by Mata Durkin
The history of
the suffrage of the electorate is long and eventful. Of course, the ones we
remember the most are the Suffragettes - the women who fought and even, in some
cases, gave their lives, in order for women to gain the vote in 1918 (but even
then, there were a few restrictions). But that is not all - in 1867, the right
to vote was extended to many manual workers, and in 1884, virtually all men -
householders and tenants - could vote. That was changed in 1918, when not only
did middle-class women over the age of 30 get the vote, but so did all men over
the age of 21. It was changed to an equal voting age for men and women, at 21,
in 1928, and finally in 1969 the age lowered from 21 to 18, which left us with
what it is now. The criteria that allows people to have the right to vote has
changed over the years, so maybe the next step is to lower it to allow 16 year
old a chance to let their voices be heard.
One of the main arguments for lowering the voting age to 16 is that 16 is the minimum ‘legal age’ for many things. 16 year olds can have sex with their MP, live with their MP, marry their MP (with their parents’ permission), but cannot choose that MP. At 16, teenagers can choose to leave or continue their education or even decide to join the army. However, despite all this, 16 year olds still do not have the right to vote. It isn’t a question of their being irresponsible, otherwise they would not have so many responses at the moment, so the extension of suffrage is the only logical conclusion.
British politics is currently facing a participation crisis. Less than two-thirds of the country voted in the last general election and the brand new Police and Crime Commissioner Elections had an incredibly low turnout with no ballots at all being cast at one polling station. This affects democracy as it undermines the government’s legitimacy. Legitimacy refers to the strength of the mandate given to the government by the people and corresponds to the size of the majority (or minority) as well as the turnout. Without a high turnout, the governing party is in office against the will of the majority of the population. The lower a government’s legitimacy, the more they and the policies they introduce can be questioned as to whether it is truly democratic. By allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote, the number of those who can vote will increase, as will the turnout.
The argument that 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, or lack the intelligence to make rational political decisions is outrageous. What makes an 18 year old any different from a 17 year old? If 16 and 17 year olds are ‘immature’, an 18 year old can’t be that much more mature. If education is a problem, then it should be something to fix, and not to be used as an argument against. Instead of not allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote on the grounds of ignorance and immaturity, politicians should be concentrating on creating an education system that educates young people politically. This will help them directly, as they will need to have this knowledge for later on in life.
In fact, lowering the age could also help create a better educated electorate. If the public are learning about politics at a younger age and getting directly involved younger, overall that will create a more politically educated electorate, which can only be a good thing. Currently, many would say that the electorate and the majority of the public know nothing or very little of politics, but getting involved younger may change that. This would also have the effect of removing or at least lessening the disillusion that is generally associated with politics, which would benefit society on a whole. If there is less disillusionment with politics, then overall, that can only be a good thing for democracy.
Many feel that youth interests are currently ignored and disregarded, so having 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote would allow politicians to take their view into account more. This way, the interests of young people will no longer be that topic that politicians have as a worry at the back of their mind, as they will have to include the views of young people in their policy making decisions.
16 year olds aren’t the trouble-making hooligans that match the stereotype, and they should not be denied the vote on the grounds of mere prejudice. Instead of making hypothetical accusations about what they would do with the vote, people should just accept that we are in fact more mature than they think, and are actually ready for this responsibility. Some changes to the education system to include more political education would help, but even so, I feel that the UK is ready for this change. It is natural for things to change, and this would be a change for the better.
One of the main arguments for lowering the voting age to 16 is that 16 is the minimum ‘legal age’ for many things. 16 year olds can have sex with their MP, live with their MP, marry their MP (with their parents’ permission), but cannot choose that MP. At 16, teenagers can choose to leave or continue their education or even decide to join the army. However, despite all this, 16 year olds still do not have the right to vote. It isn’t a question of their being irresponsible, otherwise they would not have so many responses at the moment, so the extension of suffrage is the only logical conclusion.
British politics is currently facing a participation crisis. Less than two-thirds of the country voted in the last general election and the brand new Police and Crime Commissioner Elections had an incredibly low turnout with no ballots at all being cast at one polling station. This affects democracy as it undermines the government’s legitimacy. Legitimacy refers to the strength of the mandate given to the government by the people and corresponds to the size of the majority (or minority) as well as the turnout. Without a high turnout, the governing party is in office against the will of the majority of the population. The lower a government’s legitimacy, the more they and the policies they introduce can be questioned as to whether it is truly democratic. By allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote, the number of those who can vote will increase, as will the turnout.
The argument that 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, or lack the intelligence to make rational political decisions is outrageous. What makes an 18 year old any different from a 17 year old? If 16 and 17 year olds are ‘immature’, an 18 year old can’t be that much more mature. If education is a problem, then it should be something to fix, and not to be used as an argument against. Instead of not allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote on the grounds of ignorance and immaturity, politicians should be concentrating on creating an education system that educates young people politically. This will help them directly, as they will need to have this knowledge for later on in life.
In fact, lowering the age could also help create a better educated electorate. If the public are learning about politics at a younger age and getting directly involved younger, overall that will create a more politically educated electorate, which can only be a good thing. Currently, many would say that the electorate and the majority of the public know nothing or very little of politics, but getting involved younger may change that. This would also have the effect of removing or at least lessening the disillusion that is generally associated with politics, which would benefit society on a whole. If there is less disillusionment with politics, then overall, that can only be a good thing for democracy.
Many feel that youth interests are currently ignored and disregarded, so having 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote would allow politicians to take their view into account more. This way, the interests of young people will no longer be that topic that politicians have as a worry at the back of their mind, as they will have to include the views of young people in their policy making decisions.
16 year olds aren’t the trouble-making hooligans that match the stereotype, and they should not be denied the vote on the grounds of mere prejudice. Instead of making hypothetical accusations about what they would do with the vote, people should just accept that we are in fact more mature than they think, and are actually ready for this responsibility. Some changes to the education system to include more political education would help, but even so, I feel that the UK is ready for this change. It is natural for things to change, and this would be a change for the better.
0 comments:
Post a Comment