20 ms·
Voting age to be lowered to 16 by next general election
- heeton 1y agoI don’t quite understand why reforming the actual system, and moving away from first-past-the-post, isn’t higher on everyone’s list. It feels like we don’t have a functioning democracy in the U.K., and that gets in the way of pretty much everything else.
- noja 1y agoI think the very idea that a single party would encompass a voter's entire set of beliefs is ridiculous and antiquated.
- bell-cot 1y agoThe current first-past-the-post system works quite well, for those who have the power to change the system. Vs. - in the last U.K. election, which party was the most vocal about that first-past-the-post system needing replacement? What % of the votes were cast for them?
- d1sxeyes 1y agoThis was relatively recently floated (2011) and thrown out to referendum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternat...), where it was watered down to Alternative Vote rather than full PR and eventually rejected. Obviously none of these 16 year olds would have been old enough to vote in the referendum (or indeed have been born when it took place). ~One thing to bear in mind is that FPTP limits the influence of “extreme” parties on elections (see UKIP’s vote share in 2015), but at the expense of requiring more mainstream parties to pander to those voters to avoid splitting the vote share. Jury is still out I think on what’s “best” here and probably depends on what “best” means to the person forming an opinion.~ Edit: turns out the above is at best contested, at worst disproven.
- roenxi 1y agoFPTP tends to be the system that most reliably favours extreme candidates [0] - everything else promotes candidates who are most in tune community norms. Candidates who don't align with any of the voters tend not to get in under any fundamentally democratic system - someone who is willing to do what they're promising but more in tune with the voters have an easy time against that sort of candidate. Although just from browsing the UKs AV proposal it does look like it'd be similar to IRV which has some wild results in certain tight races. Although I personally think that is fine; a little randomness is good for the system. [0] http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
- d1sxeyes 1y agoInteresting, I previously understood this as an established fact, but turns out there are some very convincing arguments that show that I am wrong on this. Thank you for the challenge and correction.
- pjc50 1y agoIt was a huge mess; basically the only people properly backing it were the Lib Dems, Labour were not out there in favor of it and in any case the media (overwhelmingly Tory) were against it. Just as with Brexit. The UK is basically not to be trusted with referendums. The weird thing is how many different election systems are in use in the UK depending on what the politics of each devolved assembly is "supposed to be".
- d1sxeyes 1y agoTell me about it. The whole thing was basically a bone thrown to Nick Clegg to entice the Lib Dems into the coalition. As far as I can tell, this neutered referendum was the only thing the Lib Dems got out of the coalition government, and even that wasn’t the PR referendum they pushed during the election campaign. I lived in his constituency at the time and I am ashamed to admit I voted for him. It’s a travesty to see what has happened since (not just the whole coalition thing, his work with Meta too).
- roenxi 1y agoThe article suggests that the people in charge of the system want children to be more involved in making political decisions. This signals a lot about what is happening in elite circles. If that is the nature of the atmosphere then I doubt many important people are going to put their head above the parapet and call for reforms in the direction of adults getting better political expression. The power holders don't think that is favourable to them.
- terminalshort 1y agoBecause the party in power feels like they can win > 50% of the 16-17 year old vote and therefore it is an advantage to them. They do not feel that moving away from FPP is an advantage to them. Functioning democracy is not their goal. Staying in power is.
- plantain 1y agoNonsense. Labour (largely) supported ditching first past the post in the referendum. The opposition/conservative party campaigned against it.
- robin_reala 1y agoEvery time Labour gets into power, FPTP reformation is mysteriously never considered.
- leereeves 1y agoLabour was out of power at the time, and Conservatives were in power, so that's not a counterexample.
- mytailorisrich 1y agoLabour has an overwhelming majority in Parliament right now despite a relatively poor share of the vote because of FPTP. As long as Reform UK splits the Tory vote FPTP will continue to be in Labour's interests. In fact, at the moment moving away from FPTP would mostly benefit Reform UK and the Lib Dems, possibly the Tories, too as this point.
- plantain 1y agoThey had a referendum on it in 2011 and decided to keep FPTP. You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
- aqme28 1y agoThat's a lot harder than changing a number by 2
- mytailorisrich 1y agoLowering the voting age is a purely tactical move by Labour because they think that it will favour them.
- poszlem 1y agoAbsolutely shameful reform, the only reason it's happening is because Labour holds a majority in that age bracket. This will backfire spectacularly once the younger generation flips to some kind of tik-tok popular right wing strongman.
- robin_reala 1y agoExplain why you think it’s shameful?
- poszlem 1y agoBecause this only happens because of the misguided belief that young people will always vote Labour. It's nothing more than age-based gerrymandering to manipulate voting outcomes.
- 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 1y agoIsn't it because if you're old enough to die for your country you're old enough to vote for the people putting you in jeopardy?
- bell-cot 1y agoIf reform could only be done when it was disadvantageous to the party in power, then how much reform would ever be done?
- nicoburns 1y ago> it's happening is because Labour holds a majority in that age bracket Probably true. But IMO it's a good thing regardless. The impact of this is fundamentally pro-democracy above anything else.
- leereeves 1y agoThis seems relevant: "It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet." "The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so." "In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part." https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=understanding-the-teen-brain-1-3051 https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=unders...
- robin_reala 1y agoSo… block people below 25 from anything that requires good judgement like choice of intoxicants, driving, operating heavy machinery, joining the military, having children, getting married? Or accept that growing up is part of life, and that there are short term consequences of political choice too that groups of people are currently denied?
- shakna 1y agoSince when have the ramifications of political choice ever been "short term"? Liz Truss was only PM for 49 days. How much impact on the economy did she have?
- robin_reala 1y ago“The U.K.’s stock and bond markets have shed at least $500 billion in value since Liz Truss was formally appointed to succeed Boris Johnson as prime minister on Sept. 5.” https://fortune.com/europe/2022/09/27/uk-stock-bond-markets-lost-500-billion-liz-truss-tenure/ https://fortune.com/europe/2022/09/27/uk-stock-bond-markets-... The article was published 22 days into her tenue.
- shakna 1y ago
- beck5 1y agoSo 16 year olds are wise enough to vote, but not fully leave education, buy alcohol, drive a car, join the army and get married without your parents consent, the lists goes on.
- burgerone 1y agoSocial media will have a greater effect on votes than ever before
- Urahandystar 1y agoI think were past that point with boomers, If anything this generation will be much more wise to the tricks than any that came before it.
- giantg2 1y agoWe can hope, but tif we look at hospitalizations for social media challenges, the demographics don't support your theory.
- panarchy 1y agoDoes that include people that fell into anti-vax nonsense and got hospitalized?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- giantg2 1y agoIf you have numbers that measure that, it probably will. The closest thing we have is vaccination rates by age group, which shows a lower percentage of younger age groups being vaccinated for covid.
- robin_reala 1y agoThere’s no one list. For all the things you mentioned, they are allowed to drive tractors or quads, get married with your parents’ consent, have kids, etc.
- techterrier 1y agowhile it seems a bit daft to me, in practical terms i dont think many of these kids are going to turn out
- hagbard_c 1y agoThey can be made to turn out easily as children around that age - yes, children, teenage children but still children - are highly susceptible to group pressure. I do wonder whether the Labour leaders who thought this would help them win the next election have had a look at the results of many of those school polls which do not paint a rosy picture for old stodgy parties like Labour. It is far more likely for someone like Farage to benefit from 16yo boys being able to vote and whatever radical leftie - no name comes to mind which is a problem for the political left in the UK - to gain votes from 16yo girls.
- ggm 1y agoI think this is necessary but I also think it's not sufficient: FPTP has to go, it's a cancer on British elections and maintained by leftists who believe in the potential for an enduring super majority which cannot be demonstrated to exist: the socialist democracies of Europe with complex coalitions may appear weak but have enduring qualities a British house of commons cannot demonstrate. That, and finishing reform of the lords. And separating the English parliament from a federal parliament over the separate nations in the federation.
- _rpxpx 1y agoGood. Given Keir Starmer's abysmal behaviour, this is about the only chance there is of keeping a Tory/Reform coalition out at the next election. I would like to see voting age capped also, at 70. Increasingly senile and racist pensioners in comfortable homes are dominating British politics with horrific consequences.
- hagbard_c 1y agoEhhh so Starmer being a doddering idiot should be countered with keeping those who want to topple him from doing so? That does not make sense, does it? Whither democracy when those who 'vote wrong' can simply be labelled 'senile and racist' or similar and kept from casting their vote?
- leke 1y agoThis is going to push the legalize cannabis movement forward by 2 years.
- _Algernon_ 1y agoOne argument for lowering voting age is given by selectorate theory. Basically it argues that higher coalition size (the number of people that participate in decision making) is what causes democracy to benefit the masses. Because parties compete for votes, they are forced to distribute societal goods back to a large portion of the population instead of only distributing it to their cronies. Arguably the quality of voting in terms decision making is secondary, if it matters at all. By this theory, lowering voting age is a boon to democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory
- like_any_other 1y ago> Arguably the quality of voting in terms decision making is secondary, if it matters at all. It doesn't matter who we vote for, as long as we vote? What a bad joke. By this theory, all foreign interference, propaganda, education, control of the news, etc.. are completely irrelevant, nothing we should be concerned about at all. Just vote and it'll be fine!
- _Algernon_ 1y ago>It doesn't matter who we vote for, as long as we vote? More that voting egotistically (in contrast to trying to predict what is best for society as a whole) is sufficient to create the incentives that benefit the many, as long as the number of voters makes up a high enough share of the population.
- giantg2 1y agoAdding 2 additional years of people won't make enough of a difference for that theory. The truth is, one party is pushing for this because they stand to benefit from it because it will slightly bump up their support numbers.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- netbioserror 1y agoHorrific idea. Those paying into the system should have the strongest stake, not those with elementary ideas and no stake at all (or worse, those dependent upon the system's rewards).
- optimalsolver 1y agoSo just men of property, right? Preferably also only direct descendants of Magna Carta signatories.
- Ekaros 1y agoNet tax payers in past parliament. Receive private pension or public health care or use some public service. Well you are out of voter pool. Corporate handouts should also be counted. Own stock in company that gets some public funds and that is counted against you.
- _heimdall 1y agoWhat do you mean by "strongest stake" here? Those paying the most already are more invested in the outcomes of the country, do you mean their vote should count for more or less based on how much they pay in taxes?
- sethammons 1y agoI'd be interested in a system where you can gain additional voting power based on $stake. Everyone gets a vote, but based on $criteria, you gain additional votes. Youth and parents get an extra vote on school stuff. Those whose education or career are related to a field get an extra vote. In some cases, you may hold 5x the voting power of someone who is removed and unfamiliar with a topic. No idea if anything like that has been explored.
- _heimdall 1y agoI'd hate to see that system implemented. The point of every person getting one vote is to even the playing field. Everyone living under that authority's rule should have an equal say in who runs that authority. Allowing people to have more or less say based on stake would lead to a spiral. Those in charge take care of the people they care about, those people would continue to elect the same politicians, and everyone else would be left aside while power (and stake) consolidates.
- like_any_other 1y agoThe article doesn't feature even a single opinion opposed to lowering the voting age. Interesting. I guess the British public unanimously supports this change?
- leereeves 1y agoThe article does include at least one opinion opposed to lowering the voting age: > However, Conservative shadow minister Paul Holmes said the government's position was "hopelessly confused". > "Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" he asked in the Commons.
- like_any_other 1y agoLooks like the article was just updated - that part was missing from the version I got, which archive luckily caught: https://web.archive.org/web/20250717102421/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c628ep4j5kno https://web.archive.org/web/20250717102421/https://www.bbc.c...
- giantg2 1y agoWhy would you need to add bank cards when you cana already request a voter certified ID?
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- like_any_other 1y agoLowering it to 16 is a good start, but really it should be lowered to 0. Otherwise, how will those aged 0-15, "without a voice", prevent the older voters from confiscating all their possessions, sending them to work in the mines, and harvesting their organs once they're used up? Honestly I'm surprised this hasn't happened already, given how they "have no voice"..
- nerdjon 1y agoWe can try to argue all day along about whether or not someone 16 actually knows enough about what is going on to vote. But that completely falls apart when you can talk to many adults and they don't know either (see reactions to US election). I think this also makes sense, I know when I was younger I was extremely frustrated to see adults making really bad decisions for my country that will have a much longer impact on my life than it will on theirs. I think a minimum age makes sense, I don't think someone in elementary has any point in voting since most likely they would just do what their parents told them. But by 16 you are generally making your own decisions, your figuring out your adult plans, and not following everything your parents say.
- like_any_other 1y ago> But that completely falls apart when you can talk to many adults and they don't know either What all these "well adults are dumb too!" arguments ignore is that, those adults were even dumber when they were 2 (or 5, compared to the original voting age of 21) years younger.
- nerdjon 1y agoWere they though? At least when you are forced to be in school you are in an environment to likely absorb... something. We regularly kept up with current events in school. I know many adults that have basically zero idea what is going on in the world. Also I should note that I did not claim anything about intelligence, but just an awareness of what is going on and the impact of it. I would possibly even argue that a 16 year old being in school likely has a fresher recollection of history than many adults. I mean how many adults remember all of the math they learned compared to 16 year olds.
- msgodel 1y agoAh ... something. Where would we be without something?
- RandomThoughts3 1y ago[dead]
- panarchy 1y agoI don't get why letting a few thousand extra people participate in politics gets people so worked up. I think it's good to get people involved in politics while they're still learning about it. You can tell them the importance of democratic participation and also let them actually engage in it instead of it falling to the back of their mind and being forgotten years later when they can actually vote. Also I was more politically aware at 16 than most adult I know now.
- leereeves 1y agoA few thousand? I would think 16 & 17 year olds in the UK would be a couple million people.
- panarchy 1y agohttps://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/the-age-divide-in-uk-politics/attachments/the-age-divide-in-uk-politics.pdf https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/the-age-divide-in-uk-pol... This being the first thing I found says the closest age bracket 18-34 turnout was 53.6% https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/UK_Population_Pyramid.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/UK_Popul... 16-17 for each gender looks to be a little under 400K for each So (4)(400,000)(0.536) = 857,600 So thousands. Either way it's not like they're all going to vote one way and it's not like they can seize the government with their own special interest party that only caters to 16-17 year old even if they all managed to vote one way. So really as far as results it will mostly be a wash, but has the benefit of potentially creating some more engaged and politically active citizens which is a win for democracy.
- amriksohata 1y agoPeople say that if 16 year olds can work, pay tax, and join the army, they should be allowed to vote, but that argument doesn’t really hold up. First off, the UK has one of the most generous tax free allowances in the world, you don’t pay tax on anything under £12,570. Most 16 year olds working part time or on low wages aren’t paying any tax at all, so the whole “no taxation without representation” thing doesn’t really apply here. And let’s be honest, most 16 year olds aren’t working anyway. They’re still in school or college, not out earning or dealing with adult responsibilities. Some people say teens are too immature to vote. Personally, I think it’s more about naivety. At 16, you’re still figuring out who you are, let alone understanding politics or economics. If someone like KSI ran for office, half of them would probably vote him in as Chancellor just for the memes. You learn a lot of tough lessons on the way to adulthood. At 16, you’ve got zero life experience, no bills, no mortgage, no kids, and probably no full time job. So when it comes to voting, they’re more likely to be swayed by TikTok trends or what their mates think, rather than actual policies or ideology. And let’s be real, Labour knows this. Just look at the voting intention by age https://www.statista.com/statistics/1379439/uk-election-polls-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1379439/uk-election-poll... However it will back fire because many that age will split the vote to Greens, Lib Dems and maybe even Corbynites. Next question that courts might ask in cases are, if a 16 year old criminal gets away with more as they are counted as a juvenile, but is considered old enough to choose the lawmakers, does the same adult laws now apply to them? If they are not perceived as mature enough to be considered as an adult criminal, then why is it different for voting?
- freetinker 1y agoMore gullible fodder to influence via handheld screens.