Voting Age Lowered To 16 In The UK

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

In your opinion, what are the benefits and strengths of allowing 16 years olds to vote on the direction of the nation in a general election?

The only 16 year old I can speak about with any authority is my 22 year old daughter when she was that age.

She and her group of friends were very politically aware. Having recently graduated from uni she’s not paid any income tax but she told me she wished she could vote at that age to help build her plan for the future (ie now) when she’s completed education and where life takes her and how the world is shaped ahead of her.

Being able to have a say in how you want your future to roll out is just one very good reason for this new change.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Mr K

As for young minds still developing/being immature, you could say over 60's minds are declining - should they be refused a vote? Some pensioners pay little or no tax, should they also be barred from voting?

This is a great point. Why do you suppose this was not brought into the equation when the government decided to reduce the voting age to 16?

---------- Post added at 17:18 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

The only 16 year old I can speak about with any authority is my 22 year old daughter when she was that age.

She and her group of friends were very politically aware. Having recently graduated from uni she’s not paid any income tax but she told me she wished she could vote at that age to help build her plan for the future (ie now) when she’s completed education and where life takes her and how the world is shaped ahead of her.

Being able to have a say in how you want your future to roll out is just one very good reason for this new change.

It sounds like your daughter is thoughtful and engaged, and that’s genuinely encouraging to hear. I don’t doubt there are 16 year olds out there who take a deep interest in politics and care about their future. That's a good thing.

That said, I think the challenge here isn’t about individual exceptions, but about setting a fair and consistent baseline for the whole population. Just as your daughter might have been ahead of the curve at 16, many others may still be developing the critical thinking skills, emotional regulation, and independence needed to make major civic decisions. Two years may not seem like much on paper, and you have made a good case that in terms of voting volume, the addition might seem negligable.

But developmentally, especially in adolescence, those two years can be significant. It;s not about undermining anyone’s intelligence or good intentions, but recognising that cognitive maturity plays a key role in how we interpret complex matters. In this case, policital, envirnmental and financial futures for everyone will be determined by these votes.

Ultimately, it’s about designing a system that works for the majority, not the outliers, and making sure that when we entrust someone with shaping national outcomes, they’re doing so from a position of relative autonomy, understanding, and resilience against outside influence. I’d argue that 18 still best represents that balance… for now.

[Russ]

At 16 we don’t allow people to take control of a potential killing machine.

The following year they are then allowed to take control of the potential killing machine.

Some are ready for that responsibility, some are not.

Giving them the vote is just bring more of life in to line with things like these.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Ah change, but only your change?

The Tories tried a bit of gerrymandering before the last election altering boundaries to favour themselves. Didn't work and this change may not work in Labours favour.
Getting more people to vote is surely good.

As for young minds still developing/being immature, you could say over 60's minds are declining - should they be refused a vote? Some pensioners pay little or no tax, should they also be barred from voting?

You're confecting an argument here. Why over 60? Where's the evidence that this should be a cut-off point for voting?

As to "paying little or no tax" - please ask Russ.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

At 16 we don’t allow people to take control of a potential killing machine.

At 16 you can become a killing machine, trained to do so.


As it happens I am totally fine in giving 16yr olds the the vote.

I laugh at those that think 16yr olds will be predisposed to vote Labour. If they vote at all, there is no evidence they will vote that way, and as we favour immigrants over them, they’ll probably vote for their own interests.

As a retired secondary school teacher I am in favour of giving 16 year olds the vote because in my experience they are no worse at picking whom to vote for than a 70/80/90/100 year old. Any younger I think they should be able to continue to have a childhood of sorts.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Maggy

As a retired secondary school teacher I am in favour of giving 16 year olds the vote because in my experience they are no worse at picking whom to vote for than a 70/80/90/100 year old. Any younger I think they should be able to continue to have a childhood of sorts.

What was wrong with my argument that the two years between 16 and 18 are significant? 18 year olds have either the advantage of 2 years of education or 2 years of work. The 16 year old has no such advantage.

As to the older voters, that surely should not be a consideration in the debate as to whether or not the vote should be given to a 16 year old. Older people, btw, are wiser and have depth of perspective. You too.