Forum Topic

Votes for 16 year olds?

If 16 to 17 year olds are to be allowed to vote, presumably all the restrictions/privileges which apply because of their age will be removed? Eg they will be treated as adults in the criminal system, and will be allowed to drive trains and take out loans etc ? Unless they pay tax I cannot see why votes should be considered appropriate. Anyone can vote for lovely vague, ideologies if they do not have to look at a payslip at the end of every month and see how much it has cost them?

Janis Christine Humberstone ● 1d18 Comments

Jonathan I agree that civic studies should be a prerequisite but the government has given no indication that will happen

Lucille Grant ● 3h

Hello Sue, nice to hear from you. Sorry if I’ve posted too many links. I’ll try to offer fewer. Academics, it seems, favour longer paragraphs. The rest of us perhaps not so much. As with so much, I think we will have to disagree on Prof Runciman.

Jonathan Callaway ● 4h

Sue, I think the science refers more to the study of politics rather than politics itself, but to save my time, I'll refer you to Wikipedia:Political science - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scienceI guess it could be argued that a matter such as voting age might come more under the banner of "political philosophy" rather than "political science" but historically there's been an overlap between philosophy and science or mathematics (for example, Pythagoras is described as a philosopher but did some solid mathematics that we still teach and use today). More recently, a friend who is a former Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, was an exponent of one theory of "vagueness" but that can also overlap with more modern modifications to mathematical set theory.If a subject has a foundation of rigorous logic, taxonomy and statistical data then I guess the discipline can be described as a science? (For example, Social sciences?)

Michael Ixer ● 5h

@JC 6/9/26 10.05I didn’t use your link (you post too many🥱) but I read Runciman’s rubbish from his article published in 2021 in the Guardian:👇https://share.google/E1mmggXwN4bELtAWE In my opinion he wasn’t being provocative, he was deadly serious!  This is quite worrying from someone described as a ‘political scientist’🙄 (what is the science behind politics (?) > perhaps Mr Ixer could explain) and is presumably why Runciman drones on and on in his very long article.  Jonathan as you are so concerned about paragraphs - I think his article could have benefited from a few, what do you think? PS less links would be welcome

Sue Hammond ● 5h

I would like to think, Jonathan, that Putney Forum is a cut above the 'Sun' where every sentence is a separate paragraph. In any case, if you check, you will see that my previous post consists of five paragraphs, one of two lines, three of three lines and one of twelve lines. Surely that should satisfy even devotees of short paragraphs. The longer paragraph was an attempt to address the arguments put forward by Prof Runciman in an article which you described as 'nuanced' but which I found superficial. Perhaps in future I should ignore your recommended bedtime reading. But I had better stop now as this paragraph already contains six sentences.

Steven Rose ● 11h

Steven, the notion of votes for 6 year olds is a provocation by Runciman!  He wanted to provoke a debate and he certainly achieved that.  Anyway, here’s another link that critiques his proposition (without supporting it so your blood pressure shouldn’t be at risk):https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2021/11/18/votes-at-six-a-leap-in-the-dark-too-far/There is a serious point in all this: the generational divide. People vote in their own self-interest and older people turn out in much higher numbers. Hence we are lumbered with the unsustainable triple lock, for example. A lot of comment here suggests 16 year olds are not mature enough to be given the vote. It seems to work in Scotland and have you ever seen vox pop interviews with groups of 16 year olds? Some of them are remarkably thoughtful and articulate. We should not underestimate them. PS shorter paragraphs help the reader.

Jonathan Callaway ● 12h

Who is pushing for the vote at 16, is it adults or 16 & 17 year olds?

Adam Tripp ● 12h

Most 16 yr old are still at school, why involve them in voting. Youngsters change their mind as they get older, so no i dont think they should be allowed to vote, if they did it would probably be their parents saying vote this vote that.

Barbara Stevens ● 13h

I read the opinion piece by Prof Runciman, Jonathan, which I found extraordinarily superficial, uninformed and even stupid.Let's begin with the suggestion he made in 2018 that the voting age should be lowered to six in order to 'shake up democracy'. The idea of six year olds carefully studying party manifestos before casting their vote is really quite funny. But apparently the professor wasn't joking.  In the opinion piece which you recommend, written in June 2024, he doesn't actually withdraw his earlier crazy suggestion. He merely says  it isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever. Well that's good to know. Instead he attempts to justify Labour's policy of giving the vote to 16 year olds. He mentions the objection raised by opponents that 16 year olds are too uninformed to make sensible political decisions but doesn't actually deal with this important point. (If I were marking his paper I would probably leave a question mark in the margin here).  What he seems most concerned to do is counter the suggestion that Labour is trying to gerrymander elections by giving the vote to people more likely to support left wing parties. His argument is that we  cannot assume we know how young people are going to vote. And he mentions that on the Continent many young people support right wing parties. Unfortunately research by the 'Financial Times' has shown that, contrary to trends on the Continent, young people in Britain are predominantly left wing. Only 10% of 18-25 year olds voted Conservative at the last election. Next he suggests that giving the franchise to 16 year olds will help to rebalance the electorate, which in his opinion is presently too dominated by pensioners. Clearly he thinks that old people should be punished for taking the trouble to vote. Finally he says that the idea that adults should take political decisions on behalf of children is Victorian paternalism.What Prof Runciman fails to explain is how 16 year olds who are considered too immature to buy alcohol or take on a mortgage or get married or fight in the army should be able to vote on the licensing laws or on the economy or on marriage law or on matters of foreign policy.

Steven Rose ● 20h

"Unless they pay tax I cannot see why votes should be considered appropriate"16 yr olds pay tax, so that's the end of your argument right there.

Michael Brigo ● 23h

I think we need to keep an open mind on votes for 16 year olds.  It's on its way anyway so let's look at the pros and cons.Here is another interesting piece by Prof David Runciman, a well regarded academic and political theorist and commentator:https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/lowering-voting-ageAnd here's some more bedtime reading: https://academic.oup.com/pa/article/74/3/563/6320902If you read either of these articles, or even just dip into them, the pros and cons are rather more nuanced than some views as expressed here.As I said in my earlier post, I am not opposed in principle but civic engagement classes, or similar, would be a pre-requisite in my view.There is probably a lot of tidying up that should be done about the minimum age for a lot of things, and the votes-for-16-year-olds debate might bring more focus on the many anomalies.

Jonathan Callaway ● 23h

generally one is considered more responsible at 16 in law, for example one can be a company Director or shareholder (according to AI). Logically, if the gov lowers the voting age to 16, they should also lower the age at which one can become a councillor or run for Parliament from 18 to 16 - my guess is they wont.The law will say at 16 someone is responsible enough to run a company and to vote in elections, but not to run for Parliament or local governemt.

Adam Tripp ● 1d

It’s a ridiculous idea for all the reasons that Steve has given.  Unfortunately the lefty ideology starts in our schools and then gets embedded in our universities.  It is so bad that their so-called debating societies often cancel a speaker who wouldn’t fit in with their narrative.

Sue Hammond ● 1d

I agree with the three of you.  It really does not make sense!I was reading the article on PutneySW15 about Fleur Anderson agreeing with giving them the vote.  She says:"Ms Anderson said the reforms were essential to restoring trust in the democratic system. “Giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote is a major step forward for our democracy. Young people deserve a say in the decisions that will shape their lives and their future,” she said. She added that strengthening democracy also meant protecting it from outside interference: “British elections should be decided by British voters – not by whoever can write the biggest cheque.”One thing will not cancel the other! Also, has experience not taught us anything????I do not believe 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to vote and, hand in heart, I would rather they concentrated in their exams a lot more!!  There is plenty of time in the very near future for them to express their opinions, particularly when they have jobs and understand the income/expenditure ratio.Scotland extended voting rights to 16-17 year olds for the independence referendum and no more.  Hmmmmmm.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1d

I do not have an objection in principle but if it is to work properly then schools need to teach classes in “civic engagement” or similar. 16 year olds have been able to vote in Scotland since 2014. The SNP brought it in because they assumed the 16-18 cohort would boost the pro-independence vote in the referendum. They were wrong, but that age group became and stayed more politically engaged, which is probably a good thing. See also:  https://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/votes-at-16-in-scotland-study, an academic paper on the subject.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1d

I agree Martine. And if the Government think that 16 and 17 year olds will vote Labour I have a bridge to sell them. At a guess I'd suggest the Greens will be the winners there.

Lucille Grant ● 1d

There is clearly no logic to a policy of giving 16 year olds the vote when they are not allowed to marry or take out a mortgage or buy shares or drive a car or buy alcohol or fight for their country. There is a reason they are not allowed to do these things: they are not considered mature enough to make sensible decisions. So why does the government think 16 year olds are mature enough to vote? Answer: Labour hopes to gain electoral advantage on the assumption that young people tend to be more left wing.

Steven Rose ● 1d

I am totally opposed to this idea.  16-17 year olds with basically no life experience should not be allowed to vote.  

Martine Guy ● 1d