Cogito Ergo Non Serviam
UK Lowering Voting Age to 16
In an effort to increase democratic participation in the UK, the British government has announced some changes that the House of Commons will take up. Included in the proposals is a measure to lower the voting age to 16 in all UK elections. The Labour government believes that the Scottish and Welsh examples of letting 16- and 17-year-olds vote should be expanded across the country so more people can participate in elections. The right-wing parties and media claim it gives the "woke" school system a chance to indoctrinate the kids and produce a wave of radical voters. Both are wrong, but any move that increases the number of potential voters should be welcome as it heightens the legitimacy of the election.
The Guardian reported, "Defending the lowering of the voting age, Keir Starmer said it was important that teenagers who paid taxes had their say on how the money was spent." School leavers do pay taxes once employed so the argument there does make some sense.
On the other side of the House, the paper stated, "the Conservatives said the change was 'confusing' given that 16- and 17-year-olds could not legally smoke, drink or buy a lottery ticket. The Reform leader, Nigel Farage, accused the government of trying to rig the system to allow schools to bias young people with 'leftwing prejudice'. He said Labour would get 'the shock of its life' as Reform intended to appeal to 16- and 17-year-old voters by the next general election."
Frankly, people who cannot smoke or drink are more likely not to be intoxicated when the vote than those who can. Perhaps the Tory confusion comes from so many of them being old and senile, but they get to vote. As for Mr. Farage and his claim that Reform will try to win those voters, one can only say “good.” And “good luck.” One notes he had no announced intentions to appeal to them before. Now that they will be able to vote, he is paying attention to them. That is how democracy is supposed to work.
Christine Huebner, a lecturer at the University of Sheffield, has studied other places (e.g., Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Scotland, Wales and parts of Germany) that have lowered the voting age to 16 and found some interesting things. She summed it up this way, "nothing bad happens when the voting age is lowered to 16." She added, "Including 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate does not change election outcomes and it does not make elections less representative."
She and her colleagues also discovered that the 16-17 cohort votes in greater numbers than those who are enfranchised at 18. Best of all, "In the longer term, including 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate might make democracy more resilient. In Austria and Latin America, young people who were enfranchised at 16 or 17 were more satisfied with democracy and democratic institutions -- parliament or political parties."
What really makes the case is the fact that more participants, by definition, heightens the legitimacy of the democracy. One must remember that democracy exists for just one purpose, to bestow legitimacy on the elected leadership. Divine right monarchy is done. Sovereignty flows from the people. The more people who vote, the greater legitimacy the winner of the election has.
The current crisis in democracy worldwide stems from a sense among the electorate that the government is not listening, not responding to their needs. More people voting will force the politicians, like Mr. Farage, to change that. Turnout also matters, but that is another discussion for another day.
© Copyright 2025 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.
|
|
|
