4 ms·

Britain is lowering the voting age to 16. It's getting a mixed reaction

12 points by hentrep 1y ago

lttlrck 1y ago
It will be interesting to see how electioneering adjusts to encompass this now important demographic that has massively different priorities than even 18 years olds. This seems like a good thing to me.
duxup 1y ago
My instinct is to think that 16 year olds generally don't have the maturity to make these kinds of decisions. At the same time I'm not sure their choices would be any less intelligent or mature compared to the current crop of voters.
- bell-cot 1y ago
  > ... their choices would be any less ... Particularly at the top end - where myriad medical issues make competent, informed voting virtually impossible for many.
  - silisili 1y ago
    Agreed. Feels like it would be rather wise to figure out a generally agreed upon upper and lower limit, and snip it on both ends. But we both know that every party will accuse the other of cheating, voter disenfranchisement, possibly even racism, based on how each age bloc votes. Seem's in the US at least, we're probably stuck with what we have.
    - bell-cot 1y ago
      True. But I'd love to see the reactions, if disenfranchising the elderly was proposed as a pro-natalist measure.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  Agreed on both points. Whatever is going wrong in society these days, lowered levels of voter maturity isn't the answer. That's not an old man's opinion, but a former 16-year-old's.
  - xnx 1y ago
    > lowered levels of voter maturity isn't the answer. In the US, I can see letting 16 year olds vote bring up the average level of "maturity". Older voters brains have been too cooked by watching decades of Fox News.
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      As a USian I can't say anything about the UK, but here, apathy seems to be at least a big a problem as immaturity. We re-elected a traitorous felon because people couldn't be bothered to vote for a candidate who didn't "inspire them." At some point we have to decide whether democracy is a means to an end -- a stable, peaceful, prosperous, just, and exemplary society -- or an end in itself. Lowering the voting age certainly serves the latter goal.
      - olddustytrail 1y ago
        This is for general elections in the UK overall. Scotland lowered the voting age to 16 for Scottish elections in 2016 (appropriately!) and Wales for Welsh elections in 2020. Both countries failed to fall apart from this measure :)
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        No they voted for him because he was and still is giving them exactly what they want. He is very much a reflection of a large part of America.
  - jkestner 1y ago
    It’s not like most 16yos will vote. Getting them engaged is a good thing. Who among them will? I’d guess the most engaged and the most based (for lack of a better word), so probably not much difference from the current electorate, except that youth skews left.
- testing22321 1y ago
  Given they will inherit the mess being created now, I think the only moral choice is to allow 16 year olds to vote so they have a say in the future and ban anyone over about 65 or 75 from voting. They’re retired, not paying taxes and will not live long enough to fully reap the results of their vote. Society is not theirs anymore.
  - mbrumlow 1y ago
    If you are going to use the inherit argumenT, then why not 14 or 9? I keep hearing that the human adult brain is still growing and changing until they are 24. It almost makes more sense to raise the age. Most 18 year olds have not held a job, ran a hose hold, had a kid, managed other people, lives on their own, bought a house, or even own a car. But yes for the sake of “the will inherit” we should allow people with a childlike understanding of the world to sway votes of emotion void of logic. There is a case of lowering the max age. As they could potentially sway votes for only ultra short term reasons.
    - giraffe_lady 1y ago
      > If you are going to use the inherit argumenT, then why not 14 or 9? It's a good question. It doesn't seem correct, but I can't find any argument for having it at 16 or 18 or 21 that doesn't also apply for having it at 14 or 9 either. But having it at 25 or 30 based on development smacks of disenfranchisement and eg jim crow literacy laws. It's not a question I think we can get a satisfying answer for through a scientific-medical model. An 18 year old is still developing, but is also still capable of making informed decisions. So to a lesser extent, is a 16 year old, and to an even lesser extent a 9 year old. And adults who for any reason are less intellectually sophisticated still have the right to vote, which again is a matter of societal values not medicine. Looking at cultures through history, the timing of transition from childhood to adulthood, the rituals that mark it, the responsibilities that accrue with it, that's really what we're talking about here. The age varies quite a bit across time and place (and different groups may have different reasons for placing it where they have settled on, as do we) but 14-20 probably catches the majority of when most people would consider this change to have taken place. And 16-18 may be pretty much the median? I don't want to assert it too strongly but probably anything within these ranges is "fine" with certain tradeoffs one way or another.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  But they can be trusted to be behind the wheel of a 2 ton car going 70+ mph? It’s just like an 18 year old can be drafted, legally carry a weapon, but not drink in the US (even though many do).
- dehrmann 1y ago
  Most of the electorate doesn't, and not like the worn partisan joke. Look at any mainstream candidate's website and how they talk about issues. They never go into the depth and complexity of a problem; they just make it a talking point. Any informed voter would read these high-level blurbs and think this candidate has no idea how things actually work. Yet they somehow win. Candidates dumb down policy discussion for voters because it wins elections.
- Eavolution 1y ago
  On the other hand take something like Brexit, that went into effect well after the referendum on it. There are a significant amount of people who would have opposed/supported it who were 18 when it went into effect but not when it was voted on.
  - squidbeak 1y ago
    The young were always going to be the big victims of Brexit, so excluding them from the referendum was disgusting.
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  > My instinct is to think that 16 year olds generally don't have the maturity to make these kinds of decisions. My instinct is that people who are 40+ and who are financially secure shouldn't be voting either, because they will likely vote for tax breaks for the rich, and other things that help make their unsustainable lifestyle even easier/lazier.
  - squidbeak 1y ago
    It's a fair use of their vote if those are the issues most important to them. You can't disenfranchise people because they oppose your interests, not in a democracy.
    - vouaobrasil 1y ago
      My only point was that they probably make as stupid decisions at 16 year olds, so if they are allowed, 16-year olds should be allowed to vote as well.
- drewcoo 1y ago
  > My instinct is to think that 16 year olds generally don't have the maturity to make these kinds of decisions. Well _my_ instinct is to think that anyone who disagrees with me is equally unable to decide, grampa.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    You don't need "instinct." We have peer-reviewed, highly-reproducible scientific studies on brain development.
    - michael1999 1y ago
      We also have similar for age-related decline. My dad is facing vascular dementia at 90. If the senile and the crazy can vote, why not 16-year-olds?
      - CamperBob2 1y ago
        "There's already a forest fire across the road, so nobody will care if I toss a cigarette out on this side" is the sort of idea I might have embraced myself... at 16.
        general1726 1y ago
        Let's be real. Limiting voting from certain age would spark even bigger outrage.
        michael1999 1y ago
        It is too hard to take the vote away from this entrenched voting block despite their decaying mental state. So we're going to make sure we only disenfranchise another group that has less power.
- michael1999 1y ago
  If the senile and the crazy can vote, why not 16-year-olds?
Fizzadar 1y ago
Thrilled Labour actually followed through on this. Especially as the population ages we need some balance to the hordes of retirees voting right so they can keep their oversized homes and ludicrous triple lock at the expense of young people. Now where’s the age cap?
userabchn 1y ago
As I have gotten older, I have come to believe that the current voting age is already too young. I thought I was right about things when I was 18, but with more experience I realise how naive I was.
fnordsensei 1y ago
On the one hand, it’s their future. On the other hand, a fully developed prefrontal cortex is handy in order to make it a good future. On the third hand, that’s still no guarantee against people voting against their own self-interest.
- dehrmann 1y ago
  I don't think this is a good idea, but it's fun to toy with the idea of weighting votes by life expectancy, maybe with intellectual maturity as a second factor. It's interesting that the vote of someone who has a handful of years left counts the same as someone who has to live with the consequences of the election.
ThrowawayTestr 1y ago
I think only people that pay taxes should be able to vote.
dbs 1y ago
You must be 18 in the UK for getting a tattoo, buying alcohol, watching porn, purchasing cigarettes, using a sunbed or being tried as an adult. Why would they lower the voting age to 16? There was some talk a few years ago in the country where I live to lower the voting age. That talk was mostly driven by the parties that would benefit the most from a younger electorate. It had nothing to do with “democracy”.
general1726 1y ago
If a senile granny with her demented husband can vote, why should be 16 years old barred from voting?
- deepfriedchokes 1y ago
  Perhaps we should have an upper and lower limit on participation, for both voting and public service.
  - general1726 1y ago
    That would be sensible proposition and I completely agree with that. But even mentioning that your brain is turning into a mush as you age is akin to heresy in today's gerontocracy.

12 points by hentrep 1y ago

It will be interesting to see how electioneering adjusts to encompass this now important demographic that has massively different priorities than even 18 years olds. This seems like a good thing to me.

duxup 1y ago

My instinct is to think that 16 year olds generally don't have the maturity to make these kinds of decisions. At the same time I'm not sure their choices would be any less intelligent or mature compared to the current crop of voters.

bell-cot 1y ago
> ... their choices would be any less ... Particularly at the top end - where myriad medical issues make competent, informed voting virtually impossible for many.
- silisili 1y ago
  Agreed. Feels like it would be rather wise to figure out a generally agreed upon upper and lower limit, and snip it on both ends. But we both know that every party will accuse the other of cheating, voter disenfranchisement, possibly even racism, based on how each age bloc votes. Seem's in the US at least, we're probably stuck with what we have.
  - bell-cot 1y ago
    True. But I'd love to see the reactions, if disenfranchising the elderly was proposed as a pro-natalist measure.
CamperBob2 1y ago
Agreed on both points. Whatever is going wrong in society these days, lowered levels of voter maturity isn't the answer. That's not an old man's opinion, but a former 16-year-old's.
- xnx 1y ago
  > lowered levels of voter maturity isn't the answer. In the US, I can see letting 16 year olds vote bring up the average level of "maturity". Older voters brains have been too cooked by watching decades of Fox News.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    As a USian I can't say anything about the UK, but here, apathy seems to be at least a big a problem as immaturity. We re-elected a traitorous felon because people couldn't be bothered to vote for a candidate who didn't "inspire them." At some point we have to decide whether democracy is a means to an end -- a stable, peaceful, prosperous, just, and exemplary society -- or an end in itself. Lowering the voting age certainly serves the latter goal.
    - olddustytrail 1y ago
      This is for general elections in the UK overall. Scotland lowered the voting age to 16 for Scottish elections in 2016 (appropriately!) and Wales for Welsh elections in 2020. Both countries failed to fall apart from this measure :)
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      No they voted for him because he was and still is giving them exactly what they want. He is very much a reflection of a large part of America.
- jkestner 1y ago
  It’s not like most 16yos will vote. Getting them engaged is a good thing. Who among them will? I’d guess the most engaged and the most based (for lack of a better word), so probably not much difference from the current electorate, except that youth skews left.
testing22321 1y ago
Given they will inherit the mess being created now, I think the only moral choice is to allow 16 year olds to vote so they have a say in the future and ban anyone over about 65 or 75 from voting. They’re retired, not paying taxes and will not live long enough to fully reap the results of their vote. Society is not theirs anymore.
- mbrumlow 1y ago
  If you are going to use the inherit argumenT, then why not 14 or 9? I keep hearing that the human adult brain is still growing and changing until they are 24. It almost makes more sense to raise the age. Most 18 year olds have not held a job, ran a hose hold, had a kid, managed other people, lives on their own, bought a house, or even own a car. But yes for the sake of “the will inherit” we should allow people with a childlike understanding of the world to sway votes of emotion void of logic. There is a case of lowering the max age. As they could potentially sway votes for only ultra short term reasons.
  - giraffe_lady 1y ago
    > If you are going to use the inherit argumenT, then why not 14 or 9? It's a good question. It doesn't seem correct, but I can't find any argument for having it at 16 or 18 or 21 that doesn't also apply for having it at 14 or 9 either. But having it at 25 or 30 based on development smacks of disenfranchisement and eg jim crow literacy laws. It's not a question I think we can get a satisfying answer for through a scientific-medical model. An 18 year old is still developing, but is also still capable of making informed decisions. So to a lesser extent, is a 16 year old, and to an even lesser extent a 9 year old. And adults who for any reason are less intellectually sophisticated still have the right to vote, which again is a matter of societal values not medicine. Looking at cultures through history, the timing of transition from childhood to adulthood, the rituals that mark it, the responsibilities that accrue with it, that's really what we're talking about here. The age varies quite a bit across time and place (and different groups may have different reasons for placing it where they have settled on, as do we) but 14-20 probably catches the majority of when most people would consider this change to have taken place. And 16-18 may be pretty much the median? I don't want to assert it too strongly but probably anything within these ranges is "fine" with certain tradeoffs one way or another.
scarface_74 1y ago
But they can be trusted to be behind the wheel of a 2 ton car going 70+ mph? It’s just like an 18 year old can be drafted, legally carry a weapon, but not drink in the US (even though many do).
dehrmann 1y ago
Most of the electorate doesn't, and not like the worn partisan joke. Look at any mainstream candidate's website and how they talk about issues. They never go into the depth and complexity of a problem; they just make it a talking point. Any informed voter would read these high-level blurbs and think this candidate has no idea how things actually work. Yet they somehow win. Candidates dumb down policy discussion for voters because it wins elections.
Eavolution 1y ago
On the other hand take something like Brexit, that went into effect well after the referendum on it. There are a significant amount of people who would have opposed/supported it who were 18 when it went into effect but not when it was voted on.
- squidbeak 1y ago
  The young were always going to be the big victims of Brexit, so excluding them from the referendum was disgusting.
vouaobrasil 1y ago
> My instinct is to think that 16 year olds generally don't have the maturity to make these kinds of decisions. My instinct is that people who are 40+ and who are financially secure shouldn't be voting either, because they will likely vote for tax breaks for the rich, and other things that help make their unsustainable lifestyle even easier/lazier.
- squidbeak 1y ago
  It's a fair use of their vote if those are the issues most important to them. You can't disenfranchise people because they oppose your interests, not in a democracy.
  - vouaobrasil 1y ago
    My only point was that they probably make as stupid decisions at 16 year olds, so if they are allowed, 16-year olds should be allowed to vote as well.
drewcoo 1y ago
> My instinct is to think that 16 year olds generally don't have the maturity to make these kinds of decisions. Well _my_ instinct is to think that anyone who disagrees with me is equally unable to decide, grampa.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  You don't need "instinct." We have peer-reviewed, highly-reproducible scientific studies on brain development.
  - michael1999 1y ago
    We also have similar for age-related decline. My dad is facing vascular dementia at 90. If the senile and the crazy can vote, why not 16-year-olds?
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      "There's already a forest fire across the road, so nobody will care if I toss a cigarette out on this side" is the sort of idea I might have embraced myself... at 16.
      - general1726 1y ago
        Let's be real. Limiting voting from certain age would spark even bigger outrage.
      - michael1999 1y ago
        It is too hard to take the vote away from this entrenched voting block despite their decaying mental state. So we're going to make sure we only disenfranchise another group that has less power.
michael1999 1y ago
If the senile and the crazy can vote, why not 16-year-olds?

Fizzadar 1y ago

Thrilled Labour actually followed through on this. Especially as the population ages we need some balance to the hordes of retirees voting right so they can keep their oversized homes and ludicrous triple lock at the expense of young people. Now where’s the age cap?

userabchn 1y ago

As I have gotten older, I have come to believe that the current voting age is already too young. I thought I was right about things when I was 18, but with more experience I realise how naive I was.

fnordsensei 1y ago

On the one hand, it’s their future. On the other hand, a fully developed prefrontal cortex is handy in order to make it a good future. On the third hand, that’s still no guarantee against people voting against their own self-interest.

dehrmann 1y ago
I don't think this is a good idea, but it's fun to toy with the idea of weighting votes by life expectancy, maybe with intellectual maturity as a second factor. It's interesting that the vote of someone who has a handful of years left counts the same as someone who has to live with the consequences of the election.

ThrowawayTestr 1y ago

I think only people that pay taxes should be able to vote.

dbs 1y ago

You must be 18 in the UK for getting a tattoo, buying alcohol, watching porn, purchasing cigarettes, using a sunbed or being tried as an adult. Why would they lower the voting age to 16? There was some talk a few years ago in the country where I live to lower the voting age. That talk was mostly driven by the parties that would benefit the most from a younger electorate. It had nothing to do with “democracy”.

general1726 1y ago

If a senile granny with her demented husband can vote, why should be 16 years old barred from voting?

deepfriedchokes 1y ago
Perhaps we should have an upper and lower limit on participation, for both voting and public service.
- general1726 1y ago
  That would be sensible proposition and I completely agree with that. But even mentioning that your brain is turning into a mush as you age is akin to heresy in today's gerontocracy.