A few flaws in the arguments against votes at 16

Yesterday, Labour Party Conference voted to include extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in our next manifesto. This comes following the National Policy Forum’s vote in July  in support of votes at 16. There was a warm welcome for the vote – as you might expect – from a number of national youth organisations. There were also a few critics, including Guardian journalist Michael White and Tom Harris MP.

Three main arguments were put forward against votes at 16. Now that votes at 16 will be in Labour’s manifesto there is likely be a repeat of these criticisms from those opposed to votes as 16. On the face of it, these criticisms may initially seem to be ‘common sense’, but they don’t stand up to scrutiny. 

Argument 1: ‘Introducing votes at 16 would be bad for democracy because it would result in a fall in the percentage turnout of eligible voters at elections’

This argument was put forward by Tom Harris MP, who wrote: “If 16 and 17-year-olds are to be given the vote, I worry that the most significant effect will be a huge increase in the number of “voters” who don’t vote.” This argument is flawed on at least three counts.

First, its premise - that the percentage turnout is what matters in terms of how ‘democratic’ an election is judged to be -  does not make sense. Imagine a society of 100 people. A situation where 60 people are eligible to vote and 40 of them do so (i.e. 66% vote) is not necessarily more democratic than one where 90 people are eligible to vote and 45 of them do so do so (i.e. 50% vote). After all, in the later case more members of the society actually vote.

Second, the argument confuses legitimate and illegitimate means of encouraging higher turnout. Making it easier to register to vote, moving voting to weekends and running campaigns to encourage voting: these are all legitimate ways of encouraging higher turnout. Deciding who is eligible to vote on the basis of how likely they are to do so is not. The rationale of this argument would also justify excluding other groups with low turnout, such as ethnic minorities or those in social classes C2DE.

The third and final nail in the coffin of this argument is that - even if you accept its flawed reasoning - it is far from certain that the percentage turnout will fall. In Germany the voting age was reduced to 16 in some municipal elections, and the result was that a higher proportion of 16 and 17 year olds voted than those aged 18 to 24. Indeed, a lower voting age may even lead to an overall increase in turnout if young people pick up the habit at school and continue to vote throughout their lives – meaning a whole cohort of people more likely to vote than their forebears.

Argument 2: ‘16 year olds aren't allowed to buy alcohol, drive, etc. and therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to vote’

One objection to this argument – raised by a commentator on Michael White’s article attacking votes at 16 - is that it confuses public and private rights. Drinking, smoking and driving are private rights, not public ones. On the other hand, voting is a public right. It is not incompatible for 16 years olds to have one but not the other.

This argument also misunderstands why it is that 16 and 17-year-olds are not allowed to drive, drink, and smoke. It is not because we believe all 16 or 17-year-olds, if they were allowed to do these things, would end up having alcohol-induced car crashes or hooked on smoking for the rest of their lives. Rather, it is because a substantial minority are likely to do so, and in doing so are likely to hurt themselves or others. Where the line is drawn is a matter of judgement and common sense - rather than hard and fast rules. An individual 16-year-old is able to do a lot less damage with a ballot paper and a pen than a ton of mobile steel. There may be a very small minority who abuse their right – but there are 50 year olds who may do the same. 

Argument 3: ‘16 year olds aren’t really interested in politics, and those that are can have a say by joining their local youth council or campaigning against climate change/international poverty’

This is possibly the most ill-thought-out of the arguments. Michael White put it as follows:

‘Engage young people more in politics, I hear you bellow more thoughtfully. Well, fine, though civic engagement is a more subtle development in which party politics, an acquired taste to say the least, would not be my priority. Global poverty work or green issues of the kind which naturally engage their sympathy would be a better start.’

Much as young people care about global poverty and the environment, they also care about crime, education and work opportunities, their health and many other issues. One of the reasons the commentariat can get away with pigeon-holing ‘youth issues’, as Michael White does, is because young people don’t tend to have power to set the agenda for themselves.

Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 years olds will help right that balance. Even Michael White might be pleasantly surprised. Nat King Cole and Jimmy Young were right when they sung ‘They try to tell us we're too young.... We were not too young at all'.

Omar Salem is chair of London Young Labour and a member of the Young Labour Executive. For more information about Young Labour’s campaign for votes at 16 visit http://votesatsixteen.labourspace.com/.

Comments

[Andrew Russell]

I think Omar is at least as confused as those he seeks to criticise:-

It's good that he provides a link to the Electoral Commission's 2004 Report, it's a shame he's not more familar with the argument therein.

He's right about the distinction between public and private rights (although I note that many of these private rights have become more restricted since 2004 - buying tobacco - as have some public ones - school/training leaving age).

Perhaps he ought to consider the public right the Commission thought most comparable to voting - jury service. Does anyone want 16 year olds on juries? If not why should voting rights be extended?

He admonishes opponents of change for their fixation with turnout and then goes on to claim that turnout will increase if 16-17 year olds are enfranchised.

("Indeed, a lower voting age may even lead to an overall increase in turnout if young people pick up the habit at school and continue to vote throughout their lives – meaning a whole cohort of people more likely to vote than their forebears.")

Really? So by extension all those who learn to abstain in their early lives are lost to democracy forever?

Enfranchising new voters is a change in electoral law. To claim that its success or failure is not connected to the ability of encouraging those new electors to actually vote is bizarre (but perhaps does show the paucity of the old (young voters will increase turnout) argument).

Perhaps this argument is used for lack of empirical support. It seems for Omar, evidence is there to be ignorned:-

The only study of verified turnout of 'attainers' shows that turnout for 18 year olds in 2001 was 44% - against a national turnout of 59%

In the Isle of Man just over 1/3 (698) of all (1800) 16-17 year olds actually registered to vote in the Tynwald election last year.

Germany's flirtation with enfranchising 16-17 year olds for federal elections was politically driven and was repealed by the incoming administration in each case where a different party came to power. Moreover, on the Commission's fact-finding trip to Germany we could not find any verifiable evidence that turnout amongst this group was significantly higher than other groups of young voters.

It's hard to find any evidence to back up the wishful thinking that a democratic deficit could be repaired by enfranchising 16-17 year olds, and there's some evidence that it could actually make things worse.

These are only some of the reasons why the Commission came to its decision in 2004. It was right to not recommend lowering the voting age in 2004 (but significantly recommended changing the minimum age for eligibility to stand for election); nothing has changed since. Perhaps that's why Labour set up a Youth Citizenship Commission to consider this and then recommended the adoption of this policy before waiting to find out what the Commission said.

[Michael Calderbank]

Several silly straw men erected here, Andrew. You might well be right to suggest that 16-17 year olds are proportionally less likely to vote as things stand. But why should this necessarily mitigate against their enfranchisement? Thirty year olds are less likely to vote than Seventy year olds. Perhaps they should be denied voting rights? Doesn't this suggest that there is evidence of a long term generational decline in voter engagement? In which case, shouldn't we be seeking imaginative reforms in order to make democratic structures seem relevant to a wide cross section of society, rather than impotently clinging onto present, failing, arrangements?

The comparison with jury service is totally bogus. A sixteen-year old might feel intimidated by the process of group deliberation with older adults, or feel pressured into accepting the consensus of the rest of the jury. Whereas the ballot, crucially, is secret and one persons is just as free to cast their vote free from direct intimidation as is the next. In fact, the civic responsibility to freely exercise one's opinion seems like very good training for the extra burdens of jury service.

[Andrew Russell]

Silly Straw Men?
Like I said, evidence is there to be ignored.

Pointing out the electoral consequences of changing electoral law? How very dare I?

I don't accept that jury service is that different to voting - both are civic actions requiring the weighing up of a series of arguments and coming to a conclusion about a set of likely outcomes of your actions. Certainly better than any of the comparisons to riding a moped or getting married with parental consent.

FWIW I'm all in favour of "imaginative reforms in order to make democratic structures seem relevant to a wide cross section of society, rather than impotently clinging onto present, failing, arrangements". In the Political Studies Association's Response the Governance of Britain green paper, I enquired why there hadn't been a similar discussion of potential reform of the electoral system or the question of compulsory voting (both of which are likely to broaden the concept of participation - whereas enfranchising swathes of non-voters is unlikely to fundamentally address the notion of engagement).