear that what is today termed extreme left in the uk and us is I) historically pretty centrist and ii) pretty normal in most of Europe.
It’s the right that are shifting, not the left.
bell-cot · 14m ago
If reform could only be done when it was disadvantageous to the party in power, then how much reform would ever be done?
It feels like we don’t have a functioning democracy in the U.K., and that gets in the way of pretty much everything else.
If that is the nature of the atmosphere then I doubt many important people are going to put their head above the parapet and call for reforms in the direction of adults getting better political expression. The power holders don't think that is favourable to them.
Vs. - in the last U.K. election, which party was the most vocal about that first-past-the-post system needing replacement? What % of the votes were cast for them?
One thing to bear in mind is that FPTP limits the influence of “extreme” parties on elections (see UKIP’s vote share in 2015), but at the expense of requiring more mainstream parties to pander to those voters to avoid splitting the vote share. Jury is still out I think on what’s “best” here and probably depends on what “best” means to the person forming an opinion.
> However, Conservative shadow minister Paul Holmes said the government's position was "hopelessly confused".
> "Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" he asked in the Commons.
That, and finishing reform of the lords. And separating the English parliament from a federal parliament over the separate nations in the federation.
Children voting will ruin the con game.
Those paying the most already are more invested in the outcomes of the country, do you mean their vote should count for more or less based on how much they pay in taxes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory
"It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet."
"The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so."
"In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part."
https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=unders...
This is a ridiculous claim. If you believe children think at all, they do it with the prefrontal cortex, just like every other mammal.
Or accept that growing up is part of life, and that there are short term consequences of political choice too that groups of people are currently denied?
Liz Truss was only PM for 49 days. How much impact on the economy did she have?
Or even if they did, the amount of effort they'd put in researching, considering and modelling the potential outcomes would would be commensurate to the impact they would expect their vote to have. I suspect for a good chunk of adult voters, this is in fact the case.
So it's not obvious to me that including more voters whose decision-making is more emotional will necessarily produce worse outcomes. It's conceivable it'll produce better outcomes.
I really doubt this proposal would ever actually be implemented, but still it is an interesting idea to ponder-in the abstract it seems fairer than a semi-arbitrary cutoff based on chronological age
People cry about gerrymandering all day here and then downvote your comment.
Probably true. But IMO it's a good thing regardless. The impact of this is fundamentally pro-democracy above anything else.
It’s the right that are shifting, not the left.