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 · 23m 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. They do not feel that moving away from FPP is an advantage to them. Functioning democracy is not their goal. Staying in power is.
plantain · 11m ago
Nonsense. Labour (largely) supported ditching first past the post in the referendum. The opposition/conservative party campaigned against it.
robin_reala · 3m ago
Every time Labour gets into power, FPTP reformation is mysteriously never considered.
aqme28 · 46s ago
That's a lot harder than changing a number by 2
roenxi · 23m 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.
noja · 20m ago
I think the very idea that a single party would encompass a voter's entire set of beliefs is ridiculous and antiquated.
plantain · 13m ago
They had a referendum on it in 2011 and decided to keep FPTP. You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
bell-cot · 37m 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 · 16m 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 · 4m ago
Lowering it to 16 is a good start, but really it should be lowered to 0. Otherwise, how will those aged 0-15, "without a voice", prevent the older voters from confiscating all their possessions, sending them to work in the mines, and harvesting their organs once they're used up?
Honestly I'm surprised this hasn't happened already, given how they "have no voice"..
beck5 · 33m ago
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 · 24m 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.
giantg2 · 14m ago
Nobody actually provides permission to have kids. That could happen as soon as it's biologically possible.
d1sxeyes · 15m ago
Also you can join the army at 16 with parental consent.
_heimdall · 20m ago
At least with alcohol, there are chemical factors at play that have less to do with how wise a person is.
kubb · 18m ago
Now they can vote to give themselves the ability to do that.
burgerone · 27m ago
Social media will have a greater effect on votes than ever before
Urahandystar · 17m 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.
giantg2 · 12m ago
We can hope, but tif we look at hospitalizations for social media challenges, the demographics don't support your theory.
techterrier · 32m ago
while it seems a bit daft to me, in practical terms i dont think many of these kids are going to turn out
_rpxpx · 26m 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.
like_any_other · 19m 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 · 18m 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.
Why would you need to add bank cards when you cana already request a voter certified ID?
leke · 25m ago
This is going to push the legalize cannabis movement forward by 2 years.
ggm · 27m 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 · 21m ago
Let’s see how well Germany deals with afd in the next 10 years before getting too complacent about European consensus politics.
netbioserror · 22m 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).
_heimdall · 17m 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?
sethammons · 7m ago
I'd be interested in a system where you can gain additional voting power based on $stake. Everyone gets a vote, but based on $criteria, you gain additional votes.
Youth and parents get an extra vote on school stuff. Those whose education or career are related to a field get an extra vote. In some cases, you may hold 5x the voting power of someone who is removed and unfamiliar with a topic.
No idea if anything like that has been explored.
jackvalentine · 16m ago
Time to cancel the right to vote for anyone 70+ then right? They don’t really have much of a stake in the outcome anymore.
optimalsolver · 18m ago
So just men of property, right? Preferably also only direct descendants of Magna Carta signatories.
Ekaros · 13m ago
Net tax payers in past parliament. Receive private pension or public health care or use some public service. Well you are out of voter pool. Corporate handouts should also be counted. Own stock in company that gets some public funds and that is counted against you.
hermannj314 · 16m 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 grift.
_Algernon_ · 24m 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.
Adding 2 additional years of people won't make enough of a difference for that theory. The truth is, one party is pushing for this because they stand to benefit from it because it will slightly bump up their support numbers.
like_any_other · 15m ago
> Arguably the quality of voting in terms decision making is secondary, if it matters at all.
It doesn't matter who we vote for, as long as we vote? What a bad joke.
_Algernon_ · 10m ago
>It doesn't matter who we vote for, as long as we vote?
More that voting egotistically (in contrast to trying to predict what is best for society as a whole) is sufficient to create the incentives that benefit the many, as long as the number of voters makes up a high enough share of the population.
leereeves · 35m ago
This seems relevant:
"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."
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.
_heimdall · 13m ago
Why not go further and also consider the cognitive implications of being ill, depressed, obese, stressed, parent of a newborn, or any other condition that could have short or long term implications on mental sharpness?
I really hate when these ideas come of that effectively boil down to creating some kind of litmus test for who can be "trusted" to vote. We have an age limit, maybe the UK wants a lower limit, but at least that's a pretty simple and clear line to be drawn.
robin_reala · 30m 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 · 23m 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?
robin_reala · 11m ago
“The U.K.’s stock and bond markets have shed at least $500 billion in value since Liz Truss was formally appointed to succeed Boris Johnson as prime minister on Sept. 5.”
> "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.
leereeves · 7m ago
Emotional decision making, even against reason and willpower, definitely exists. Whether you call it "thinking" is just semantics.
_Algernon_ · 16m ago
The lack of maturity also needs to be stacked up against the stake youth has in the future. Why should a 90-year old with little stake in the future be allowed to vote while young people who will live for another 60 years be at the mercy of that 90-year old's voting?
I think there is a good argument to be made that young people are the biggest stakeholders in our future, and should have a say.
anonymous_sorry · 23m 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.
Edit: I'm being downvoted. To be clear, I'm an ardent democrat, but the idea that people vote analytically and rationally doesn't make sense for the above reason. The most informed voters are, in my experience, often highly emotional.
roenxi · 14m ago
If adults were rational they'd use their communication skills to form broad coalitions to make sure that policies they like get put in place. Which is largely what happens.
> Or even if they did, the amount of effort they'd put in...
This is actually quite an interesting area if you look into the game theory of making choices in a group setting. Strong strategies typically often don't involve doing much research, but they are rather frustrating for the people who take an interest in politics. Real-world behaviours are arguably quite reasonable on this front too, although they are limited by the ability of the average person to reason their way through the policy suggestions being made by though leaders.
Although I do agree that more voters isn't better. There is a certain level of objective correctness in political decisions if we admit basic ideas like "policies should be tested to see whether they achieve the goals that they were intended to" as a measure of success and the point should be to design systems that optimise on it to some degree.
poszlem · 39m 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 · 23m 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
That just gives power to whoever administers the civics exams - which would obviously be a government controlled body.
Better idea should just be that you should be a taxpayer to vote. No tax = no vote. Why should people who aren't contributing decide how to spend the money of those contributing?
A 16 year old who works has a bigger stake than a 21 year old jobless bum stuck in their parents home smoking weed and playing vidya games.
harvey9 · 11m ago
Reminds me of Philip k Dick's story The Pre-persons.
nicoburns · 29m 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.
robin_reala · 36m ago
Explain why you think it’s shameful?
poszlem · 20m 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.
6LLvveMx2koXfwn · 34m 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?
harvey9 · 11m ago
The British military doesn't put under 18s in combat roles.
poszlem · 11m ago
But 16 is not enough to die for your country. 16 year olds can join the military (only with parental consent btw.) but cannot be deployed to combat zones until they are 18.
bell-cot · 30m ago
If reform could only be done when it was disadvantageous to the party in power, then how much reform would ever be done?
giingyui · 17m ago
This is precisely what happened in Argentina.
People cry about gerrymandering all day here and then downvote your comment.
MrBuddyCasino · 21m 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.
gmac · 9m ago
The obvious reasons being what?
To the extent this is true, I would phrase it the other way: women are becoming less conservative, while young men are drifting towards the extreme right.
bigfudge · 18m 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.
gmac · 6m ago
Fully agree. The extreme left barely exists in the UK, Labour are perhaps a little right of centre, and the extreme right is all too well—funded and high-profile.
gmac · 2m ago
(Thought I was adding this to my previous post, but in fact I was replying). I think part of the mechanism here is the normalisation of Trump. An authoritarian/trending fascist US President is continuously reported as mostly business-as-usual, and this inevitably shifts the discourse rightwards.
MrBuddyCasino · 15m ago
According to a Prognos poll, 46% of the 16-17 year old women in Germany would vote for Die Linke, which is the successor party of the communist SED of DDR fame.
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.
Honestly I'm surprised this hasn't happened already, given how they "have no voice"..
> 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.
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?
Youth and parents get an extra vote on school stuff. Those whose education or career are related to a field get an extra vote. In some cases, you may hold 5x the voting power of someone who is removed and unfamiliar with a topic.
No idea if anything like that has been explored.
Children voting will ruin the grift.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory
It doesn't matter who we vote for, as long as we vote? What a bad joke.
More that voting egotistically (in contrast to trying to predict what is best for society as a whole) is sufficient to create the incentives that benefit the many, as long as the number of voters makes up a high enough share of the population.
"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...
I really hate when these ideas come of that effectively boil down to creating some kind of litmus test for who can be "trusted" to vote. We have an age limit, maybe the UK wants a lower limit, but at least that's a pretty simple and clear line to be drawn.
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?
https://fortune.com/europe/2022/09/27/uk-stock-bond-markets-...
The article was published 22 days into her tenue.
This is a ridiculous claim. If you believe children think at all, they do it with the prefrontal cortex, just like every other mammal.
I think there is a good argument to be made that young people are the biggest stakeholders in our future, and should have a say.
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.
Edit: I'm being downvoted. To be clear, I'm an ardent democrat, but the idea that people vote analytically and rationally doesn't make sense for the above reason. The most informed voters are, in my experience, often highly emotional.
> Or even if they did, the amount of effort they'd put in...
This is actually quite an interesting area if you look into the game theory of making choices in a group setting. Strong strategies typically often don't involve doing much research, but they are rather frustrating for the people who take an interest in politics. Real-world behaviours are arguably quite reasonable on this front too, although they are limited by the ability of the average person to reason their way through the policy suggestions being made by though leaders.
Although I do agree that more voters isn't better. There is a certain level of objective correctness in political decisions if we admit basic ideas like "policies should be tested to see whether they achieve the goals that they were intended to" as a measure of success and the point should be to design systems that optimise on it to some degree.
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
https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test
Better idea should just be that you should be a taxpayer to vote. No tax = no vote. Why should people who aren't contributing decide how to spend the money of those contributing?
A 16 year old who works has a bigger stake than a 21 year old jobless bum stuck in their parents home smoking weed and playing vidya games.
Probably true. But IMO it's a good thing regardless. The impact of this is fundamentally pro-democracy above anything else.
People cry about gerrymandering all day here and then downvote your comment.
To the extent this is true, I would phrase it the other way: women are becoming less conservative, while young men are drifting towards the extreme right.
It’s the right that are shifting, not the left.