16 Year Olds Should Have the Right to Vote – and Just as Importantly, the Right Not To
The subject of lowering the voting age occasionally comes up under the conversational umbrella of “how do we get the general public engaged with the political process again?”. As a stream of thought this is fairly simple to shoot down, largely on the basis that it rather resembles a parent suggesting that they should forget their first-born and focus on his younger siblings – oh if only we could start over with a blank piece of paper, then there’s no way that we’d make those mistakes again. How the political class define those mistakes is one of those things that either amuses or irritates this bunny, depending on his general mood.
To the Westminster set, low electoral turnout is at best a result of their ‘letting us slip away from them’, as if a significant swathe of the UK’s general populace has completely forgotten that a ‘democratic’ system exists, thinking an election is something a man might get while reading a filthy magazine. The alternative explanation, one that Statists are especially fond of, is that those who fail to participate do so out of their own stupidity. They are too dumb to understand its significance, while appreciating the efforts of the political class and therefore expressing their gratitude at the ballot box is just ‘beyond them’.
In reality, the old maxim that ‘whoever wins, the government gets in’ might never have applied more in our history than it does now. 21st century Britain is very much a one-party dictatorship in all but name, where the candidates capable of winning wear different coloured rosettes, but the principles (if any) that guide them can be separated by a cigarette paper. The Statist sentiment of steal and squander reigns supreme, transcends supposed ‘political divides’ and in reality is the only option. With the closed shop of First Past the Post rendering market entry for outsiders virtually impossible, the battle has long ceased to be one of ideas and become a nationwide version of ‘the Apprentice’, where three teams of ‘managers’ compete to be the least worst.
Hardly inspiring stuff, and falling voter turnout owes more to this dishwater, faceless corporation politics than it ever will to some perceived collective fault on the part of the electorate. In 2005, a mere 59% of those registered to vote bothered to turn up (and some of us, this bunny included, try to avoid registering ourselves if we can). That this increased to 65% last time out owed something to the mainstream media’s constant message that ‘this time, there really is a difference between the two main parties’. The walking disaster that was Gordon Brown, a charlatan to the core, helped to create that impression by announcing pre-election giveaways that he knew could not be afforded. Dave did not pledge a clean swing of the axe to the taxpayer gravy train and has kept his word, despite the attempts of some to convince us otherwise.
In terms of the course that the government would follow after May 2010, there was no real difference. Supposed ideological distinctions were simply wild exaggerations of minute details, and our rotten political class have a great deal to thank a subservient media for in terms of prolonging their existence. While more than a third of us saw this ‘contest’ for the sham it was, the prospect of a close result (and a hung parliament as it turned out) at least galvanised sufficient numbers amongst ‘core supporters’ to boost the turnout.
Given the way in which political parties invariably betray these loyal people, I’m amazed that such groups still exist. How can anyone be so convinced of one team’s innate superiority when they are demonstrably the same as both of the others? Perhaps habitual Labour and Tory voters await the day that their party starts believing in something again? You might be there a while, mate!! Not voting does not disqualify one from having an interest in politics (this bunny did not bother in 2005 and ‘forgot’ to register in 2010, but votes UKIP in Euro elections) – that’s another little Statist lie, designed to manipulate some form of validation out of the apolitical, apathetic and legitimately hacked off.
All of this is relevant to the Vote16 conversation, since one of the rather silly arguments against extending the franchise is the low turnout in the 18-24 category (as low as 37% bothered to vote in that nadir in 2005). This of course is working on a deeply flawed and dangerous premise, namely that voting is good and therefore failing to do so is somehow bad. That black X next to a candidate’s name is a stamp of approval to both the ‘democratic’ process itself and whoever that individual has chosen to vote for. If they feel that no candidate is worthy of such approval, are genuinely apolitical or would rather have an open dictatorship than a tacit one, then the political class can lump it – or alternatively, stop lying, stealing, fiddling their expenses and actually give someone, somewhere a reason to place that faith in them.
The right not to vote is a crucial one in any democracy – that’s why this bunny supports ‘None of the Above’ boxes on ballot papers (who fancies an e-petition by the way?) and would campaign hard against any attempt to introduce compulsory voting. Validating the process and one of its candidates is a choice, an act which the individual should be free to abstain from if they so wish. Once you take that freedom away and potentially imprison those who refuse to play ball, then no choice exists in reality – the power no longer resides with the ordinary citizen (even for that one day every five years) and any pretence of a truly representative system is dead.
In short, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with making a conscious decision not to vote.
One of the few enjoyable experiences this bunny can recall from his days at school was reading Harper Lee’s ‘to Kill a Mockingbird‘. A key theme of this book is the way in which young people are less inclined to be blinded by prejudice or tribal loyalty than adults. They are not as likely to buy into received conventional wisdom, most have a naturally inquisitive temperament and have not yet had their spirits crushed by a life that teaches one to ‘accept things as they are’. Not all aspects of what some would refer to as ‘growing up’ are overwhelmingly positive.
If a smaller proportion of 18-24 year olds vote than is the case with any other age group, then it stands to reason that even fewer at age sixteen will do the same. Like the children of Atticus Finch, most have not been taken in by membership of a faction or group, and see only what they regard as truth in front of them. If three-quarters of those aged 16-17 choose not to cast (or, god willing, go NOTA) then many will do so having concluded that none of the candidates were worth voting for. Let’s face it, these people would be wise and sensible to reach such a conclusion, far more than many who actually vote out of loyalty to one tribe or an inbuilt hatred of another. This might drag the overall turnout down towards 50%, which would be something of a disaster for the political class – far from being a reason not to extend the franchise, surely this is a central plank of any serious case to do just that?
Of course, there are four very simple words with which anyone can win this argument – No Taxation Without Representation, since there is another word that accurately describes a situation where the former exists but the latter is absent – that word is Slavery. If one is old enough to work and contribute to the upkeep of older citizens who choose not to, then this bunny fails to see a single reason why the kept man should have a say in the makeup of the next government, while the taxpayer funding his idleness is deprived that right. At sixteen, an individual can join the army and be sent into an overseas engagement which they do not support. (in the last decade, this scenario could hardly be dismissed as a hypothetical, yeah?).
A war-mongering government can regard this young man as cannon fodder and sentence him to death, but he remains constitutionally powerless to elect an alternative who might withdraw him from that danger. ‘Fairness’ is a word to which the dud mainstream parties all attempt to lay claim, yet this manifestly unfair situation would appear to be off the radar for all of them. In something of a vicious circle, the fact that sixteen and seventeen year olds cannot vote means that they are simply not taken seriously by politicians – this of course feeds the wishes of the dud parties to keep them disenfranchised despite obvious reasons why such a situation is unjust. This bunny cares neither whether they vote nor how ‘well-informed’ that vote is, merely for the rights of people old enough to contibute to, and die for our society. Take care and I’ll catch you soon.
Daz Pearce is bunny-in-chief at OutspokenRabbit
Photo by PinkCakeBox
-
1
October 14, 2011 at 09:16 -
“At sixteen, an individual can join the army and be sent into an overseas engagement which they do not support”
No they cannot, as I understand it they can join the army but would not be sent on active service until they were 18.
-
3
October 14, 2011 at 09:56 -
Most people’s votes are influenced by their personal prejudices and self interest. If you gave monkeys the vote they would vote for the more bananas and get humans out of my jungle party. So the answer to the 16 year old having the vote is would their participation make elections more democratic which of course is yes and would they improve the chances of electing good governments the answer is it probably it would make no difference. The fact that they have less likelihood of being able to cast their vote based on an informed, rational and unbiased decision is irrelevant as the majority of voters are not able to either.
-
4
October 14, 2011 at 10:23 -
There has to be a minimum age for voting. (Discuss?)
Those below it are indeed disenfranchised, but we all have a turn at that. So it is not essentially unfair.Lowering the age limit would inevitably lower the average turnout.
Youth does tend to have a left wing bias, (more bananas!) so personally I’d rather raise the age limit, if anything. But that’s just me.
-
5
October 14, 2011 at 15:49 -
“Lowering the age limit would inevitably lower the average turnout”
Agreed, but I’ve never heard a convincing explanation as to why that’s a bad thing, or a reason to deprive someone of a vote. Increasing the voting age to 35 would lead to a higher turnout, so by that reasoning we’d have millions working and paying tax, but deprived of the right to (not) vote.
Youth does tend to have a left wing bias, (more bananas!) so personally I’d rather raise the age limit, if anything. But that’s just me.
Again, agreed, but then that’s the sort of thinking the EU employ and we (quite rightly) hate them for, yeah?
-
6
October 14, 2011 at 16:39 -
A thought experiment:-
Suppose we were each entitled to vote once only, at the election following our 35th birthday. The period in our lives when we probably have acquired maturity, not yet become bitter, are productive, experienced, and concerned for our children’s future.
Or maybe we vote every time, but get ten votes on that occasion?
I’m thinking of possible ways to increase the weight of considered votes.
-
7
October 14, 2011 at 16:44 -
Assuming that a 35-year old is automatically more intelligent than someone younger and therefore will make a more ‘considered’ decision at the ballot box is bloody dangerous!!
-
8
October 14, 2011 at 17:37 -
Look, nothing is guaranteed. Nothing is absolute.
Aren’t we talking about improving, rather than perfecting?Is there a way of getting through this life that isn’t dangerous?
Considering extreme examples is often a good way of refining things. If greater availibility devalues something, what about restricting it, in a fair way? What would that do?
I dunno about you, but I still aspire to solutions. Or improvements, at least.
Criticism is valid, but it should lead to suggested solutions?
Mutter.
-
-
-
-
-
9
October 14, 2011 at 11:11 -
“how do we get the general public engaged with the political process again?”.
Getting the political process to engage with the general public would be a start.
-
12
October 14, 2011 at 13:29 -
Absolute balderdash, bilge and ballix.
-
13
October 14, 2011 at 13:43 -
Interesting post, but unfortunately totally wrong.
The majority of teenagers are aware that their initial destination after school is welfare. Many are already welfare children. Therefore they owe votes to whoever promises to pay the most benefit money. What’s more, they are taught this simple fact of life in the education system.
My wife is in admin in a school. She was working adjacent to the school hall when the children were receiving some sort of political education just prior to the election. The teacher described the three main parties with the emphasis that the Tories represented the bosses, whereas Labour represented the people. The Labour party supported all the children and gave them benefit and welfare whereas the Tories wanted to stop it.
If we consider that the teaching profession is a highly unionised, left wing state industry which is in charge of the thoughts of our children, it doesn’t take a mathematician to work out where their votes would be cast.-
14
October 14, 2011 at 15:56
-
-
15
October 14, 2011 at 15:26 -
“…he remains constitutionally powerless to elect an alternative…”
Just like the rest of us, then, considering that all the real decisions are made by unelected people in Brussels whom we cannot influence or remove from power.
They might as well give the vote to six-year-olds for all the difference voting makes.
-
16
October 14, 2011 at 16:34 -
The real problem is the perception that there’s no one to really vote for who has a chance at making a difference. If the mainstream of politics were more representative, and less in thrall to special interests, perhaps voter turnouts would improve.
Until then, the monkeys will continue to vote for more bananas until the tree is bare.
-
18
October 14, 2011 at 17:29 -
Nice, reasonable article but we no longer live in reasonable times or under reasonable conditions. Neither do we have a reasonable gumment…in fact we have no gumment except for the unelected bureaucracy that resides in Brussels/Strasbourg.
Make all the e-petitions you futilely will…they cut no ice at all. that you have any choices is a carefully nurtured illusion.
Many of you will have seen the Matrix fantasy filn series….fantasy? You are unwittingly living it -
19
October 14, 2011 at 18:42 -
Perhaps MPs should get seats in Parliament in proportion to the number of votes cast.
In other words, if only 59% of us bother to vote, then only 59% of the commons 650 seats get filled. Perhaps that way some of them would actually bother to talk to thier voters?
-
20
October 14, 2011 at 20:43 -
Maybe the solution is to allocate one initial vote per person (regardless of age), a parent/guardian casting it until they feel mature enough to take over).
But each individual also gains an additional vote for each £10,000 of direct taxation (or part thereof) paid in the preceeding tax year. That way, overall votes would equate more to contribution, rather than benefit, it would discourage some tax exiles (£1m in tax equals 101 votes), and anyone’s voting power would be directly linked to their current input value, diminishing with age as earning power diminishes. This would also address the current dominance of pensioner-votes, and thus political influence, when they are no longer the main contributors.
It would also allow those multi-votes to be shared between different candidates to spread support, rather than the dumb, single-weapon vote we currently have.
-
21
October 14, 2011 at 22:20 -
What’s the point of all this angel counting?
For as long as we’re an EU Dependency the ideas expressed here are only a ‘what if’ displacement activity.
Until we are able to throw off the EU yoke we should concentrate on ensuring that those to whom we have entrusted the local ability to tax us, rip us off as little as possible…all else is time wasted. -
22
October 14, 2011 at 22:22 -
So, on retirement and after a working lifetime of paying into the system pensioners voting rights should be diminished?
Why not just cull them all at 65?
-
23
October 14, 2011 at 23:28 -
I’m down for an e-petition.
-
24
October 15, 2011 at 01:21 -
I thoght that the politicians claimed that if you don’t vote it proves you are satisfied with the status quo.
-
25
October 15, 2011 at 08:46 -
Emancipation is always discussed in terms of it being some fundamental human right. It is not and should not be made so.
As the work of government appears to be to tinker with how society is structured and, in particular, to determine levels of taxation, expenditure and welfare, it should be the people who contribute by taxation to our state that should be permitted to vote on such matters.
If a sixteen year old has a job and pays tax positive, he should be able to vote. A twenty year old with no positive tax contribution should not.
-
26
October 15, 2011 at 11:14 -
Is it realistic to imagine two different elected bodies?
One concerned with taxation and welfare, and with votes weighted according to current contribution; the other making laws and such, all people having one vote.
I can see many problems, but is it worth considering?
Universal suffrage is too important to lose, but it does have fatal flaws.
-
-
27
October 15, 2011 at 11:23 -
Milibands Both have been going on about lowering the voting age to 16. I think it is a nonsense. I would also point out the old adage along the lines of “If you are not a socialist in your youth, you have no heart, of you are after 25, you have no head”. It’s a guaranteed vote boost for Labour, to add to their guaranteed vote boost from fraudulent postal voting.
No thanks. Regardless, I would say the 16 year old is not voting material.
-
28
October 15, 2011 at 21:37 -
Most 16 year olds are far too immature to vote. The idea is ridiculous (which heklps explain why Alex Salmond wants it in Scotland).
-
29
October 15, 2011 at 22:58 -
No representation without taxation.
-
30
October 17, 2011 at 12:38 -
As my moniker might suggest the voting age should be increased to 21 and only property holders (including those with mortgages) should have the right to vote.
-
31
October 17, 2011 at 13:18 -
At 16 I joined the young communists, thank Christ Ididnt have The Vote
-
32
October 17, 2011 at 22:30 -
Re compulsory voting: don’t forget that you can still spoil your ballot paper – e.g. by writing “none of the above” on it.
Lots of people don’t vote – but are most of them making a positive decision not to? I don’t believe it. Most of them simply can’t be bothered. (I share your analyis of why – basically that the three “main” parties are all the same anyway).
You say you vote UKIP in the euro-elections. Why not at other elections, if you really want change? Sorry, but I suspect you are really pretty content with the status quo and don’t care enough to bother voting.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }