You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Interesting Long Read in the Guardian today.
Should we give the vote to children as young as six years old? Would it make politics more inclusive and less divisive?
The arguments against allowing children to vote always start with the basic question of competence. But what that means is that we are applying standards to children that we have given up applying to anyone else. It is true, of course, that many children would struggle to understand complex political questions, especially younger children. It is hard to envisage a group of six-year-olds getting to grips with fiscal policy. But many adults also struggle with complex political questions, and all of us have big gaps in our political understanding.
We don't set any minimum threshold for competence when voting for anyone so why exclude the young? We don't disenfranchise the elderly even when mental competence may start to wane.
Would it make the political process better or worse if politicians had to engage with everyone down to primary school age?
Its an intriguing idea. I quite like it.
It wouldn't guarantee an improvement to our politics but it certainly wouldn't make them any worse.
I get the argument but wouldn't most children do as they were told - after being thoroughly indoctrinated (many for life) by their parents? Better to wait until they are old enough to make up their minds for themselves?
Shouldn't the argument be the other way around?
But many adults also struggle with complex political questions, and all of us have big gaps in our political understanding.
Work out how to improve political understanding then, not dumb it down even further.
Imagine the Party Political Broadcasts on CBeebies, though!
Mr Tumble for Home Secretary.
It is hard to envisage a group of six-year-olds getting to grips with fiscal policy.
I know, at least allow them to get through prep school.
Maybe not 6, but I do think lowering the age to 16 might be a start. Now, thinking back to when I was 16 I wouldn't consider that a grand idea given my allegiance to the 'radical'(in my head anyway) communist end of the spectrum, however, I feel today's younger generations are far better informed - or at least have the tools necessary to be able to be better informed and equipped - than I was. And lets be blunt - they can't bugger it up anymore than we manage to do year in year out - its their planet they are inheriting after all.
I'm not necessarily against it. But on the point of "We don’t set any minimum threshold for competence when voting for anyone so why exclude the young?"
The barrier for entry is do you care enough to go to the polling station or have the forethought to organise a postal ballot.
Do it at polling stations and in a large number of cases you will just be doubling their parents vote, and whilst ignoring those who have disengaged parents.
Do it at schools? I can't see a way that this doesnt end up with people being effectively forced to vote.
Until there is a "none of you" option on the ballot card I cannot agree with mandatory voting.
No.
Politics is dumbed down to twitter posts and two syllable sound bites as it is.
Voting should be something only those who can think properly and rationally are able to do.
We have idiots in power because idiots voted them in.
I reckon we should also cap the age of voting...once at pensionable age they don't get to vote.
I get the argument but wouldn’t most women do as they were told – after being thoroughly indoctrinated (many for life) by their husbands?
FTFY 😉
I reckon we should also cap the age of voting…once at pensionable age they don’t get to vote.
I would cap it at 50. Goodbye tory party.
I think we should increase it to 30. 18 year olds know NOTHING! they have no life experience outside of the education system.
I think we should increase it to 30
Yeah, wait until they have the SLC knocking at their door and have been utterly disenfranchised, that's a great solution.
Why set it at an arbitrary age? Why not make voters sit a test ie on current affairs, geopolitics, economics, problem solving and statistics. Should you pass, you get to vote.
Alternatively just put me in charge of running the country and extrajudicial justice - the rest of you miserable lot can vote for celebrity dance off instead.
Work out how to improve political understanding then, not dumb it down even further.
+1.
Children should have agency and authenticity in their learning and life.
They are not however to be held responsible for the world we are creating.
Work out how to improve political understanding then, not dumb it down even further.
^ that.
No one read the article did they?
They are not however to be held responsible for the world we are creating.
But shouldn’t children be protected for as long as possible from having to deal with the harsh realities of the adult world? Shouldn’t we preserve them from grownup responsibilities? These are also familiar arguments, and ones that were made against giving votes to women: why burden anyone with unnecessary responsibilities when the hard work of taking difficult decisions can be left to others? Simone de Beauvoir had a clear response to this line of thought in The Second Sex: it’s always the people with power who say they want to protect others from exercising it. Men say it. Women don’t. Colonisers say it. The colonised don’t. Adults say it. Children don’t. People without a say don’t want to be protected from the burden of having a say. They want to experience it. And once experienced, they don’t want to give it up.
No one read the article did they?
Why would I do that? No fun.
Makes sense that the future should be steered by those who have most of it in front of them. You're legally allowed to have sex at 16, it seems somewhat perverse that you're trusted to start reproducing but have to wait another year or two before you're allowed to put a cross on a bit of paper.
I get the argument but wouldn’t most children do as they were told – after being thoroughly indoctrinated (many for life) by their parents? Better to wait until they are old enough to make up their minds for themselves?
That was my first thought. Consider, at what age do kids stop following their parents' religions? How common is it? Do we get many Muslim offspring of Christian families or vice versa?
Now, at what age do kids stop following their parents' politics? How common is it? Do we get many Tory offspring of Labour families or vice versa?
Is "free will" all that free, or are we still just blindly doing what we were brought up to do, what we've always done? People are creatures of habit. How many minds have changed between the milk and honey of 2016 and the "hey, anyone remember fruit?" of 2021? A few have but not many.
In which case... what, voting is bollocks and the system is inherently broken?
Voting should be something only those who can think properly and rationally are able to do.
A more effective approach might be to have some sort of pre-vote questionnaire so that we can ensure that national decisions aren't being made by people with pig slurry for brains, but that would be something of an affront to "one person, one vote" democracy. Hey, maybe have people sit the Nationality Test. (-:
And, who watches the watchers?
As ever, The West Wing is my go to in these situations:
No one read the article did they?
Even skimming through it took a long time. It's a very long waffly piece full of nothing. (eg I don't care if the writer and son listen to the same or different music - that has nothing to do with voting....)
The first party to suggestowering the voting age from 21 to 18 was the Monster Raving Loony Party (also the first to suggest passports for pets)
The voting age was lowered to 18 before the Monster Raving Loony Party came into existence.
Maybe not 6, but I do think lowering the age to 16 might be a start.
Suffrage has been extended to 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland for a while. Its widely accepted to have been a positive move.
For a professor of politics at Cambridge the article was full of unsupported assertions. He kept bringing up arguments against the idea & then just dismissing them...because. Is he also proposing the age of criminal responsibilty be reduced to 6? How about driving licences? Longwinded clickbait from the Guardian.
How about driving licences?
Well I would say that the average 12 year old has significantly faster reactions than the average 52 year old, so I can't see a problem with allowing 12 year olds to drive.
Unless a sense of responsibility and maturity is considered necessary.
Suffrage has been extended in Scotland on matters of devolved competence e.g Scottish Parliament and local authority elections. Younger people tend not to vote for the party in power (yes I know I should cite that) so the matter of course is unlikely to gain traction more widely.
It is an interesting idea which I hope will prompt further conversation - Greta Thunberg and her blah blah blah sums it up very well.
Also - appealing as the idea is of some kind of intelligence test for voters - I would oppose that with every breath I have, see anything ever written about voter suppression in the USA.
I get the argument but wouldn’t most children do as they were told – after being thoroughly indoctrinated (many for life) by their parents?
Its actually more effective to influence parents via their children than to influence children via their parents.
If children genuinely can be co-oreced by their parents then the worst that can happen is children's votes have no effect.
Also – appealing as the idea is of some kind of intelligence test for voters – I would oppose that with every breath I have, see anything ever written about voter suppression in the USA.
Sure. It's logically sensible and would almost certainly result in a better system. However, it's morally bankrupt.
If children genuinely can be co-oreced by their parents then the worst that can happen is children’s votes have no effect.
Not really, you've just discriminated against the childless / weighted in favour large families.
Consider, at what age do kids stop following their parents’ religions? How common is it? Do we get many Muslim offspring of Christian families or vice versa?
Switching between Abrahamic religions is probably quite rare (notable exception in the current news though)
Switching between an ethnically determined Abrahamic religion and atheism and vice versa, I'd probably say mid to late teens.
Sure. It’s logically sensible and would almost certainly result in a better system. However, it’s morally bankrupt.
depends who writes the questions.
Does suitable knowledge of current affairs mean you can name at least 3 of the following:
The home secretary, this years love island winner, the premier league champions and the CEO of tesla.
Or is it going to be a test that well educated white middle aged men will have a significant advantage at?
Shouldn’t the argument be the other way around?
But many adults also struggle with complex political questions, and all of us have big gaps in our political understanding.
Work out how to improve political understanding then, not dumb it down even further.
Its not actually that difficult - we don't need a political understanding. No matter how informed and nuanced your understanding of politics and economics and your grasp of current affairs the only thing you are doing every 4 - 5 years is putting one tick in a box next to a short list of options. So really your vote, no matter how informed, really only reflects a very vaguely stated approval of one set of values over another. That can really be summarised as 'I am voting broadly for my own self interest' or 'I am voting fo broadly for the interest and well being of others'. In choosing one of those options you know full well which party you would vote for even if you've been living in a cave for the last ten years. Knowing more than how you feel about those two sentiments is pretty much pointless, your vote doesn't get counted twice just because you've done your homework.
If children genuinely can be co-oreced by their parents then the worst that can happen is children’s votes have no effect.
Not really, you’ve just discriminated against the childless / weighted in favour large families.
Only if statistically 'parents' have a particular political allegiance. But presuming that breeders have the same spectrum of political views and appetites as everyone else everyone's children voting in the same way as their parents has not effect
Extending to 16 is right in my eyes. As above all scottish elections are now 16. All ages for stuff should be 16 IMO - apart from perhaps driving? But buying booze, getting married without your parents permission, voting, leaving school, full adult pay.............
You’re legally allowed to have sex at 16
I think its more pertinent when voting for a government that spends public money is that you can be paying tax and national insurance at 16.
Just working on my manifesto, Christmas three times a year, two day school week, free chocolate and sweets, come to think of it probably garner a few votes off here.
I get the argument but wouldn’t most children do as they were told
You don't have children, do you?
I think this is a great idea! Surely at this point anything would be better. Can you give the vote to only children?
It wouldn’t guarantee an improvement to our politics but it certainly wouldn’t make them any worse.
Everyone loves an optimist. I can think of many ways it would make it worse, not by the kids but by adults seeking to influence
All ages for stuff should be 16 IMO – apart from perhaps driving? But buying booze, getting married without your parents permission, voting, leaving school, full adult pay………….
Getting deployed on operations by HM armed forces?
Police officer?
Etc etc
People probably underestimate teens all the time. In every day, and in every way. And they overestimate “adults”.
Police officer?
I am fairly sure I've seen 16 year old coppers.
Edit : Visited a friend in a critical care unit last week and the doctor who came to explain their care plan couldn't have been much more than 16. Really nice kid.
All ages for stuff should be 16 IMO – apart from perhaps driving? But buying booze, getting married without your parents permission, voting, leaving school, full adult pay………….
cigarettes? fireworks? gambling (I presume there was a reason we just put the lottery up to 18)? buying solvents? sit on a jury? get a tattoo? borrow money?
Its not actually that difficult – we don’t need a political understanding. No matter how informed and nuanced your understanding of politics and economics and your grasp of current affairs the only thing you are doing every 4 – 5 years is putting one tick in a box next to a short list of options. So really your vote, no matter how informed, really only reflects a very vaguely stated approval of one set of values over another. That can really be summarised as ‘I am voting broadly for my own self interest’ or ‘I am voting fo broadly for the interest and well being of others’. In choosing one of those options you know full well which party you would vote for even if you’ve been living in a cave for the last ten years. Knowing more than how you feel about those two sentiments is pretty much pointless, your vote doesn’t get counted twice just because you’ve done your homework.
Thanks for distilling down my voting decisions to those two simple options. Now, tell me which name to put my cross beside because neither of those options are on my ballot paper. I'll typically have at least 5 candidates:
Labour Party
Liberal Democrats
Conservative and Unionist Party
Scottish National Party
Green Party
I'm not only genuinely unsure (despite having been voting for over 20 years and interested in politics for all of that) which of those party's best serve my selfish self interest if I am so inclined and which best serve the well being of others. You see I think they would all claim to do the latter - whether that be through economic prosperity, tax and spend, long term climate policies or moving political decisions closer to those most affected.
Allow them to vote for certain things biut not everything. Otherwise they'll just vote for whichever party appears as the funiest clown. Oh wait...
I am fairly sure I’ve seen 16 year old coppers.
I'm afraid it's not a sign of your youth when you start thinking that.....
Only if statistically ‘parents’ have a particular political allegiance. But presuming that breeders have the same spectrum of political views and appetites as everyone else everyone’s children voting in the same way as their parents has not effect
Eh? Am I fundamentally misunderstanding you here?
A couple has a child, let's say they're a Labour family. That's three votes. The nice Conservative family next door have six children, that's eight votes. Eight is bigger than three, is it not? How is that having no effect?
As someone posted above. You either vote For your own interests or those of others. Of course the hint was that the former was Conservative and the latter Labour but realistically the former is both as what people mean when considering the views of others is my "my opinion is the most importnat and stuff any one who doesn't fit my ill concieved prejudice".
Now then, dial back the socialsism and think. Is universal sufferage such a great idea? Most of the people here can't say yes as it has produced the governement we have. I assume that by approving universal sufferage you approve what ever we end up with. You have to! Or do you only approve of it under your terms? "Everyone gets a vote but only if it gives me what I want".
A far better way would be muliple votes.
Go and read Nevil Shutes In the Wet.One vote for everyone but more for contributions to society. That way those who contribute most get more say.
As for votes for kids. Nope. They have no experience to base their votes on. It only has to be seen with the unrealistci idealology of youngsters anyway. Twas the same 100 years ago. Theory is pointless if you haven't seen it work . Good ideas have no value. Experience does.
I assume that by approving universal sufferage you approve what ever we end up with. You have to!
You have to accept that the government has been chosen, but you don’t have to “approve” of the choice that has been made. They get to run the country, they don’t get blind agreement that everything they do is for the best from all voters (never mind people without a vote).
Good ideas have no value. Experience does.
You are measuring experience as time lived then? Malala Yousafzai has twice as much to contribute in terms of her lived experience than me, despite being half my age. And ideas DO matter, otherwise we wouldn’t have to vote… we could just leave it to the civil service to run the country and keep politicians out of the way.
Nope. How can a 16yo vote on any type of fiscal policy? Adults don't understand taxes and a lot of them supposedly pay them. Kids have no idea.
I had a 17yo proudly claim to have not shaken Nicola sturgeon's hand because NS doesn't want a "free" Scotland.
Educating them to have informed opinions is a great idea but when would you squeeze the rest of the learning in?
Hmmm, giving kids the vote just seems like a plan to ruin their childhoods a bit more.
How can a 16yo vote on any type of fiscal policy?
Are you arbitrarily deciding that any particular 16 year old has less of an understanding of finance and economics than any individual 60 year old? Because that simply is not alway true, is it.
Be interesting to test it though wouldn't it. Have a mock vote containing a large group of 6 - 18 year olds and see what the vote looks like.
They could be provided with the high level intentions of each party based on their policies and their voting.
When laid out like that rather than through any built up biases, selfishness etc. that occur as people age I would be amazed if the Tory party got the most votes.
Work out how to improve political understanding then, not dumb it down even further.
Sure, but in the meantime, who should be allowed to vote? That seems the relevant question since there’s an election due in a couple of years and addressing your issue is a fairytale. You don’t just mean to persist with the same system indefinitely, surely?
For me there should be one age where you become legally an adult and that should be 16 IMO
I have no problem with people gaining the right to vote at an age when there are still other limits, protections and rights applied to them. Harmonisation of age limits isn’t necessary. For one boring example… you have to be 18 to drive an HGV, and there are still limitations until you’re 21… which was much to the annoyance of my younger brother. Happy for voting age to be dropped to 16 without everything else automatically being set at 16. Whether that be the age you can appear in pornography or drive an HGV. Disenfranchising young people because we have laws to protect them (or others) from possible immediate harm doesn’t seem on for me. I’d rather “young people” were allowed to vote before they are treated as an adult in all legal ways. Why shouldn’t they be? A new arbitrary starting age for voting set at 16 for all UK elections doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, and doesn’t need all other legal limits to be examined first, we should just get on and do it ASAP.
Be interesting to test it though wouldn’t it. Have a mock vote containing a large group of 6 – 18 year olds and see what the vote looks like.
They could be provided with the high level intentions of each party based on their policies and their voting.
When laid out like that rather than through any built up biases, selfishness etc. that occur as people age I would be amazed if the Tory party got the most votes.
It would be absolutely staggering - given they don’t get most votes when the adult population do it either!
TJ - as you know Scotland already treats 16 yr olds like that for most purposes, but do you agree there are some things where an older age might be applicable?
Nope. How can a 16yo vote on any type of fiscal policy? Adults don’t understand taxes and a lot of them supposedly pay them. Kids have no idea.
So because adults vote on things they don't understand we should stop kids doing the same?
I had a 17yo proudly claim to have not shaken Nicola sturgeon’s hand because NS doesn’t want a “free” Scotland.
I've heard lots of working class adults proudly claim to vote for Boris Johnson because he'll look after them.
Nope. How can a 16yo vote on any type of fiscal policy?
as a general rule I don’t think many of the electorate have a proper understanding of fiscal policy - all you are asking is which people do you want to represent you when setting that policy.
I had a 17yo proudly claim to have not shaken Nicola sturgeon’s hand because NS doesn’t want a “free” Scotland.
I can probably find you hundreds of thousands of over 18s who would smugly proclaim not to have shaken Nicolas hand (given the opportunity) for some bullshit reason. Obviously if one 17 yr old has strong opinions and their own interpretation of when Nicola does or doesn’t want that’s the point of democracy. If you don’t like their viewpoint the obvious thing to do is disenfranchise all 17 yr olds as clearly they can’t be trusted.
Educating them to have informed opinions is a great idea but when would you squeeze the rest of the learning in?
From my experience I’d say most 16 yr old Scots are already better informed on politics than many of their elders. I’d go as far as to say that if people are uneasy about them voting it’s because they are worried these voters don’t vote the way they want. And there’s no doubt that teenagers are idealistic, but its not like they are all blinkered either. Indeed I could probably say the same about any demographic.
As someone posted above. You either vote For your own interests or those of others. Of course the hint was that the former was Conservative and the latter Labour but realistically the former is both as what people mean when considering the views of others is my “my opinion is the most importnat and stuff any one who doesn’t fit my ill concieved prejudice”.
I think you need to go and have a discussion with any A level student. They’ll bring you up to speed that we are no longer in an era of the Whigs and the Tories. Scotland has its own dominant party, but England had UKIP/Brexit parties and then the nuance of the FPTP system means that voting may need to be more tactical - a typical Labour voter in Scotland who really doesn’t want a Conservative gov might have to silence their unionist view and vote SNP whilst a hard core Nationalist who wants freedom from everyone including Europe might have to vote conservative to try and keep a Europhile SNP in check! To distill it down to “selfish” v’s “national interest” is nonsense.
Clearly the implication is that the tories are the selfish party voting and that if I were a £100k a year financial industry person I should vote for them if I want to protect my interest but vote Labour if I believe in the bigger interest. However if I’m a single mum on a zero hours contract then stereotypically labour will have my best interests in hand so my selfish vote might be for them - but if I want to grow the economy so my children have the best chances and my aspirational children and those like them might go on to become very comfortable there’s an argument that the Tory party represents the that wider interest better.
So because adults vote on things they don’t understand we should stop kids doing the same?
This, basically. We routinely ask adults, via local, regional and national elections and referenda, for their opinion, knowing that the vast, vast majority of them do not have the knowledge, direct experience or, dare I say, intelligence to make any kind of informed decision.
Yet we ask them anyway, generally by boiling down incredibly complicated legal, politic and fiscal issues into stupid soundbites that cannot hope to explain the nuance required, and just go with what the majority(*) want
It's democracy that's mental, the voting age is just arbitrary.
* I know, I know...
Just working on my manifesto, Christmas three times a year, two day school week, free chocolate and sweets, come to think of it probably garner a few votes off here.
Make changes to enable more time off and improve the work life balance for many people, and UBI to cover necessities so no one has to live below the poverty line. Seems sensible to me.
Exactly, proves the point on why people who are much more open minded should be allowed to vote to tip the balance away from the narrow minded current voting population.
It’s democracy that’s mental
You're conflating a representative democratic voting system (where we largely ignorantly vote for people who at least in theory are supposed to know what they're doing) with an opinion poll (where we largely ignorantly vote on policy and then scream "the will of the people"). The referendum wasn't democracy, it was an affront to democracy. If this weren't the case, why would we need a government at all?
I don't know what the answer is. It's all a hot mess. Surely people making country-wide decisions should be experts in the field? Cabinet reshuffles have always baffled me, you take the Minister for Agriculture and make them the Minister for Education. Why? Which of those subjects do they know more about?*
It is right that "the people" should be asked what they think they want, but the actual decision-making should fall to those who have been educated and trained to make them. Isn't this what Switzerland does? They have a Direct Democracy but their ministers have the ultimate say, because as we've seen, what people think they want and what's actually best for the country aren't always aligned.
But in the absence of that, in the absence of much in the way of actual ability at the top beyond a talent for talking down your opponents, would lowering the voting age actually make much of a difference when we're basically into the territory of Douglas Adams' "lizards" theory?
(* - probably Agriculture if they're experts in the field...)
Exactly, proves the point on why people who are much more open minded should be allowed to vote to tip the balance away from the narrow minded current voting population.
It's arguments like that which mean that nothing is going to change.
One of the big reasons the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 was because until then Colleges, Universities, Nursing Hostels etc had a parental duty of care to anyone below 21 staying in their accommodation which was impossible to enforce and left a lot of ‘establishment’ organisations with open ended liability.
The current big parties are not going to vote for change unless they feel that they are unelectable in the current system or some major interest groups see a need for it.
It's an interesting idea although there do seem to be more urgent changes needed to the system to make it more representative and less infantile than it currently is.
The current big parties are not going to vote for change unless they feel that they are unelectable in the current system
Yeah, it's catch-22. Why would any government pass a bill which would vote itself out? They'd have to be putting country ahead of party, (just imagine that!)
If you gave six year olds adult voting rights and responsibilities just think how much money could be saved on school lunch time supervisors, responsible adults etc.
(Just thinking how to sell it to the government)
Most 16 yr olds don’t know what they want for tea* never mind anything else.
*which Happy Meal.
Most 16 yr olds don’t know what they want for tea* never mind anything else.
But the question's not "what do you want for your tea", it's "how would you like the fiscal, military, geopolitical, environmental, social, trade and miriad other policies to shape the future of the country over the next 6 months to 60 years?", and I think that 16 year olds are just as ill-placed to answer that question as 56 year olds, so why not ask them too?
It is right that “the people” should be asked what they think they want, but the actual decision-making should fall to those who have been educated and trained to make them. Isn’t this what Switzerland does? They have a Direct Democracy but their ministers have the ultimate say, because as we’ve seen, what people think they want and what’s actually best for the country aren’t always aligned.
Slightly OT but this is exactly why populism is such a worthless approach to politics.
You can't give the public what they want because their wants are often contradictory or run counter the what the country needs. Taxation and spending being probably the perfect example.
Most 16 yr olds don’t know what they want for tea* never mind anything else.
That's a point in itself.
We're talking about lowering the voting age in isolation and the argument against this is that they have no experience. Why don't we teach them some, get it on the school curriculum?
In my previous school I ran a number of mock elections with the students. They researched and ran campaigns inline with the elections. Many students were engaged with the process, listened to the arguments, asked pertinent questions when we had representatives from the political parties come in to the school. They seemed to have a greater sense of social injustice than most of the adults. This was a school in a very deprived area, non selective. Parents generally not engaged politically let alone with their children's education.
I think as a few have said, we underestimate them. I'd think about reducing the voting age to 16. As a demographic they are probably far more engaged in the world than we think especially with issues such a climate change.
Edit- Cougar it is meant to be taught but has been marginalised and squeezed much like other subjects.