Voting age to be lowered to 16 in UK by next general election | Hacker News Reader

Voting age to be lowered to 16 in UK by next general election

theguardian.com

42 pointshagbard_c95 comments

I suspect a mass of support for this is a reaction to Brexit, I don't think that's unfair: the generational gap in that vote was huge, with older voters who no longer work (and, to be blunt, have fewer years left to feel the consequences) voted for Brexit while younger generations with entire careers ahead of them voted against.

I can see the argument that 16 year olds are too young to make an informed choice but I've also met a great many people of all ages who are too ill informed to make a choice too. Fundamental weakness of democracy, I suppose.

There's a real problem with those with no "skin in the game" -- living in large paid off houses (bought for a song in the 1970s), with defined benefit pensions and the triple lock -- voting for wacky options and suffering no consequences. This is going to get worse and worse. Reducing the voting age redresses it a very tiny amount.

> Reducing the voting age redresses it a very tiny amount.

I love comments like these. There could never be consequences to an obviously -in-current-self-interest move like this.

“Yes let them vote, an impressionable and easily influenced demographic that my hyper partisan side controls could never be manipulated against me!!”

You're not really engaging with OP's point. "an impressionable and easily influenced demographic" describes every demographic. 16 year olds are not particularly unique in that regard.

16 year olds could absolutely flip to the far right in the future, who knows! But they have more of a stake in the future. Allowing them to vote redresses a small amount of balance against voters who do not have a stake in the future.

> There's a real problem with those with no "skin in the game" -- living in large paid off houses (bought for a song in the 1970s), with defined benefit

16yo may not have a lot of skin in the game, but giving them more of a voice seems like a good idea. I like the idea of gradually increasing voting rights over time.

Lowering the voting age to 16 makes sense on paper. Many people at that age work, pay taxes, and take on real responsibilities. But let’s be honest, parties don’t push changes like this unless they believe it gives them an electoral edge

- Are the merits of the change not more important?

- Couldn't you argue parties don't promote changes like this to protect their interests too?

They are not legally adults.

* They are restricted in what jobs they do, and are supposed to be either in education or doing apprenticeships or similar

* They cannot drive until they are 17

* They cannot purchase alcohol, knives and many other things

* They cannot get married

* They cannot get tattoos

Its very much that they think it will favour them. I think it might very well not do so - while they will net vote for Labour its not by a huge margin and its changing. I wonder whether the government are overly influenced by the huge margin they enjoy with privileged people in that age group - i.e. the ones they meet.

If they have jobs, they pay taxes, right?

Depends on how much income they get.

Under 16s also pay income taxes in they have income. They also pay various other taxes such as VAT. Non-citizens pay taxes but do not get to vote.

The general expectation is that they should be in full time education or training until they are 18.

All that makes "a minority of people in this age group pay taxes" a very weak argument for giving all of them the vote.

There's no rule that says that, in fact the rules in the UK are that you can pay people below minimum wage if they're under a certain age.

I think there are also some tax incentives that are designed to make employers more friendly to the idea of hiring a young workforce - all to offset the "cost" of training people, but of course this is just used by mega-corps to have a perpetual stream of extremely cheap labour for frontline staff. (Argos, McDonalds).

So it's possible that not only do they not pay tax, that also their employment is partially subsidised by tax.

Even if below the income tax threshold, they might still be above the Class 1 NICs threshold (which is £250 or thereabouts).

But no matter how low their earnings, all employees must be registered for PAYE from age 16 onwards and will receive an annual P60, as well as a P45 when they leave.

That is irrelevant. If a 5-year old wins some competition, they will pay taxes on that money. That doesn't mean we should give 5-year olds the vote, does it? Also, plenty of non-tax related laws apply to children - why should they not get to vote on Education or Healthcare, for example?

Also, while some 16-year olds work and pay taxes, the majority do not. So a blanket right to vote is not justified even by this strange criterion.

pensioners are legally adults but , they don't work thus don't pay taxes, they dont drive some of them, and getting tattoos is kinda weird for them. why do they get to vote

UK pensions are subject to income tax, if you're receiving more than the annual tax free allowance.

That's half the story - there was tax relief paying in, and many view paying tax on your pension as deferred tax

In most jurisdictions (especially at a national level) the changes that elected officials enact usually don't affect the population for at least another 12-16 months after voters cast their ballots.

To me at least, the argument that young people face great restrictions (even if many of those restrictions might be intended for their benefit) doesn't justify not giving them a voice, or a seat at the table.

"So if democracy is so great, and voting rights are so important, why don't you let us vote on anything that matters to us?"

"So taxation without representation... that's like me, right?"

"So if universal suffrage is important, are people like me included in the universe?"

"So we can (in the UK) potentially join the army or navy at 16, and possibly die in dangerous training or even fighting in a war, but we don't get to vote?"

> Let's see... 16 year olds in the UK can potentially join the army or navy (and perhaps die fighting in a war)

No combat until 18.

s/fighting in a war/in an attack by militants/

Under-18s in the UK military, while able to enlist with parental consent from age 16, are not legally permitted to be deployed to combat operations outside the UK or where there is a risk of exposure to hostilities.

I think you're right in that Labour believe this, but that Labour are spectacularly wrong about it and have just signed their own death warrant. Young people want hope, and they definitely don't feel like Blue Labour could give that to them.

> Many people at that age work, pay taxes

Not in the UK, particularly England. With the requirement to remain in education/do an apprenticeship/perform a mixture of work and part time education (in England), combined with our the personal allowance, very very few 16-18 year olds pay any tax or national insurance.

According to ChatGPT, data from the ONS in 2021 shows the average weekly earnings for 16-17 year olds was about £160, well below the personal allowance and NI thresholds

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44591689

There should be a corresponding upper limit too. population aging should not have turned to tyranny

There should also be a limit on making sure the voter has “skin in the game” like owning property or otherwise instantiated in the community.

Are you arguing for or against restricting voting to landowners?

Very wishful thinking, but could this be an impetus for quality political education at a younger age? E.g. how to reason about issues, think critically, fact check, verify past outcomes, etc. That could have positive effects on all age groups.

That’s not wishful, that’s straight delusional.

Yeah. Let's face it: more realistically, they want to cut pensions without getting thrown out of parliament. And getting every 16 year old in the UK a free PS5 (is it still PS5? I guess maybe PS6) on their birthday is far cheaper than pensions ...

but could this be an impetus for quality education at a younger age.

probably not

Genuinely curious, does education really matter? No one man has the time nor intellect to effectively evaluate all the facts. Most of the lies today are lies of omission / framing. Details left out, stories not covered, etc.

The only rational position is figuring out how to scale trust. Ironically enough, the historic ways of doing that (race, religion, nation) are all more or less “evil” in modern society.

After going through US public schooling and then reading actual source material from various topics covered many years later, it’s hard to see it as anything other than propaganda. “History was written by the victors” doesn’t magically exclude our current regime.

Many eons ago I took a "General Studies" A level that had a solid chunk of political education, just googled and was disappointed to find out it doesn't exist any more.

Even still, I'd say younger people are still more politically aware (mostly via history classes that are still present in their memory) than most people of the current voting age.

No.

I'm sure I don't speak for everyone, but people consider me reasonably worldly and reasonably intelligent but at 18 when I was first given the power to vote I voted for:

* UKIP for EU Parliament

* Lib Dems for UK Parliament

I don't necessarily regret the LibDem one, but seeing how absolutely hoodwinked I was by UKIP has left me really jaded.

I saw them misrepresent issues and put things to the EU parliament for debate that they would then go back to the UK media and scream about how there was a topic up for debate that went against british values: despite them being the ones to propose it!

I saw the leader of the party get put in charge of the fisheries committee and then proceed to tell the UK public that the EU was taking control of our waters and fishing... when he was the man in charge.

I saw grandstanding and burning of our political capital inside the EU parliament for soundbites.

and I only saw this: because I was not afraid of digging into the truth of things; something I was not prepared or willing to do as a teenager, as that sounded like the kind of mundane schoolwork I was attempting to avoid - I was much more interested in how I felt about particular people, and UKIP gave me the warm fuzzies about my country and a convenient scapegoat for the decline in living standards in my lifetime.

I suspect this will be pretty much the end of the Labour and Conservative parties, which is clearly a good thing - neither is fit for purpose any more. The new left-leaning party announced by Zarah Sultana, and the far right arseholes in Reform are likely to take the vast majority of teenage voters - both because they will at least offer some kind of hope to people who otherwise have none.

You guys really think allowing a bunch of kids without fully developed decision making and reason brain structures vote is a good idea?

Given that the obvious goal is for government to find the votes to cut pensions and medical care to the bone? Yes.

Delaying the vote until age 30 is probably a non-starter.

I like UK labour and the current gov in particular but I have to note this and it happened in other countries too. If the ruling party is left, it has predominantly younger votes and if it can get away with lowering voting age it will do it. And the cool thing is, this is irreversible because no one will dare to raise the age afterwards

Are there any voting systems that weight votes based on expected remaining lifespan?

I think this is a good idea, given we now see how selfishly most people vote. If an 80 year old man is going to vote only for his immediate self interest and not even for his own generational legacy, then his vote shouldn't count as much as a 22 year old struggling to establish a sustainable future for themselves.

I was raised to champion the elderly for their life wisdom but it's starting to seem like society has been changing so rapidly that they no longer understand what's actually going on

There are benefits, but it could also open up all other kinds of question like: Should parents of minors have a greater vote?

Yeah... about that.

> As of 2021, life expectancy in the U.S. varied significantly by race: Asian Americans had the highest at approximately 84 years, followed by Hispanic Americans at about 78 years, White Americans at around 76 years, Black Americans at about 70 years, and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals at approximately 65 years.

It would be a mess if individualized. Rich people live longer.

[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44591689

Voting should not be a right!! Voting should be a privilege, like driving is, and should be a points based system.

Don't downvote yet, hear me out on this, ok?

Upon hitting the lawful 18 (or 16 or whatever) you automatically have the "privilege" to vote, and your voting power is 1 (single) point. Then you are obliged to vote on your local/national elections. Too many people currently shit on their right to vote and do their research like in the night before elections. Instead make it an exam, and with 3 fails to vote you lose the privilege. Also you take the exam about current politics and parties, and raise your points up to, let's say 10. You want to have more voting power? Get fucking involved in politics. Local administration involvement? Cool beans bro, your new threshold is 20. County? 40. National (like a senator?), 80. All the way to the top, where members of government (ministries, heads of national agencies, president) get their max at 100.

Why this rant? Because I see the argument regarding Brexit with young vs. old thrown around here and is all true. If you'd have voting a privilege then people would care about it, like you care about your driving license. Current society has all the tech to actually give people a real democracy on their hands. Get involved one hour in your country politics. No need for a parliament full of old farts that all they do entire life is polish the chairs while sleeping and vote on laws according to their paying masters. President and ministry heads encounter problems, raise them in public forums, ideas gets formed around, laws are then formed based on those discussions and then put to vote. National vote. Like a fucking app. Easy to vote. One fucking hour of your day goes to politics instead of the idiotic sports because we have the idiocy running around where stars of different shows are more important than the fucking tax that actually has a more important impact on your finance. But hey, what dress Kartrashian wore or what football pass Beckham did is more important than the highway you use to drive to work, right?

Now you can downvote me.

the franchise should be truly universal and every citizen regardless of age should have the vote. There is no argument on level of maturity or intelligence - we have ample evidence that higher voting ages do not produce better outcomes - democracy should at least go down in as absolute a state as possible

I was indoctrinated by my teachers; kids are easy to manipulate. Voting age must stay high, OR schools must be decoupled from the government. A simple voucher system.

In the UK we have many different kinds of schools with different levels of coupling to local and national gov, traditional ones are probably the minority.

But 16 year olds are not mature enough to decide whether they want to drink or smoke. They also should look at least 25 for that.

It's really not a great idea. Most 16 year olds know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure, and schools are basically state-run indoctrination camps.

Labour are assuming the majority of the youth vote will go their way, but it could backfire heavily. The youth think Reform are cool and Labour are outdated.

> Most 16 year olds know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure

Sounds the same as everybody over 16 as well.

You are really saying that they lack experience to make good judgements. In a democracy every person needs to learn by experience at some age. It is fairer if they learn sooner rather than later (gerontocracy).

> Most 16 year olds know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure

As opposed to this 50+ guy I know who managed to once explain to me with a perfectly straight face that Bill Gates' foundations launched an unspecified pandemic in some african countries. And that Microsoft has secret weather control machinery on top of their Seattle buildings.

You're equating the disagreeableness of _most_ 16 year olds to a single 50+-year-old guy?

I don't think most 16 year olds are disagreeable...

I'm sure they should stay off your lawn ofc ;)

Most humans know nothing about the world - they're impressionable and easily coerced by social pressure.

Using this as an opportunity to teach about civic duty seems sensible to me. I'm doubtful a couple of years changes the outcome much. But I'm not in the UK. Best of luck!

> But 16 year olds are not mature enough to decide whether they want to drink or smoke.

I think the biggest thing 16 year olds are lacking is impulse control. A great many are curious about the world and capable of seeing the big picture of politics... but will also get blackout drunk at the drop of a hat. So I see voting at 16 (something that's pretty boring and with little immediate benefit or dopamine hit) vs drinking and smoking as being quite different.

> The youth think Reform are cool and Labour are outdated.

This is completely wrong. Support for Reform is lowest in the 18-24 age group at 8%. It is highest in the 65+ age group at 37%.

See https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intenti...

So would you allow five year olds to vote? You have to have an age requirement somewhere.

Should their be an age cap? At what level of mental capacity should the cap be set? How do you evaluate someone to determine if they are fit to vote?

The problem with rules around voting is that they can always be exploited. I generally believe that the best way to avoid that is simply to remove rules aside from 1 person 1 vote.

How does that work for e.g. infants? Doesn’t it give unscrupulous parents of those children an extra vote?

I think the execution is probably difficult, but in principle you can make the requirement that the voter marks a valid ballot by themself.

Interacts badly with mail in and lots of other issues of course.

fine - they have more at stake. Might actually encourage having more children, increase familial voting power

The rule for voting is very simple: if you are legally allowed to make decisions for yourself, you are allowed to vote (with a minor exception of certain kinds of criminal convictions). Children and people who are mentally impaired to a severe degree are not allowed to make legal decisions, and are thus not allowed to vote.

What you're proposing is nothing but an absurd over-representation for parents of small children, who will be able to vote twice or even more.

Yea you’re totally correct. I’m mostly responding to those saying mental acuity or general knowledge are reasons to not lower the voting age. That’s a line that’s very challenging to draw equitably.

yes of course. 5 or 50. There is no argument for an age requirement, other than gerontocratic one

what about the level of dementia?

That is already covered - if you are found mentally unfit to take care of yourself, you are not allowed to vote either, in general.

that s not true at least in the uk and most countries

who adjudicates this - once upon a time strong minded women were considered mentally incapable, some institutionalised for it, for no other than reason than for demanding their rights. A demented person - even a thoroughly demented on - should have the right to vote, empowered of another to take this away is intolerable

Just sounds like game to me.

As we keep discovering how immature the teenaged brain is?

About the same way we keep discovering how troublingly incompetent the aged brain gets, I'd say.

Dear Brits… honestly, are you trying to top the Brexit referendum?

Are you saying they would vote with 90 year olds, to shot their own futures off?

Or that they would keep voting in the parties that overwhelmingly harm them?

Interesting, I thought the UK was on track to lower it to 9.

Absolutely proud of this comment. That most people didn’t get it is just proof of how effective the media machine is. You have no idea what is going on in the UK, even many of the people that live there.

Taking advantage of the under-developed prefrontal cortex, uh?

Let us ignore the long and deep-storied history of young (under-18) leaders.

If voting intentions, results and surveys results are any indication, not fully developed prefrontal cortex will be better than demented one.

Meanwhile the age of adolescence is increasing[0]. This is basically giving the vote to children. It's an assault on democracy, which requires an informed electorate. [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-cube/202107/why-...

Is age the right measure? Should there be periodic citizen's test (like a driver's test)?

Who decides what's on the test? How do you keep those in power from gaming the system?

For context, the current Labour government has a 12% approval rating.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/government-app...

Expanding the electorate to include children with brains still undeveloped is a bad move. There is plenty of evidence that teenagers, including those who already can vote, have trouble grasping complex issues. Yes, that happens in other age groups too, but not at such rates.

Think of all the dumb, stupid things you did when you were 16 and about all the things your friends did. That's the kind of people that are given the vote. How can that improve the state of democracy? How can that lead to better policy? When you increase the number of voters by the most impressionable and unstable section of the population?

If the elderly with no skin in the game are allowed to vote, then children should be allowed to vote.

To be clear, I'm ok with disallowing children to vote if we also disallow the elderly. But if one group can vote, its only fair that the other group can as well.

The whole 'undeveloped brains' thing is a myth. The brain is still developing and even then developing != deficient. As for improving the state of democracy? It seems like very much a good thing that they'll be able to have their interests represented, which is a rather stabilizing force. Especially when dealing with idiots who vote for Brexit and then think that literally enslaving the youth for the sake of 'instilling values' and calling it 'national service' is a great idea.

Left wing parties have mostly younger voters. It's a known fact. Decreasing voting age is normal for their policies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com