UK Voting Age Reduced to 16
The PM said: If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote.
What do you think is the best age to allow for voting.
When you are legally able to do anything else in society?
When you have experienced more in life?
When you have taken part in some social scheme?
When you have paid X amount in taxes?
What do you think.
Comments (63)
21 or 25.
Although there are always exceptions to the rule, I think the span should be between that range of ages because it is when the people (the vast majority) start to be more mature because they have already gotten into adult life.
Quoting I like sushi
Well, I think we all take part in society from the very first day we are born. We are born having rights, and the government or the public administration has the commitment to help us out. It is very different from taking part in politics actively. I have had the right to vote since I was 18, but I barely used that right because politics are not interesting to me. Nonetheless, I am part of society in other ways: when I pay for using public transport or when I visit the doctor.
Quoting I like sushi
That age is used by the politicians depending on the circumstances.
This is needed now because social media is having a deleterious effect on democracy. With people being convinced to vote in certain ways as a result of lies and populism.
Fully agree regarding a basic education in how democracies function.
Quoting I like sushi
"When asked which party they would vote for, ITV News' poll showed 33% said they would vote Labour, followed by 20% who said theyd choose Reform, while 18% would vote Green, 12% Liberal Democrats and only 10% said theyd vote Conservative".
I don't know if you'd call the little mentioned Green Party a populist party, but I take your point.
It's certainly a leftwards slant. Could it be that all of our values come from our heart, and our heart hardens with age?
It is well known that as we age we tilt more towards conservatism, which makes perfect sense when you think about it really.
My concern is more or less that I do not regard myself as anywhere near being clued up on living life until I was 40 yrs old let alone 18 or 21. I absolutely believed I had a reasonable grasp on what the world was about in my 20's but there is simply no substitute for lived experience.
A more viable system for me would be a gradual increase in influence with age and experience. I am not completely against a 16 yr old voting, but I do not think their vote should weigh in the same as someone my age.
Whatever system is in place will inevitably fall short ... but I guess that is precisely what democracy is about. We fall short, over shoot, and keep trying to correct.
Quoting I like sushi
I'm sceptical that experience acquired through age is as valuable as intelligence and economic literacy.
If we go down that road, shouldn't intelligence and economic literacy be taken into account. To avoid the hassle of doing tests, it could be done by standard of education?
Even giving more of a vote based on age, the less the results are what the majority prefer - there's less democracy.
I should say, that as someone that is fairly young, I could be underestimating experience acquired through age. I have been told this before, and ironically this could be something that I have to learn through experience acquired through age.
Your suggestions are more problematic because they impose potential voting tests, enfranchising only those that meet certain criteria beyond just age and citizenship. Historically, those sorts of tests have eliminated the least powerful and traditioanally most discriminated classes from the voting rolls.
The age of majority is necessarily arbitrary, and I'm fine with it being 18. I do know that those underage can serve in the military and get married and do other adult activities, but that typically requires parental consent. Whether it ought be 16 and not 18, I suppose an argument could be made either way, but 16 just sounds awfully young to vote or to serve in the military.
I agree, especially in a world where maturity seems to be decreasing rather than increasing. To take one simple example, what is the average age that people have children now as compared to 40 years ago? 16 year-olds seem to be less mature than they were in the recent past.
I do not believe in voting tests. I marked it as something people often express.
My view is a limiting factor that scales with age. Maybe something like a 16 yr olds vote counts as 1 vote whilst someone 30+ counts as 2 votes. In a more complex system I would have people's age reflect more heavily on different policies, but that would require a somewhat clunky system.
All in all, I think education can help people of all ages to acquire a better perspective from which to vote according to their beliefs, desires and needs.
I understand this, but in my experience the most likely demographic falling prey to populist ideology in the U.K. are the boomers, ages 60-80 years of age. Although I am aware that there is an issue with young men being easily captured by Reform. This doesnt seem to follow with young women, who lean more to Greens, with some to Labour and some to Lib Dems.
On balance I think those young voters are slightly less vulnerable, so reducing the age to 16 is a positive move, provided the schooling is implemented at the same time.
If the boomers had had the equivalent education when they were young, I think they would now be less vulnerable.
Personally, I was always going to vote Green from the age of about 15. What annoyed me is when I first voted at 19, there wasnt a Green candidate on my ballot.
I'm obviously a huge advocate for education for education's sake, this being a philosophy forum and all, but unfortunately education is not what creates better people and better voters
Not perfectly, predictably, or uniformly, no. Not every time, not on every occasion. But surely lack of education is what creates worse people or at the very least perpetuates everything that plagues mankind ensuring it will remain with us for all time only worsening the state of society in perpetuity. So. at the very least, I'd suggest it (education) certainly doesn't hurt. Perhaps you're referencing strictly technical data (how to build a super weapon, for example) as opposed to emotional intelligence and social understanding (why and when not to use said weapon in the first place).
Exposure is of importance in early development.
All said and done mayeb we will see teenagers start to take a more serious interest in world affairs? Somehow, even if they do, I do not think they are capable of really grasping more far reaching topics simply because they are more focused on short term goals rather than long term.
:up: :up:
OK, kids, let's head to the liquor store! And let's permit consensual sex for girls at that age. Oh. and let's bring back the draft, this time for 16 year olds.
It is.
Citizenship programmes of study: key stages 3 and 4 National curriculum in England
Biological (or external and outward) maturity =/= intellectual or mental (inward or internal) maturity. Numerous studies attest to this fact. The state or quality of, basically just "not being dangerously insane" which is essentially all "legal competence" is these days, seems hardly a profound or reliable measure of judgement, to be quite honest.
What about dumb adults, or sheeple?
Here in the U.K. there is a large cohort who still subscribe to political vibes from about 40years ago. Often described as Essex man, or Mondeo man. This cohort handfistedly drove us off the cliff of Brexit and elected Boris Johnson. And now, they are lining up to elect Nigel Farage, Britain Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_man
Not so much of a democracy then.
Democracy is an idea only. The practical application of any governmental system has to compete with the reality that faces it. If we create a poltical body that is increasingly dependent upon the short-term whim of inexperienced minds - who are biologically driven by a myopic perspective - then I fear for the long-term future. Of course, mayeb a fresh and naive perspective is just what is needed? Who knows?
Either way, our intuitions will lead us on more than our knowledge. When they meet each other then we have a period of relative harmony and peace (like now). Current societal changes do seem to have us at a very imnportant juncture in human civilization. Will be interesting to see how things pan out.
That's been the classic arguments against democracy since the Athenian expedition to Sicily 415-413 BCE. Plato builds a political philosophy around it.
The classic reply is the Latin proverb "The voice of the people is the voice of God". This means that if you create a political body that is increasingly dependent on the short-tem interests of a small group - who are driven primarily by their own short-term interests at the expense of everyone else - then you should fear for the long-term future.
I'm sure you know who I'm looking at. I leave it to you to work out which is closer to our situation.
BTW. I've always seen "vox populi, vox dei" attributed to Cardinal Bellarmine. But apparently it is much older than that. Wikipedia cites a letter from Alcuin of York to Charlemagne in 798 CE as "an early reference".
Quoting I like sushi
Yes. People do seem to focus on the fact that there has not been a world war since 1944. Whether it is appropriate, on that ground, to call the last 80 years a period of relative harmony and peace is not obvious to me. But I do agree that we seem to be in a particularly critical and unstable time. We live interesting times, unfortunately.
The prefrontal cortex needs to develop. This is not something we can simply dismiss.
If you want to make sure a person is fully biologically mature before they do any of these Big Stakes Decisions {tm}, you're waiting until they're 25 and their brain development stops. That's 25 before they can vote, join the military, imbibe substances etc. It's fully consistent to prohibit people doing these things until they reach those ages, but you end up postponing participation in society until... the person's capacity for neuroplasticity has gone down. That's a recipe for social disengagement and long term ills, we need to adapt to those responsibilities and the stakes in society they grant.
In the case that you end up allowing some participations prior to full maturation, that opens the door for case by case reasoning. Is there any compelling reason to believe a 16 year old is insufficiently intellectually developed to vote when they're sufficiently intellectually developed to do complex jobs, analyse literature, read a graph... I doubt it. Let them vote it'll be good for them.
If I've got it right, the prefrontal cortex doesn't stop developing until around 25. So that ship sailed long, long ago.
Yes, it is true that younger people are more prone to impulsive behaviour. But older people are prone to rigid views that have become inappropriate.
Perhaps then we should not simply dismiss the mental decay that sets in later on in life. Where would you put your cut-off?
The difficulty is that, if you are interested in the competence of people, there is no age at which everybody becomes competent. It is a gradual process. I'm sure that there are 16/17 year olds who are not well qualified to decide on the next Government as well as some that are. The same is true of the loss of competence at the other end of life. I agree also with the remark "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
If you are going to assess the competence of voters, then you should assess all voters, of any age - and, preferably, convince them that your assessment is correct. Good luck with that.
Democracy may not the best way to select the people who are to govern. But it is the best way of ensuring that those who cannot govern (that is, at least keep the peace) are, in the end, thrown out. Popper, in "The Open Society" is very keen on this point. He's not wrong. An election is much less damaging than a revolution.
[quote="Churchill - 11/11/47]Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. [/quote]
Enough said, I think.
Quoting fdrake
Quite. I can't see that they will wreck the overall result.
But what shall we say when the 14 year olds start complaining?
There is a big difference between 16 and 18 yrs of age. Anyone with basic life experience knows this. The development of the prefrontal cortex effects numerous areas of cognitive behaviour. It is not only about long and short term planning. That was one item of concern.
Note: I might be more in favour of increasing the age from 18 to 25 than lowering it from 18 to 16 tbh. The difference in developmental progress is seriously stacked in earlier years of neurogenesis.
As for senile dementia, I see no reason they should still be able to vote.
"Yesterday I didn't know there was a curriculum, and today I'm writing it".
That's how it works.
Let them vote too? The exact age threshold is pretty arbitrary. Someone who's 14 is not expected to analyse literature, write a discursive essay, or read and interpret a graph though. 15-16 seems about right to me for a threshold standard.
I'm not saying that you ought to be able to do these things to vote - most adults can't or won't when forming their opinions -, I'm saying that these things are benchmarks of development. It being justified to expect someone to have ability to do these things makes it a suitable threshold, whether they actually can or do on an individual basis is a different issue.
Do you mean that someone will have to write these tests of competence - with the issue that a miracle of dispassionate objectivity would be needed? The history of tests of voter competence is, how shall I put it, compromised.
Quoting fdrake
Is that because they can't, or because we don't ask them to?
Quoting fdrake
Wouldn't it make more sense to test for what you are looking for. Awareness and balanced judgement of public affairs. Such tests as these can't give us what we want. They can't provide an objective, impartial, accurate qualification for voting. It has to be fully automatic and undoubtedly will be rough and ready.
Quoting I like sushi
That seems reasonable. But once you have set that criterion, doesn't elementary justice mean that it should be applied to voters of all ages?
Quoting I like sushi
Sure. But the question is whether that difference makes a difference. Given that the system is very rough and ready, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that it does not. Intellectually, we're on a slippery slope and political views are, of course, in play.
I will share my experience. At the age of 15-16, I was very indignant at the fact that my vote was not taken into account in the elections, because as it seemed to me then, I understood the world better than these "idiots" around me, who are 40 or more years old. After graduation, I was more than sure that until the age of 21 people should not be given any right to vote, since they simply do not understand anything about life. Today I am 37 and I sincerely believe that until the age of 30-35, people generally understand little, but I have to agree that their immaturity affects my life. I wonder what I'll say at 45?
Policy wise I don't think so. Voting exams are bad news.
Yes, and socialism too!
https://www.boerneraadet.dk/english/
Also found out that there's a bi-annual "children's congress" for children with type 1 diabetes in the states. Something interesting to note there is that the children don't have a right to vote but they can still participate in the process if there's some sort of organization to facilitate lobbying.. Funnily enough that's probably more effective than granting the right to vote carte blanche to children.
Overall, though, I tend to think children have more to offer the world in terms of their own needs than given credit for. The best way to teach responsibility is to make someone responsible for something and follow through. If you forgo all "irresponsible" decisions until 25, like the United Arab Emirates according to the link above, then you'll have no practice in being an adult until 25. Then you'll be the equivalent of an 18 year old who has likewise not experienced adulthood yet.
Also I think adults make much ado about their own strengths. If a person is impulsive all the way into their middle age then something tells me that they're not going to "reform" into proper property-owning responsible citizens that can make clear decisions in national affairs. They're just as confused as the rest of the world.
But the real reason to give people the right to vote is because they have a right to voice their own interests as they see fit. It's about giving them power as a universal right, not ensuring that they are meritocratic enough to wield power.
It is unreasonable to assume something when there is plenty of hard scientific evidence showing how adolescent brains are far less risk averse, immature in term of planning, managing emotions and delay gratification.
It is not exactly 'They gave me candy, so I will vote for them!' but it is not that far off this either when we are talking about the difference between 16 and 18 yr olds, let alone older.
Quoting Astorre
I can fully relate to this. I think 40 is when you get to point of reasonable balance (as they say, life begins at 40), but 30 is probably a reasonable number too.
One thing I am certain about. Teenagers are not at all clued into anything in any real sense. Maybe a handful are specialised and have had experience in certain areas, but this is more likely to bite them back in the future due to having tunnel vision for one particular facet of life.
We all know we are all stupid. and stupider still when younger. Why fan the flames of political ignorance?
Since we understand this, maybe it's better to give the right to vote to those who consider themselves smart at the age of 16? :lol:
Outbreed and out-vote them.
:up: :up:
Quoting I like sushi
So true. :smirk:
Yes. I know. But I thought it was a theoretical discussion.
Quoting I like sushi
I didn't suggest assuming anything. On the contrary, I suggested evaluating the information and making a decision on that basis. I'm also suggesting that If you are so worried about 16-year-olds voting on the wrong criteria, you look at all the other voters who do the same thing.
I propose the following turn in the discussion:
Will the elections of sixteen-year-old voters, subordinated to school, algorithms, and the whispers of the media, diverge so radically from the opinions of older voters, entangled in the same web?
maybe the point is that young minds require less effort to influence, more easily succumbing to the discourses of power, or are capable of increasing turnout?
And what if this discussion itself, this entire dispute imitating a "civil society" (an open society according to Popper) is only part of the performance, where democracy verifies itself through our own questions?
Aren't we, by arguing, weaving that very web, mistaking its next knot for a riot?
It's not like we just get to avoid the state existing because we have ideals of something better. It's as necessary to deal with as farming methods and so forth.
I'll be affected by this, as I turn 16 in two months. I would just recommend that young men carefully consider their politics and only vote if they are well informed.
Would be better return to 1969 where the minimum age was 21 imo.
More broadly I look at this as being about experience combined with knowledge. As referred to by previous replies here, we often think we are more capable than we really are, and only with accumulated wisdom do we realise that when we thought we had a good grasp of life it turns out we were quite deeply in error - often in more than a singular aspect of human living.
Quoting Astorre
I would like to add something to this. Broadly speaking Popper was doing part anthropology and part philosophy when talking about Open and Closed society. I have often found it useful to look at an individual human life and view it as a blueprint of human evolution both biologically, and in the abstract, poltically.
So, when we are born we experience Closed Society. Infants do not question or ask, they simply live according to their biological requirements and remain largely passive. As we develop into adulthood there is a transitionary period where Open Society comes into play. In loose terms we could use Piaget's developmental markers to show how this works. If I recall correctly (probably not) children have gone through the required stages of cognitive development by age 7 or so (?), so you may ask why not set voting age to 7 yrs old.
Just because someone is equipped wioth certain tools it does not mean they know how to use them. Plus, adolescence is when broader socio-political capability are just beginning to flourish. A teenager (13-19) has one foot in Closed Society and one foot in Open Society. They are open to any new ideas, understand the rational use of them, but have yet to hone the skill to compare and contrast.
Contrary to everything I have said there are some interesting perpsective against my position. Neoteny may look liek something that backs up my claim but it has been suggested that modern life requires retention of behavioural traits in juveniles, as it allows for better adaptation in an increasingly complex social environment.
I am by no means saying outright that either view is all bad or all good. I just see some moves made in politics as being about gaining immediate votes rather than creating a better system. This was very much the case with the collaboration between Lib Dems and Conservatives all those years ago where the amount of propaganda flooding the media ruined the referendum for reform that the Lib Dems had in mind. It was one time where Labour and The Conservatives joined forces as it was mutually benefical for them to keep the current system.
Beyond the cyncism of politicking though, there are some interesting questions regarding who qualifies to vote and - more importantly - finding a happy medium that balances out the best selective processes in a practical sense. Here again we find the issue tha both Popper and Berlin talked about, with Berlin's Pluralism showing the aarduous journey all civil society faces between the balancing of common and disperate interests that will alamost always conflict in some unexpected manner - hence Negative Liberty being the favoured choice for Berlin, rather than radical revolutionary movements.
First, I would say that this whole question turns on whether they are an adult. "They can do X, Y, and Z; therefore they are an adult; therefore they should be able to vote." I don't think it makes much sense to deny the 16 year-old adulthood and then claim they should be able to vote.
Second, I don't remotely agree that 16 year-olds are no less politically savvy. I would say "Political savvy" has little to do with debating and reading your favorite news sources [hide="*"](and I also don't think that 13 year-olds should be enfranchised because they can debate)[/hide]. It has to do with understanding the rationale behind societal decision-making, which begins in the family. The reason adults have the political wherewithal to vote is because the family life they lead is a microcosm of the polis. More simply and broadly, we are thinking about the age at which one's decisions are on a par with other citizens (e.g. able to legally contract, consent, etc.).
In any case, I think any good argument has to be based on adulthood. The reason the age of majority was lowered from 21 to 18 in the U.S. was largely because 18 year-olds could serve in the military. It was the same idea. The argument that military service entails adulthood is very strong.
Yes, indeed. I suspect that motive is very much present in this case.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes. Getting those in power to vote for something that will make their lives more difficult is not easy. IMO, In 2010 the Libdems, once they were in coalition, realized that they might one day get power without PR. They accepted a feeble compromise rather than put their power-sharing deal on the line.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes. They both make a lot of sense to me.
Quoting I like sushi
One reason I didn't much like that reform was precisely because of the slippery slope. But that works both ways. I don't see a good reason for not raising the age of majority to 25, for all the reasons that you give for not reducing it to 16. Impossible in practice, I know. On the other hand, I don't think it matters very much, so long as there is consensus, or at least acquiescence, and the system works reasonably well.
Quoting I like sushi
Infants don't have a lot of power. But they don't hesitate to use what they do have, in my experience. Children are always pushing at the boundaries. Just like adults.
Quoting Leontiskos
Yes, it is, if you are thinking of volunteering. It's a life-and-death decision. Conscription is different. There's an ambivalence here between the soldiers as heroic defenders laying their lives on the line and soldiers as cannon-fodder.
I guess conscription is different if we think it is okay to conscript children, but I don't think that. It seems as though conscription also entails adulthood.
Dont say you werent warned.
I don't think conscription is OK. Period. Nobody likes it, not even the army. If you have to force someone to join the army (or navy, air force, whatever) they are somewhat unlikely to make good soldiers, beyond getting lined up to be shot at. But it is a fact of life.
I think my point was that if you are prepared to conscript soldiers, you have already abandoned ethical thinking beyond your own survival. Questions of adulthood or not have been set aside.
Well the notion of in extremis is a central part of ethics, and I don't see why one couldn't be ethically prepared to accept conscription while at the same time being ethically unprepared to accept the conscription of children. It's not as if anyone who favors conscription therefore cannot distinguish between conscripting adults and conscripting children.
I don't disagree with that. The problems with conscription are partly ethical and partly practical. So conscription even of adults is a step over the line. Conscription of children is worse than conscription of adults. All I'm saying is that in time of war, ethics often comes under pressure and people often step over the line rather than lose. Perhaps they may justify it as the lesser of two evils - and others may well disagree.
Nice to have someone so young here. Do you believe everyone should be able to vote when they are 16? What is your individual perspective on the matter considering you are perhaps closer to understanding the general view of the 16 yr olds you know.
Would be nice to see minimum age for army as 90 yrs old ;)
I'm not proposing that we instate a test to determine if a youth is capable of voting - don't want to diminish democracy, but I can't dissuade the likelihood that the majority will just be pliant media sheep. I'd keep the voting age at 18.
Hopefully, I don't stand out like a sore thumb on here; I just want a more productive use of my time rather than doomscrolling on social media. :100:
It is also my understanding that Soylent Green is people.