by D P Sellors
Illustration by Fay Qian
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 between Sir David Lidington and Emily Thornberry in 2018, Lidington argued how 16 year-olds should wait until adulthood to enjoy full citizenship rights – while Thornberry 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 first 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, first 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 first time. This would make our democracy more representative through a higher lifelong participation, significantly bolstering the calls for lowering the voting age.
A surprising benefit to lowering the voting age is that it has a ‘trickle-up’ effect 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’. The study finds that parents were only mobilised if they live with their children. Over 90% of 16- and 17-year-olds 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. The trickle-up effect also helps refute the political expedience rebuttal to more ‘left-leaning’ politicians of lowering the voting age, since more typically conservative older voters are also mobilised.
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 figures that actually signify a represented democracy: the absolute value of turnout. It signifies 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.
The descent into a chaotic spiral of lowering the voting age until it is measured in months is often 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. 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 contended. This is both unlikely and unreasonable. The 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 specifically may not apply to ages under 16, thus 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 flood their democracy. Firstly, I believe that discussions on the maturity to vote mislead us on what it exactly means to have the right to vote. The 16- and 17-year-olds are simply choosing a candidate who their representation should be deferred to – they are not assuming office themselves. It is not a radical transfer of power; it merely allows those who would like to to select who represents them, so their preferences can be transmitted into the political agenda.
Secondly, concerns about an unwarranted influx of younger voters is perhaps overstated, as assuming a general election every 4 or 5 years, citizens would on average be 18 or 18.5 when they first vote in one. This suggests that on average first time voters would still legally be adults. Although local elections provide at least minor voting opportunities at least every 2 years, 16- and 17-year-olds are arguably better placed to vote, as in some cases they may be more likely to have lived in an area, potentially being more aware of 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 2 out of 3 Prime Ministers. It is sensible to infer that young Conservatives have been deemed mature enough to enjoy such rights because having membership is seen as a signal of sufficient interest and engagement with politics. Therefore, a similarly deliberate process such as registering to vote should also be seen as demonstrating the appropriate engagement to be given the vote.
The lack of lived political exposure is also used as an argument against lowering the voting age to 16, as the extrapolation of past political dynamics is perceived as useful for predicting the worthiness of candidates. On the surface, this concern seems to make sense as it posits the 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 effectively than those who have to use their own research or even than those who have not done so at all! After all, there may well be cases where due to vastly significant societal or economic changes, no extrapolation attempt rather than an amateur’s misfitted 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 for longer. From Sunak to Starmer, I strongly urge all from across the political spectrum to get behind the motion.
Emily Thornberry will be visiting LSE PPE x Labour Society on the 9th March at 7pm in the LSE Lecture Theatre, CBG, all are welcome to attend.
