I suspect a mass of support for this is a reaction to Brexit, I don't think that's unfair: the generational gap in that vote was huge, with older voters who no longer work (and, to be blunt, have fewer years left to feel the consequences) voted for Brexit while younger generations with entire careers ahead of them voted against.
I can see the argument that 16 year olds are too young to make an informed choice but I've also met a great many people of all ages who are too ill informed to make a choice too. Fundamental weakness of democracy, I suppose.
rwmj · 8h ago
There's a real problem with those with no "skin in the game" -- living in large paid off houses (bought for a song in the 1970s), with defined benefit pensions and the triple lock -- voting for wacky options and suffering no consequences. This is going to get worse and worse. Reducing the voting age redresses it a very tiny amount.
musicale · 7h ago
> There's a real problem with those with no "skin in the game" -- living in large paid off houses (bought for a song in the 1970s), with defined benefit
16yo may not have a lot of skin in the game, but giving them more of a voice seems like a good idea. I like the idea of gradually increasing voting rights over time.
SV_BubbleTime · 8h ago
> Reducing the voting age redresses it a very tiny amount.
I love comments like these. There could never be consequences to an obviously -in-current-self-interest move like this.
“Yes let them vote, an impressionable and easily influenced demographic that my hyper partisan side controls could never be manipulated against me!!”
afavour · 7h ago
You're not really engaging with OP's point. "an impressionable and easily influenced demographic" describes every demographic. 16 year olds are not particularly unique in that regard.
16 year olds could absolutely flip to the far right in the future, who knows! But they have more of a stake in the future. Allowing them to vote redresses a small amount of balance against voters who do not have a stake in the future.
theoreticalmal · 1h ago
You guys really think allowing a bunch of kids without fully developed decision making and reason brain structures vote is a good idea?
nonvibecoding · 11h ago
Lowering the voting age to 16 makes sense on paper. Many people at that age work, pay taxes, and take on real responsibilities. But let’s be honest, parties don’t push changes like this unless they believe it gives them an electoral edge
graemep · 9h ago
They are not legally adults.
* They are restricted in what jobs they do, and are supposed to be either in education or doing apprenticeships or similar
* They cannot drive until they are 17
* They cannot purchase alcohol, knives and many other things
* They cannot get married
* They cannot get tattoos
Its very much that they think it will favour them. I think it might very well not do so - while they will net vote for Labour its not by a huge margin and its changing. I wonder whether the government are overly influenced by the huge margin they enjoy with privileged people in that age group - i.e. the ones they meet.
musicale · 7h ago
To me at least, the argument that young people face great restrictions (even if many of those restrictions might be intended for their benefit) doesn't justify not giving them a voice, or a seat at the table.
"So if democracy is so great, and voting rights are so important, why don't you let us vote on anything that matters to us?"
"So taxation without representation... that's like me, right?"
"So if universal suffrage is important, are people like me included in the universe?"
"So we can (in the UK) potentially join the army or navy at 16, and possibly die in dangerous training or even fighting in a war, but we don't get to vote?"
hn_throw2025 · 7h ago
> Let's see... 16 year olds in the UK can potentially join the army or navy (and perhaps die fighting in a war)
No combat until 18.
seydor · 8h ago
pensioners are legally adults but , they don't work thus don't pay taxes, they dont drive some of them, and getting tattoos is kinda weird for them. why do they get to vote
elthran · 7h ago
UK pensions are subject to income tax, if you're receiving more than the annual tax free allowance.
octo888 · 2h ago
That's half the story - there was tax relief paying in, and many view paying tax on your pension as deferred tax
mbesto · 8h ago
In most jurisdictions (especially at a national level) the changes that elected officials enact usually don't affect the population for at least another 12-16 months after voters cast their ballots.
nancyminusone · 9h ago
If they have jobs, they pay taxes, right?
graemep · 8h ago
Depends on how much income they get.
Under 16s also pay income taxes in they have income. They also pay various other taxes such as VAT. Non-citizens pay taxes but do not get to vote.
The general expectation is that they should be in full time education or training until they are 18.
All that makes "a minority of people in this age group pay taxes" a very weak argument for giving all of them the vote.
dijit · 8h ago
There's no rule that says that, in fact the rules in the UK are that you can pay people below minimum wage if they're under a certain age.
I think there are also some tax incentives that are designed to make employers more friendly to the idea of hiring a young workforce - all to offset the "cost" of training people, but of course this is just used by mega-corps to have a perpetual stream of extremely cheap labour for frontline staff. (Argos, McDonalds).
So it's possible that not only do they not pay tax, that also their employment is partially subsidised by tax.
roryirvine · 7h ago
Even if below the income tax threshold, they might still be above the Class 1 NICs threshold (which is £250 or thereabouts).
But no matter how low their earnings, all employees must be registered for PAYE from age 16 onwards and will receive an annual P60, as well as a P45 when they leave.
tsimionescu · 8h ago
That is irrelevant. If a 5-year old wins some competition, they will pay taxes on that money. That doesn't mean we should give 5-year olds the vote, does it? Also, plenty of non-tax related laws apply to children - why should they not get to vote on Education or Healthcare, for example?
Also, while some 16-year olds work and pay taxes, the majority do not. So a blanket right to vote is not justified even by this strange criterion.
octo888 · 1h ago
> Many people at that age work, pay taxes
Not in the UK, particularly England. With the requirement to remain in education/do an apprenticeship/perform a mixture of work and part time education (in England), combined with our the personal allowance, very very few 16-18 year olds pay any tax or national insurance.
According to ChatGPT, data from the ONS in 2021 shows the average weekly earnings for 16-17 year olds was about £160, well below the personal allowance and NI thresholds
fny · 10h ago
- Are the merits of the change not more important?
- Couldn't you argue parties don't promote changes like this to protect their interests too?
drcongo · 7h ago
I think you're right in that Labour believe this, but that Labour are spectacularly wrong about it and have just signed their own death warrant. Young people want hope, and they definitely don't feel like Blue Labour could give that to them.
There should be a corresponding upper limit too. population aging should not have turned to tyranny
theoreticalmal · 1h ago
There should also be a limit on making sure the voter has “skin in the game” like owning property or otherwise instantiated in the community.
Cpoll · 9h ago
Very wishful thinking, but could this be an impetus for quality political education at a younger age? E.g. how to reason about issues, think critically, fact check, verify past outcomes, etc. That could have positive effects on all age groups.
dijit · 8h ago
No.
I'm sure I don't speak for everyone, but people consider me reasonably worldly and reasonably intelligent but at 18 when I was first given the power to vote I voted for:
* UKIP for EU Parliament
* Lib Dems for UK Parliament
I don't necessarily regret the LibDem one, but seeing how absolutely hoodwinked I was by UKIP has left me really jaded.
I saw them misrepresent issues and put things to the EU parliament for debate that they would then go back to the UK media and scream about how there was a topic up for debate that went against british values: despite them being the ones to propose it!
I saw the leader of the party get put in charge of the fisheries committee and then proceed to tell the UK public that the EU was taking control of our waters and fishing... when he was the man in charge.
I saw grandstanding and burning of our political capital inside the EU parliament for soundbites.
and I only saw this: because I was not afraid of digging into the truth of things; something I was not prepared or willing to do as a teenager, as that sounded like the kind of mundane schoolwork I was attempting to avoid - I was much more interested in how I felt about particular people, and UKIP gave me the warm fuzzies about my country and a convenient scapegoat for the decline in living standards in my lifetime.
afavour · 8h ago
Many eons ago I took a "General Studies" A level that had a solid chunk of political education, just googled and was disappointed to find out it doesn't exist any more.
Even still, I'd say younger people are still more politically aware (mostly via history classes that are still present in their memory) than most people of the current voting age.
aksodidnsjs · 9h ago
Genuinely curious, does education really matter? No one man has the time nor intellect to effectively evaluate all the facts. Most of the lies today are lies of omission / framing. Details left out, stories not covered, etc.
The only rational position is figuring out how to scale trust. Ironically enough, the historic ways of doing that (race, religion, nation) are all more or less “evil” in modern society.
After going through US public schooling and then reading actual source material from various topics covered many years later, it’s hard to see it as anything other than propaganda. “History was written by the victors” doesn’t magically exclude our current regime.
blitzar · 9h ago
but could this be an impetus for quality education at a younger age.
probably not
giingyui · 9h ago
That’s not wishful, that’s straight delusional.
spwa4 · 9h ago
Yeah. Let's face it: more realistically, they want to cut pensions without getting thrown out of parliament. And getting every 16 year old in the UK a free PS5 (is it still PS5? I guess maybe PS6) on their birthday is far cheaper than pensions ...
xnx · 8h ago
Are there any voting systems that weight votes based on expected remaining lifespan?
stemlord · 7h ago
I think this is a good idea, given we now see how selfishly most people vote. If an 80 year old man is going to vote only for his immediate self interest and not even for his own generational legacy, then his vote shouldn't count as much as a 22 year old struggling to establish a sustainable future for themselves.
I was raised to champion the elderly for their life wisdom but it's starting to seem like society has been changing so rapidly that they no longer understand what's actually going on
xnx · 7h ago
There are benefits, but it could also open up all other kinds of question like: Should parents of minors have a greater vote?
Ancapistani · 6h ago
Yeah... about that.
> As of 2021, life expectancy in the U.S. varied significantly by race: Asian Americans had the highest at approximately 84 years, followed by Hispanic Americans at about 78 years, White Americans at around 76 years, Black Americans at about 70 years, and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals at approximately 65 years.
xnx · 6h ago
It would be a mess if individualized. Rich people live longer.
hunglee2 · 12h ago
the franchise should be truly universal and every citizen regardless of age should have the vote. There is no argument on level of maturity or intelligence - we have ample evidence that higher voting ages do not produce better outcomes - democracy should at least go down in as absolute a state as possible
graemep · 9h ago
So would you allow five year olds to vote? You have to have an age requirement somewhere.
roxolotl · 9h ago
Should their be an age cap? At what level of mental capacity should the cap be set? How do you evaluate someone to determine if they are fit to vote?
The problem with rules around voting is that they can always be exploited. I generally believe that the best way to avoid that is simply to remove rules aside from 1 person 1 vote.
tsimionescu · 8h ago
The rule for voting is very simple: if you are legally allowed to make decisions for yourself, you are allowed to vote (with a minor exception of certain kinds of criminal convictions). Children and people who are mentally impaired to a severe degree are not allowed to make legal decisions, and are thus not allowed to vote.
What you're proposing is nothing but an absurd over-representation for parents of small children, who will be able to vote twice or even more.
roxolotl · 7h ago
Yea you’re totally correct. I’m mostly responding to those saying mental acuity or general knowledge are reasons to not lower the voting age. That’s a line that’s very challenging to draw equitably.
brickers · 8h ago
How does that work for e.g. infants? Doesn’t it give unscrupulous parents of those children an extra vote?
maxerickson · 8h ago
I think the execution is probably difficult, but in principle you can make the requirement that the voter marks a valid ballot by themself.
Interacts badly with mail in and lots of other issues of course.
hunglee2 · 6h ago
fine - they have more at stake. Might actually encourage having more children, increase familial voting power
hunglee2 · 6h ago
yes of course. 5 or 50. There is no argument for an age requirement, other than gerontocratic one
sparkie · 11h ago
But 16 year olds are not mature enough to decide whether they want to drink or smoke. They also should look at least 25 for that.
It's really not a great idea. Most 16 year olds know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure, and schools are basically state-run indoctrination camps.
Labour are assuming the majority of the youth vote will go their way, but it could backfire heavily. The youth think Reform are cool and Labour are outdated.
robocat · 10h ago
> Most 16 year olds know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure
Sounds the same as everybody over 16 as well.
You are really saying that they lack experience to make good judgements. In a democracy every person needs to learn by experience at some age. It is fairer if they learn sooner rather than later (gerontocracy).
goosejuice · 9h ago
Most humans know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure.
Using this as an opportunity to teach about civic duty seems sensible to me. I'm doubtful a couple of years changes the outcome much. But I'm not in the UK. Best of luck!
nottorp · 9h ago
> Most 16 year olds know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure
As opposed to this 50+ guy I know who managed to once explain to me with a perfectly straight face that Bill Gates' foundations launched an unspecified pandemic in some african countries. And that Microsoft has secret weather control machinery on top of their Seattle buildings.
Minor49er · 9h ago
You're equating the disagreeableness of _most_ 16 year olds to a single 50+-year-old guy?
nottorp · 9h ago
I don't think most 16 year olds are disagreeable...
I'm sure they should stay off your lawn ofc ;)
afavour · 8h ago
> But 16 year olds are not mature enough to decide whether they want to drink or smoke.
I think the biggest thing 16 year olds are lacking is impulse control. A great many are curious about the world and capable of seeing the big picture of politics... but will also get blackout drunk at the drop of a hat. So I see voting at 16 (something that's pretty boring and with little immediate benefit or dopamine hit) vs drinking and smoking as being quite different.
olddustytrail · 8h ago
> The youth think Reform are cool and Labour are outdated.
This is completely wrong. Support for Reform is lowest in the 18-24 age group at 8%. It is highest in the 65+ age group at 37%.
who adjudicates this - once upon a time strong minded women were considered mentally incapable, some institutionalised for it, for no other than reason than for demanding their rights. A demented person - even a thoroughly demented on - should have the right to vote, empowered of another to take this away is intolerable
tsimionescu · 8h ago
That is already covered - if you are found mentally unfit to take care of yourself, you are not allowed to vote either, in general.
seydor · 8h ago
that s not true at least in the uk and most countries
SV_BubbleTime · 8h ago
Just sounds like game to me.
incomingpain · 11h ago
I was indoctrinated by my teachers; kids are easy to manipulate. Voting age must stay high, OR schools must be decoupled from the government. A simple voucher system.
stuaxo · 9h ago
In the UK we have many different kinds of schools with different levels of coupling to local and national gov, traditional ones are probably the minority.
drcongo · 7h ago
I suspect this will be pretty much the end of the Labour and Conservative parties, which is clearly a good thing - neither is fit for purpose any more. The new left-leaning party announced by Zarah Sultana, and the far right arseholes in Reform are likely to take the vast majority of teenage voters - both because they will at least offer some kind of hope to people who otherwise have none.
I like UK labour and the current gov in particular but I have to note this and it happened in other countries too. If the ruling party is left, it has predominantly younger votes and if it can get away with lowering voting age it will do it. And the cool thing is, this is irreversible because no one will dare to raise the age afterwards
No comments yet
amriksohata · 4h ago
Well well well.
People say that if 16 year olds can work, pay tax, and join the army, they should be allowed to vote, but that argument doesn’t really hold up.
First off, the UK has one of the most generous tax free allowances in the world, you don’t pay tax on anything under £12,570. Most 16 year olds working part time or on low wages aren’t paying any tax at all, so the whole “no taxation without representation” thing doesn’t really apply here.
And let’s be honest, most 16 year olds aren’t working anyway. They’re still in school or college, not out earning or dealing with adult responsibilities.
Some people say teens are too immature to vote. Personally, I think it’s more about naivety. At 16, you’re still figuring out who you are, let alone understanding politics or economics. If someone like KSI ran for office, half of them would probably vote him in as Chancellor just for the memes.
You learn a lot of tough lessons on the way to adulthood. At 16, you’ve got zero life experience, no bills, no mortgage, no kids, and probably no full time job. So when it comes to voting, they’re more likely to be swayed by TikTok trends or what their mates think, rather than actual policies or ideology.
And let’s be real, Labour knows this. Just look at the voting intention by age
However it will back fire because many that age will split the vote to Greens, Lib Dems and maybe even Corbynites.
Next question that courts might ask in cases are, if a 16 year old criminal gets away with more as they are counted as a juvenile, but is considered old enough to choose the lawmakers, does the same adult laws now apply to them? If they are not perceived as mature enough to be considered as an adult criminal, then why is it different for voting?
yomismoaqui · 8h ago
Dear Brits… honestly, are you trying to top the Brexit referendum?
subscribed · 7h ago
Are you saying they would vote with 90 year olds, to shot their own futures off?
Or that they would keep voting in the parties that overwhelmingly harm them?
tiahura · 10h ago
As we keep discovering how immature the teenaged brain is?
unnouinceput · 8h ago
Voting should not be a right!! Voting should be a privilege, like driving is, and should be a points based system.
Don't downvote yet, hear me out on this, ok?
Upon hitting the lawful 18 (or 16 or whatever) you automatically have the "privilege" to vote, and your voting power is 1 (single) point. Then you are obliged to vote on your local/national elections. Too many people currently shit on their right to vote and do their research like in the night before elections. Instead make it an exam, and with 3 fails to vote you lose the privilege. Also you take the exam about current politics and parties, and raise your points up to, let's say 10. You want to have more voting power? Get fucking involved in politics. Local administration involvement? Cool beans bro, your new threshold is 20. County? 40. National (like a senator?), 80. All the way to the top, where members of government (ministries, heads of national agencies, president) get their max at 100.
Why this rant? Because I see the argument regarding Brexit with young vs. old thrown around here and is all true. If you'd have voting a privilege then people would care about it, like you care about your driving license. Current society has all the tech to actually give people a real democracy on their hands. Get involved one hour in your country politics. No need for a parliament full of old farts that all they do entire life is polish the chairs while sleeping and vote on laws according to their paying masters. President and ministry heads encounter problems, raise them in public forums, ideas gets formed around, laws are then formed based on those discussions and then put to vote. National vote. Like a fucking app. Easy to vote. One fucking hour of your day goes to politics instead of the idiotic sports because we have the idiocy running around where stars of different shows are more important than the fucking tax that actually has a more important impact on your finance. But hey, what dress Kartrashian wore or what football pass Beckham did is more important than the highway you use to drive to work, right?
Now you can downvote me.
SV_BubbleTime · 8h ago
Interesting, I thought the UK was on track to lower it to 9.
egberts1 · 9h ago
Taking advantage of the under-developed prefrontal cortex, uh?
Let us ignore the long and deep-storied history of young (under-18) leaders.
subscribed · 8h ago
If voting intentions, results and surveys results are any indication, not fully developed prefrontal cortex will be better than demented one.
pseudo0 · 8h ago
For context, the current Labour government has a 12% approval rating.
Is age the right measure? Should there be periodic citizen's test (like a driver's test)?
maleldil · 7h ago
Who decides what's on the test? How do you keep those in power from gaming the system?
clarionbell · 8h ago
Expanding the electorate to include children with brains still undeveloped is a bad move. There is plenty of evidence that teenagers, including those who already can vote, have trouble grasping complex issues. Yes, that happens in other age groups too, but not at such rates.
Think of all the dumb, stupid things you did when you were 16 and about all the things your friends did. That's the kind of people that are given the vote. How can that improve the state of democracy? How can that lead to better policy? When you increase the number of voters by the most impressionable and unstable section of the population?
Nasrudith · 8h ago
The whole 'undeveloped brains' thing is a myth. The brain is still developing and even then developing != deficient. As for improving the state of democracy? It seems like very much a good thing that they'll be able to have their interests represented, which is a rather stabilizing force. Especially when dealing with idiots who vote for Brexit and then think that literally enslaving the youth for the sake of 'instilling values' and calling it 'national service' is a great idea.
awnird · 8h ago
If the elderly with no skin in the game are allowed to vote, then children should be allowed to vote.
To be clear, I'm ok with disallowing children to vote if we also disallow the elderly. But if one group can vote, its only fair that the other group can as well.
throwaway290 · 5h ago
Left wing parties have mostly younger voters. It's a known fact. Decreasing voting age is normal for their policies.
I can see the argument that 16 year olds are too young to make an informed choice but I've also met a great many people of all ages who are too ill informed to make a choice too. Fundamental weakness of democracy, I suppose.
16yo may not have a lot of skin in the game, but giving them more of a voice seems like a good idea. I like the idea of gradually increasing voting rights over time.
I love comments like these. There could never be consequences to an obviously -in-current-self-interest move like this.
“Yes let them vote, an impressionable and easily influenced demographic that my hyper partisan side controls could never be manipulated against me!!”
16 year olds could absolutely flip to the far right in the future, who knows! But they have more of a stake in the future. Allowing them to vote redresses a small amount of balance against voters who do not have a stake in the future.
* They are restricted in what jobs they do, and are supposed to be either in education or doing apprenticeships or similar
* They cannot drive until they are 17
* They cannot purchase alcohol, knives and many other things
* They cannot get married
* They cannot get tattoos
Its very much that they think it will favour them. I think it might very well not do so - while they will net vote for Labour its not by a huge margin and its changing. I wonder whether the government are overly influenced by the huge margin they enjoy with privileged people in that age group - i.e. the ones they meet.
"So if democracy is so great, and voting rights are so important, why don't you let us vote on anything that matters to us?"
"So taxation without representation... that's like me, right?"
"So if universal suffrage is important, are people like me included in the universe?"
"So we can (in the UK) potentially join the army or navy at 16, and possibly die in dangerous training or even fighting in a war, but we don't get to vote?"
No combat until 18.
Under 16s also pay income taxes in they have income. They also pay various other taxes such as VAT. Non-citizens pay taxes but do not get to vote.
The general expectation is that they should be in full time education or training until they are 18.
All that makes "a minority of people in this age group pay taxes" a very weak argument for giving all of them the vote.
I think there are also some tax incentives that are designed to make employers more friendly to the idea of hiring a young workforce - all to offset the "cost" of training people, but of course this is just used by mega-corps to have a perpetual stream of extremely cheap labour for frontline staff. (Argos, McDonalds).
So it's possible that not only do they not pay tax, that also their employment is partially subsidised by tax.
But no matter how low their earnings, all employees must be registered for PAYE from age 16 onwards and will receive an annual P60, as well as a P45 when they leave.
Also, while some 16-year olds work and pay taxes, the majority do not. So a blanket right to vote is not justified even by this strange criterion.
Not in the UK, particularly England. With the requirement to remain in education/do an apprenticeship/perform a mixture of work and part time education (in England), combined with our the personal allowance, very very few 16-18 year olds pay any tax or national insurance.
According to ChatGPT, data from the ONS in 2021 shows the average weekly earnings for 16-17 year olds was about £160, well below the personal allowance and NI thresholds
- Couldn't you argue parties don't promote changes like this to protect their interests too?
I'm sure I don't speak for everyone, but people consider me reasonably worldly and reasonably intelligent but at 18 when I was first given the power to vote I voted for:
* UKIP for EU Parliament
* Lib Dems for UK Parliament
I don't necessarily regret the LibDem one, but seeing how absolutely hoodwinked I was by UKIP has left me really jaded.
I saw them misrepresent issues and put things to the EU parliament for debate that they would then go back to the UK media and scream about how there was a topic up for debate that went against british values: despite them being the ones to propose it!
I saw the leader of the party get put in charge of the fisheries committee and then proceed to tell the UK public that the EU was taking control of our waters and fishing... when he was the man in charge.
I saw grandstanding and burning of our political capital inside the EU parliament for soundbites.
and I only saw this: because I was not afraid of digging into the truth of things; something I was not prepared or willing to do as a teenager, as that sounded like the kind of mundane schoolwork I was attempting to avoid - I was much more interested in how I felt about particular people, and UKIP gave me the warm fuzzies about my country and a convenient scapegoat for the decline in living standards in my lifetime.
Even still, I'd say younger people are still more politically aware (mostly via history classes that are still present in their memory) than most people of the current voting age.
The only rational position is figuring out how to scale trust. Ironically enough, the historic ways of doing that (race, religion, nation) are all more or less “evil” in modern society.
After going through US public schooling and then reading actual source material from various topics covered many years later, it’s hard to see it as anything other than propaganda. “History was written by the victors” doesn’t magically exclude our current regime.
probably not
I was raised to champion the elderly for their life wisdom but it's starting to seem like society has been changing so rapidly that they no longer understand what's actually going on
> As of 2021, life expectancy in the U.S. varied significantly by race: Asian Americans had the highest at approximately 84 years, followed by Hispanic Americans at about 78 years, White Americans at around 76 years, Black Americans at about 70 years, and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals at approximately 65 years.
The problem with rules around voting is that they can always be exploited. I generally believe that the best way to avoid that is simply to remove rules aside from 1 person 1 vote.
What you're proposing is nothing but an absurd over-representation for parents of small children, who will be able to vote twice or even more.
Interacts badly with mail in and lots of other issues of course.
It's really not a great idea. Most 16 year olds know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure, and schools are basically state-run indoctrination camps.
Labour are assuming the majority of the youth vote will go their way, but it could backfire heavily. The youth think Reform are cool and Labour are outdated.
Sounds the same as everybody over 16 as well.
You are really saying that they lack experience to make good judgements. In a democracy every person needs to learn by experience at some age. It is fairer if they learn sooner rather than later (gerontocracy).
Using this as an opportunity to teach about civic duty seems sensible to me. I'm doubtful a couple of years changes the outcome much. But I'm not in the UK. Best of luck!
As opposed to this 50+ guy I know who managed to once explain to me with a perfectly straight face that Bill Gates' foundations launched an unspecified pandemic in some african countries. And that Microsoft has secret weather control machinery on top of their Seattle buildings.
I'm sure they should stay off your lawn ofc ;)
I think the biggest thing 16 year olds are lacking is impulse control. A great many are curious about the world and capable of seeing the big picture of politics... but will also get blackout drunk at the drop of a hat. So I see voting at 16 (something that's pretty boring and with little immediate benefit or dopamine hit) vs drinking and smoking as being quite different.
This is completely wrong. Support for Reform is lowest in the 18-24 age group at 8%. It is highest in the 65+ age group at 37%.
See https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intenti...
No comments yet
People say that if 16 year olds can work, pay tax, and join the army, they should be allowed to vote, but that argument doesn’t really hold up.
First off, the UK has one of the most generous tax free allowances in the world, you don’t pay tax on anything under £12,570. Most 16 year olds working part time or on low wages aren’t paying any tax at all, so the whole “no taxation without representation” thing doesn’t really apply here.
And let’s be honest, most 16 year olds aren’t working anyway. They’re still in school or college, not out earning or dealing with adult responsibilities.
Some people say teens are too immature to vote. Personally, I think it’s more about naivety. At 16, you’re still figuring out who you are, let alone understanding politics or economics. If someone like KSI ran for office, half of them would probably vote him in as Chancellor just for the memes.
You learn a lot of tough lessons on the way to adulthood. At 16, you’ve got zero life experience, no bills, no mortgage, no kids, and probably no full time job. So when it comes to voting, they’re more likely to be swayed by TikTok trends or what their mates think, rather than actual policies or ideology.
And let’s be real, Labour knows this. Just look at the voting intention by age
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1379439/uk-election-poll...
However it will back fire because many that age will split the vote to Greens, Lib Dems and maybe even Corbynites.
Next question that courts might ask in cases are, if a 16 year old criminal gets away with more as they are counted as a juvenile, but is considered old enough to choose the lawmakers, does the same adult laws now apply to them? If they are not perceived as mature enough to be considered as an adult criminal, then why is it different for voting?
Or that they would keep voting in the parties that overwhelmingly harm them?
Don't downvote yet, hear me out on this, ok?
Upon hitting the lawful 18 (or 16 or whatever) you automatically have the "privilege" to vote, and your voting power is 1 (single) point. Then you are obliged to vote on your local/national elections. Too many people currently shit on their right to vote and do their research like in the night before elections. Instead make it an exam, and with 3 fails to vote you lose the privilege. Also you take the exam about current politics and parties, and raise your points up to, let's say 10. You want to have more voting power? Get fucking involved in politics. Local administration involvement? Cool beans bro, your new threshold is 20. County? 40. National (like a senator?), 80. All the way to the top, where members of government (ministries, heads of national agencies, president) get their max at 100.
Why this rant? Because I see the argument regarding Brexit with young vs. old thrown around here and is all true. If you'd have voting a privilege then people would care about it, like you care about your driving license. Current society has all the tech to actually give people a real democracy on their hands. Get involved one hour in your country politics. No need for a parliament full of old farts that all they do entire life is polish the chairs while sleeping and vote on laws according to their paying masters. President and ministry heads encounter problems, raise them in public forums, ideas gets formed around, laws are then formed based on those discussions and then put to vote. National vote. Like a fucking app. Easy to vote. One fucking hour of your day goes to politics instead of the idiotic sports because we have the idiocy running around where stars of different shows are more important than the fucking tax that actually has a more important impact on your finance. But hey, what dress Kartrashian wore or what football pass Beckham did is more important than the highway you use to drive to work, right?
Now you can downvote me.
Let us ignore the long and deep-storied history of young (under-18) leaders.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/government-app...
Think of all the dumb, stupid things you did when you were 16 and about all the things your friends did. That's the kind of people that are given the vote. How can that improve the state of democracy? How can that lead to better policy? When you increase the number of voters by the most impressionable and unstable section of the population?
To be clear, I'm ok with disallowing children to vote if we also disallow the elderly. But if one group can vote, its only fair that the other group can as well.