On 1 May 1997, I sat in my science class, staring out of the window across the playground towards the polling station with its austere black and white signs. We were allowed out into the playground but not near the polling station – and we had to ‘be quiet for the people voting’. However, to my initial surprise,
I was allowed to go and tell other people who to vote for – and check that they had voted.
There are three strands to the argument that sixteen year-olds should be given the vote. They are: better governance, citizenship and democratic renewal, all themes that the government has championed. The debate has moved on from worthy demands of ‘no taxation without representation’ or pointing out that existing age limits are spurious.
Modern government is a central part of the work of the Cabinet Office. However, despite the plethora of policies affecting sixteen to eighteen year-olds, they are denied the vote – the first part of representation. Consultation through youth parliaments and other fora is terribly important but must be backed up by political representation. If this does not happen, it may further distance young people from the political process. Many politicians make strenuous efforts to stay in touch with young people, some admirably. However, the extra prod of their vote may help push younger people further up the agenda.
The existence of citizenship education in schools gives an opportunity for young people to discuss issues and politics away from the home, where the influence of parents in voting behaviour is sometimes feared. By lowering the voting age, citizenship education can be completed by the final ‘graduation’ when young people first cast their vote.
Creating a culture of habitual citizenship may be central to re-engaging with young people. ‘Catching them while they’re young’ is attractive for politicians and the idea of helpless school children being force-fed a lesson about the Labour Party even more so!
Falling participation in all elections has added vigour and importance to reducing the voting age. An increasing amount of evidence suggests that younger people are not ‘growing into’ mainstream political participation. Plenty has already been written about the attraction of young people to single issue campaigns and protest movements. The significance of this is that it appears that today’s May Day protestors will not be tomorrow’s voters. Social change means that deference and even respect for authority is no longer expected from young people. This, together with the marrying of rights and responsibilities, means that young people need to be empowered to take charge of their lives at a realistic age.
Arguments against lowering the voting age are usually weak. Some worry that young people do not have enough experience of adult life, a hollow argument from some Tory backbenchers. Others argue that sixteen year-olds are incapable of exercising mature and independent judgement. A similar argument was put against the suffragists who, incidentally, also suffered from irrationality caused by their menstrual cycle. I suppose that we should be thankful that young people are not blighted by idealism, commonsense and optimism; worrying traits for any electorate.
However, none of this is going to happen if young people don’t build up momentum behind a campaign. Middle-aged politicians bestowing the franchise on an electorate that doesn’t want it, or won’t use it, may just do more harm than good. The Labour Party must take the lead on this as it did in lowering the voting age to eighteen. It has a record on young people’s issues to be proud of, but it needs to complete the task.
