By F. Andrew Wolf, Jr.
Under UK law and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a “child” is any person under the age of 18. But if the Labour government in Britain has its way, 16- and 17-year-olds will receive the right to vote in the next general election, meaning children will be allowed to cast a ballot for members of Parliament.
Angela Rayner, deputy prime minister under PM Keir Starmer, exalted the prospect: “For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline.”
The prime minister’s obedient ally is implying that the perennial trust issues in British politics are caused by limiting elections to “adults only.” Pay no attention to the decades of scandals and forced demographic changes orchestrated through out-of-control immigration.
Adults for the Vote, Children for Everything Else
The franchise in Britain, along with other major issues that have been judged to require a higher level of cognitive maturity, has historically belonged only to those aged 18 years or older. Youths younger than that are generally not prosecuted as adults in criminal cases, and a soldier cannot be operationally deployed until the age of 18.
The inconsistency in this new government-imposed age limit status is glaring. Why does Starmer’s Labour government think a 16-year-old should vote but not be allowed to purchase an alcoholic beverage or a lottery ticket, not be deployed overseas in the military, or seek political office in an election in which he or she can cast a vote? It seems the Labour government’s position on the new age of majority is not just confused – it is both irrational and agenda driven.
The expanded franchise will add roughly 1.5 million people under the age of 18 to the voter rolls, marking the largest expansion of the electorate since the voting age was lowered in 1969 – from 21 to 18 – by the Labour government of Harold Wilson.
Nigel Farage of the Reform UK Party spoke against the idea this week, saying that although his party stood to benefit from it, he still believed it was wrong. The Express cited his remarks thus: “It’s an attempt to rig the political system…even though we’d get lots of votes.” He continued: “I don’t think you should be able to vote in an election unless you’re also eligible to be a candidate, and I don’t think 16-year-olds should stand for Parliament.”
What the Youth Say
Despite the prime minister's advocacy that the expansion is the right decision, a poll by Merlin Strategy found that almost half of 16- and 17-year-olds disagree.
A significant 49% said the voting age should not be lowered, while a scant 18% said they would vote if permitted.
The poll also showed that 16- and 17-year-olds favor left-wing parties; roughly 33% said they would vote Labour, followed by 20% for Reform, 18% Green, 12% Liberal Democrats, and only 10% Conservative.
Less than half of the young people (46%) said they had a positive view of democracy, with over a fifth (22%) saying they view a military strongman – with no government or elections – positively.
Social Media and Cognitive Maturity
A study by education policy professor Joseph Kahne and Civic Engagement Research Group Senior Researcher Benjamin Bowyer revealed a direct correlation between social media use and political affiliation. The way social media operates, students can be easily influenced – or pressured, to use another term – into voting a certain way without deeper examination. In a study by Ipsos MORI, a UK research group, more than a third of young people admitted that their vote was influenced by something they had seen on social media.
The science is clear: The brain of a 16-year-old is not fully developed. On average, brain development continues until people reach their early to mid 20s; hence, even at 18, a person's views and cognition are still “in formation.” A section of the brain called the amygdala, along with other structures in the temporal lobe, is thought to be more “in charge” during adolescence because it develops earlier. These sections of the brain trigger emotions and immediate – not reasoned – responses to stimuli.
This means that even for an average 18-year-old, voting is still heavily influenced by emotion rather than primarily rational thought. Given the science, enfranchising a 16-year-old with the vote would be, at the very least, counterintuitive.
Prominent constitutional law professor Anne Twomey has warned against lowering the voting age to 16, arguing that it could lead to schools becoming "more politicized.” This would come with the risk of schools becoming political battlegrounds as a new market for voters, while teachers and schools would increasingly be “accused of activism.”
But the criticism the law professor is most sanguine about is the issue of “maturity” and whether young people are as “sophisticated” as they believe they are.
“I was thinking back earlier … about how I was as a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old. I was actually pretty switched on to politics – partly because of studying politics at school, but I did actually read newspapers and follow current affairs,” Professor Twomey began. “And yet, nonetheless, I am very embarrassed by some of the views that I had at that age – as probably we all are.”
"So, there is a real issue: You know, much as young people will genuinely believe they know everything and should have the right to vote, I suspect all of us who have been young – when looking back – think maybe we weren't as sophisticated as we thought at the time.”
History Repeats Itself
Wrestling with economic issues, especially rising prices at a time of accelerated social change and growing concerns about immigration, Harold Wilson’s Labour government back in the ’60s introduced legislation to lower the voting age. The economic and social conditions of the time had clear parallels with those facing the current Labour government, while the latter’s intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been heralded as the biggest reform to Britain’s electoral system since 1969.
Some historians suggest that the expectation of an advantage at the ballot was, at the time, not a factor in the decision-making within Harold Wilson’s administration. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed that lowering the voting age was “less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative.”
Is history repeating itself?
~
F. Andrew Wolf, Jr., is director of The Fulcrum Institute, an organization of scholars dedicated to the classical liberal tradition. He has also been published stateside in American Spectator, The Thinking Conservative, and American Thinker, as well as abroad in International Policy Digest, Times of Israel, and The Daily Philosophy, among others.
