In the above video, I go into why votes at 16 is a bad idea in more detail - looking at the in-depth reasons why I think we shouldn’t extend the franchise in this manner.
Being a lefty nowadays is ONLY a team sport. Period. Can’t say much about being a righty (as I’m not one) but maybe true also. Political allegiance has become an alternative to football fandom with all mindlessness that entails. Wear the shirt, kiss the badge, scream obscenities at your opposite number and don’t care what’s true as long as their team loses.
There is some evidence that the earlier people vote, the more likely they are to continue voting. If someone's first General Election is in their early 20s, then they may be at university or in otherwise short-term accommodation, remote from sources of advice and influence like parents, and as John Curtice puts it, 'preoccupied in forming adult relationships'; votes at 16 is thus a way that we can increase continued participation and hence the legitimacy of elected authorities.
I think most of the arguments you make are reasonable and/or true, and it's good to have long-held beliefs challenged, but I still don't agree that votes at 16 is bad.
Firstly, I should say that I think you are right that it won't help the left. The change will add so few voters in the grand scheme of things, and under FPTP most of them will be valueless / in constituencies where they won't matter AND I don't think 16-17 year olds will vote as a block for 'the left' anyway...
I'm not persuaded by your argument about it creating a backlash that might lead to a reversal of 'liberal norms', for a few reasons.
a) the right will adapt and win enough young votes to believe that it's not a threat and may even be an opportunity.
b) in part because I don't think it will make a noticeable difference to outcomes this won't be a battle the right will prioritise, although I would caveat that by saying...
c) I think that the 'backlash' got well underway before Labour gave serious consideration to giving 16 years olds the vote.
By which I mean, the populist right (i.e. including the Conservative Party) are already drunk on the 'logic' of MAGA and are already well onboard with gerrymandering and attempting to tilt elections in their direction. You only have to look at the last government's attempts to make it harder for young people to vote (young persons bus passes are not acceptable ID while old persons bus passes are okay) to see that the right is more than happy to ride roughshod over the principle of free and fair elections. Perhaps votes at 16 might give further momentum to this drift, but if so, it'll be giving momentum to something that is already moving under its own steam. And - as with the voter ID requirements - if Labour are hoping it will help them, I think it may backfire. So I don't think giving 16 year olds votes will lead the right to behave any worse than it already is.
You make an interesting point about establishing the principle that voting should be linked to paying tax - and setting up the argument that those on benefits should lose the vote. Again, I don't think the right need any encouragement to go down this route, but there's a strong reason for them not to make this argument: if those on benefits would lose the vote, if that principle was extended to the retired, just imagine!
While I do think Labour are doing this because they think it will give them a tactical advantage, NOT because they are interested in 'fairer votes', I have two main reasons for continuing to be supportive of the idea.
One is because I start from the viewpoint that in a democracy the aim ought to be to extend the franchise as widely as possible / practical, that votes should count equally, and that the goal is for society to elect a government that is as broad-based, as effective and a representative as possible. I believe PR and devolved government are the two most important 'missing' pillars of this. (Transparency and legality are arguably even more important to a functioning democracy but despite some challenges we do mostly have those components.) Extending the vote to those who pay tax is, in my view, an important principle. And as the population ages, I think having the interests of the young slightly more represented will also be positive overall for the development of effective policy.
The second is more practical. A functioning and sustainable democracy needs voters, and it seems to be that participation by the young is low and doesn't increase as people age. I think votes at 16 will help get more young people into the habit of voting, a habit that if started is more likely to last a lifetime. Whoever young people end up casting their votes for, that seems like an investment in democracy to me. Schools already hold mock elections and teach kids the basics of democracy, so I do think that building on that education by allowing 16 year olds to actually cast votes will be of help in the long run.
Being a lefty nowadays is ONLY a team sport. Period. Can’t say much about being a righty (as I’m not one) but maybe true also. Political allegiance has become an alternative to football fandom with all mindlessness that entails. Wear the shirt, kiss the badge, scream obscenities at your opposite number and don’t care what’s true as long as their team loses.
16 year olds join the Armed Forces, leave home, have children.
They're adult under the law at 14.
Seems reasonable to allow them to vote on things that affect their lives as much as the 89 year old bigots.
There is some evidence that the earlier people vote, the more likely they are to continue voting. If someone's first General Election is in their early 20s, then they may be at university or in otherwise short-term accommodation, remote from sources of advice and influence like parents, and as John Curtice puts it, 'preoccupied in forming adult relationships'; votes at 16 is thus a way that we can increase continued participation and hence the legitimacy of elected authorities.
I think most of the arguments you make are reasonable and/or true, and it's good to have long-held beliefs challenged, but I still don't agree that votes at 16 is bad.
Firstly, I should say that I think you are right that it won't help the left. The change will add so few voters in the grand scheme of things, and under FPTP most of them will be valueless / in constituencies where they won't matter AND I don't think 16-17 year olds will vote as a block for 'the left' anyway...
I'm not persuaded by your argument about it creating a backlash that might lead to a reversal of 'liberal norms', for a few reasons.
a) the right will adapt and win enough young votes to believe that it's not a threat and may even be an opportunity.
b) in part because I don't think it will make a noticeable difference to outcomes this won't be a battle the right will prioritise, although I would caveat that by saying...
c) I think that the 'backlash' got well underway before Labour gave serious consideration to giving 16 years olds the vote.
By which I mean, the populist right (i.e. including the Conservative Party) are already drunk on the 'logic' of MAGA and are already well onboard with gerrymandering and attempting to tilt elections in their direction. You only have to look at the last government's attempts to make it harder for young people to vote (young persons bus passes are not acceptable ID while old persons bus passes are okay) to see that the right is more than happy to ride roughshod over the principle of free and fair elections. Perhaps votes at 16 might give further momentum to this drift, but if so, it'll be giving momentum to something that is already moving under its own steam. And - as with the voter ID requirements - if Labour are hoping it will help them, I think it may backfire. So I don't think giving 16 year olds votes will lead the right to behave any worse than it already is.
You make an interesting point about establishing the principle that voting should be linked to paying tax - and setting up the argument that those on benefits should lose the vote. Again, I don't think the right need any encouragement to go down this route, but there's a strong reason for them not to make this argument: if those on benefits would lose the vote, if that principle was extended to the retired, just imagine!
While I do think Labour are doing this because they think it will give them a tactical advantage, NOT because they are interested in 'fairer votes', I have two main reasons for continuing to be supportive of the idea.
One is because I start from the viewpoint that in a democracy the aim ought to be to extend the franchise as widely as possible / practical, that votes should count equally, and that the goal is for society to elect a government that is as broad-based, as effective and a representative as possible. I believe PR and devolved government are the two most important 'missing' pillars of this. (Transparency and legality are arguably even more important to a functioning democracy but despite some challenges we do mostly have those components.) Extending the vote to those who pay tax is, in my view, an important principle. And as the population ages, I think having the interests of the young slightly more represented will also be positive overall for the development of effective policy.
The second is more practical. A functioning and sustainable democracy needs voters, and it seems to be that participation by the young is low and doesn't increase as people age. I think votes at 16 will help get more young people into the habit of voting, a habit that if started is more likely to last a lifetime. Whoever young people end up casting their votes for, that seems like an investment in democracy to me. Schools already hold mock elections and teach kids the basics of democracy, so I do think that building on that education by allowing 16 year olds to actually cast votes will be of help in the long run.