"Including 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate does not change election outcomes and it does not make elections less representative. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are just as qualified to vote as other, older voters. Research from Germany and Austria shows that they are able to pick a political party or representative that best represents their views to the same extent as other, slightly older voters. But some things may get better for young people and for democracy overall, especially if young people are taken seriously as voters and receive good education on political issues...."
Writes Christine Huebner, a lecturer in quantitative social sciences at the University of Sheffield, in
"What happens when 16-year-olds get the vote? Other countries are already seeing the benefits" (Guardian).
Oh, please don't let this happen in the U.S. As I see it, 16 year olds will get the vote... when they turn 18. There's no problem to fix. By the way, I didn't get to vote until I was 21.
Posts
106 comments:
"Including 16- and 17-year-olds in the electorate does not change election outcomes...
...she stated without evidence.
Will sixteen-year-olds be more inclined to accept government as a surrogate patent? If so, cui bono?
"Other countries are already seeing the benefit...."
Now, that's funny, right there. I was just driving home from the land and heard the same story in an interview on NPR, what a coincidence, probably the same professor, extolling the virtues of making a 'social experience' out of it. I'll bet. Yes, I can see how somebody that is gripping the levers of social media might just be salivating at the prospect of 16 year-olds voting. Maybe they could have a TikTok of kids eating Tide pods while they cast their vote, it's the latest thing.
Votes for hormonal morons is the Labour party's last grasp plan for permanent majority status. What are the benefits? Ask the Irish.
When I was in High School, mid-Eighties, I ran for and was elected to all the student government positions possible. Politics geek. At the time, I remember distinctly believing that I should be able to Vote for real at 16. I have since changed my mind, but the impulse was strong.
I can't help but think of Star Trek, And The Children Shall Lead. Furthermore, it's obvious these British nonces have never read Lord Of The Flies.
"Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are just as qualified to vote as other, older voters."
The hell they are.
"especially if young people are taken seriously as voters and receive good education on political issues...."
Aren't young people in the US mostly being educated by those on the political left?
The UK just keeps getting worse and worse.
The Left wants 16 and 17 years olds to vote, because they are ignorant are heavily influenced by the Media and their teachers. And they want to do what the "cool kids" are doing.
If they can vote, then their parents shouldn't be allowed to deduct them as dependents. After all, they can work, vote and pay taxes. IRC, in England the age of consent for marriage, sex, and abortions is also 16 and under.
Which raises a broader question: in what sense is the UK still a worthwhile "ally"?
If I'm not mistaken, SF and NYC have already let 16 year olds and Foreigners vote in their local elections. Which means they also vote in national elections since no one stops it.
People with no contribution or stake in the future shouldn’t be able to vote.
Some combination of civil service and raising of children in intact male +female households should be required to vote.
Almost all kids in the USA aren't working at 16/17 full time. They're going to school and being supported by their parents. They know nothing. They dont' follow the news and have no base of knowledge to cast an intelligent vote. IOW, they're natural Democrat voters.
18 year-olds got the vote entirely on the strength of the draft argument, if you're old enough to die for your county, you're old to enough to have a political voice -- persuasive if your country relies on conscription for its defense. The problem is, girls don't make good infantrymen, therefore the need to conscript them can never equal the need for 18 year-old boys. Consequently, the conscription argument is weak.
The UK has a suicide wish. Might as well let illegal aliens vote.
"Other countries are seeing the benefit". Let me translate that. It really means: "Other leftist parties are seeing the benefit"
If 16 year-olds are suitable voters, how does one defend the exclusion of 15 year-olds?
"Might as well let illegal aliens vote."
You mean like the USA? No one can check for citizenship because one of 700 unelected lawyers called "District Judges" have decided that is against blahblahblah made up reason. So any illegal alien can vote, they're on the honor system. LOL!
Sebastian said, "Which raises a broader question: in what sense is the UK still a worthwhile 'ally'?"
To put it in perspective, the once mighty Royal Navy has 1/6th the ships and personnel it did only 40 years ago during the Falklands war. They also have massive personnel problems, significant enough they've almost missed a few Vanguard SSBN Trident deterrent patrols.
In short, they'd have trouble blockading Rockall Island.
The push for 16/17 has no grass roots support in England or the USA. Its a top push by Leftwing activists to increase their chance of getting elected. I wonder what other shenanigans the Labour party will try. BTW, I noticed the the Canadian Election Board "Forgot" to count 120,000 votes in their last election. That's equivilent to 1.2 million American votes.
The left is cheating all over the Anglo world.
Research .... shows
Well! If Research shows something, who am I to argue!! (sarcasm, by the way)
Oh, please don't let this happen in the U.S.
The post-election polls that showed Gen-Z shifting to the right has pretty much shut down Democrat interest in lowering the voting age, and Republicans have never had much interest in lowering the voting age to begin with.
I would argue we should also exclude those over 70 from voting. Their support of social security will bankrupt it for those 16 year olds you want to keep from voting.
I think too young to vote and too old to vote are valid arguments.
Research shows this changes nothing.
Let's do it!!!
Why?
So nothing will change!!!
(I think someone is lying.)
Yes, why 16? An arbitrary number in the roiling, boiling cauldron of puberty.
This plan backfired in Argentina. The 16-19 cohort voted 90% for Milei.
I voted at 17 for Ronald Reagan. I had a job as a petition gatherer and had used my fake ID to register to vote.
"I would argue we should also exclude those over 70 from voting."
OK, as long as I get to stop paying taxes, too. I am paying more in taxes now than I ever have (by a long shot).
"The government has announced it will lower the voting age to 16 for all UK elections in time for the next general election...."
"The government" can just do that?
"'The government' can just do that?"
In fairness to their inept government, every British person is a "subject".
The more you bring in voters who have nothing of their own, the more of your stuff the voters will vote to take by government force.
"Lecturer in quantitative social sciences?"
What the ٪#@& does that even suppose to mean?!
But some things may get better for young people and for democracy overall, especially if young people are taken seriously as voters and receive good education on political issues...."
In other words, as things currently stand young people are not receiving a good education on political issues...
Furthermore, it's obvious these British nonces have never read Lord Of The Flies.
Or Mao's Children's Revolution. Or Cambodia.
Great. The UK blew it over taxation without representation.
Now it wants representation without taxation.
Victoria is writhing in her grave.
A top British academic and government advisor has warned that the UK will experience a civil war within the next five years. Perhaps they've really gone off the deep end believing "that from the mouths of babes" shall come a solution to an inevitable problem.
"Oh, please don't let this happen in the U.S. As I see it, 16 year olds will get the vote... when they turn 18. There's no problem to fix. By the way, I didn't get to vote until I was 21. "
Great minds think alike! :) That is exactly what I was going to write.
Every year my AP Gov students debate whether or not to lower the voting age to 16. It's never an actual debate because I've yet to have a student in favor in five years. Even they know they aren't educated or mature enough to vote.
The first US presidential election where 18 year olds were allowed to vote was in 1972. Nixon won in a massive landslide.
As mentioned above, the argument for allowing 18 year olds to vote was largely based on conscription. Since women in the US have never had to risk being drafted, why was the voting age lowered for them?
I would change my name to “Votey McVoteface” and run for office.
"Research from Germany and Austria shows that they are able to pick a political party or representative that best represents their views to the same extent as other, slightly older voters."
16-18 year olds who have never been responsible for earning a living and supporting themselves able to pick a political party or representative that best represents their views to the same extent as 19-21 year olds who have never been responsible for earning a living and supporting themselves?
Who'da thunk it?
"The government" can just do that?"
Yeah, the UK Parliment is pretty powerful.
Almost as powerful as US District Court Judge or the SCOTUS. The Parliment can pass laws, but they can be overturned. If the SCOTUS decided tommorrow that voting age of 18 was "unconstitutional" or "violated the Civil rights act", then made it 16, there's little we could do about it.
"Research" means "research by Leftwing Professors who want the voting age to be 16".
I am going to LMAO when the 16 - 17 year old vote goes hard for Reform and the LibDems, and Labour gets crushed in that demographic.
"why was the voting age lowered for them?"
Because we live in a crypto-gynocracy with a two-tiered system intentionally designed to enfranchise women at the expense of males, and provide the rewards of that enfranchisement to women for little or none of the effort or responsibility expected of men in our crypto-society.
And now Britain is trying to enfranchise literal children because their crypto-gynocracy is closer to failure than ours is. The West decided men were a problem and women were the solution, and problems without solutions are precisely what they - and we - have gotten.
There. I said it.
Heck... 18 year olds don't have the sense to pour pee out of a boot with the directions on the heal.. and now 16 years old?? Hahahahahaha... reap what you sow.
Left of center party proposing, of course.
Mt. T, a "lecturer" is next down the hierarchy from associate prof, who are below profs.
"quantitative social science" is a fantasy, but probably lucrative.
To me it would make sense to raise our voting age to 25 to vote for the House, 30 to vote for the Senate and 35 to vote for the President --- let them be elected by their peers. Just a thought...
I'm in favor of more restrictions, such as passing a basic civics test. If you don't know anything about the Constitution, why should you have the vote? I'm tired of complete idiots having a say in the future of the country.
dumb. But leftists love it -because they needs the votes.
@Big Mike - It's called Parliamentary Supremacy. The Brits have no written Constitution and little in the way of separation of powers between Parliament as the legislative branch, the Prime Minister (selected by Parliament) as the executive, and their judiciary, so pretty much anything Parliament wants to do, it can do.
@rsbsail, I'm a fan of Heinlein. Politically and philosophically I agree with him that in a just society - one where an actual social contract exists between the government and the governed - voting is a de facto substitute for violence. Although suffrage is a right and can be universal, it is not free and has attendant responsibilities even if they are sometimes reduced to triviality.
We're on the same page. To my mind voting is a serious activity. An adult activity, in the Athenian and Syssitian sense, and if you have suffrage you get to have all the other baggage that comes with it, some of it unpleasant. Universally applied equally to everyone, if you'll take the benefits but not the responsibilities, you should A) not be allowed to vote, B) are not a citizen and C) are not an adult.
No doubt these views are considered completely anachronistic today, but it's odd that it wasn't but two generations ago everything above would've been considered indisputable to almost everyone in Britain, the US, and most other democracies.
What happened?
"Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are just as qualified to vote as other, older voters."
Original Mike responded...
"The hell they are."
Or maybe that's a criticism of the current quality of older voters.
"I say, my fellow citizens, did we or did we not 'Brexit' when the Brexiting was good!" - George Washington (allegedly)
These days many kids don't get a driver's license when eligible. Will they exercise voting right?
They'll vote to lower the age of consent.
I was flying airplanes before I was old enough to drive. Ride the bicycle to the airport.
The most popular British politician on TikTok is Nigel Farange. Guess which party he heads? LOL
Fred Drinkwater: Not quite. In the UK system, it is lecturer, senior lecturer, associate professor, reader, then professor.
Hey mark.. you lefties should have everyone over age 70 killed… sort of like Logan’s run.
These days many kids don't get a driver's license when eligible. Will they exercise voting right?
Interesting point, Readering! Aren't young voters notoriously difficult to motivate actually to vote? They'll come to rallies because they're like a party or a rave or a concert, but when it comes time to cast a ballot, they tend to disappoint, if memory serves.
But heck, they've got to try something, I guess, since abandoning failed economic policies is off the table.
I took my daughter and a friend of hers to a Beto rally in Houston when my daughter was about to turn18 (she was 18 and a month on election day). Beto was hours late - I don't know if that's by design or just happenstance, as when we took progressive California friends to Harris's final Houston rally last fall, she also was very late.
But in any case, our two Beto girls got bored and hungry, so before the great man even showed up we left and took the girls to House of Pies instead. I don't know if the friend voted, but I'm pretty sure our daughter did, because I dragged her to my polling place with me - otherwise I feel pretty certain she wouldn't have.
some have pointed out, the younger cohort skews more immigrant than native born, so if you want to want a more
radical, anti Western demography, well thats the way even before the current generation dissapates,
"I don't know if the friend voted..."
The left doesn't really care if they vote, they'd probably be happy if none of them did. Having those ballots mailed out is the prize.
Oh, and in re the comment above about how maybe comparing 16-17yos to older voters is actually a slam on older voters... my husband and I agree that it would be very surprising if his brother, who stopped speaking to us after the election (without even knowing whether we voted, much less for whom!), has ever voted in his life. But boy, must he feel good about himself.
So let me say thank you to even our most difficult-to-read lefties here, simply for continuing to engage. My brother-in-law is breaking his mother's heart and affecting my husband's emotional state every single day, simply for some weird kind of bragging rights to his little daughter's friends' parents, LA nouveau riche whom he used to scorn when he was just a Ventura County bartending surfer.
Come to think of it, scorning people has been his jam for a long, long time...
In England, Scotland and Wales, it's not illegal for someone between the ages of five and 17 to drink alcohol at home or on other private premises.
Age of sexual consent; 16
Buy cigarettes :15
I decided I ought to read the article. The writer points out that 16-17yos are a small contingent - hence they "don't affect election outcomes." But the article says that other countries are already seeing the benefits. What benefits?
Apparently, the benefits are:
* greater engagement with younger voters by political parties and candidates (why this is a benefit is unstated, but maybe tech-savvitude?)
* younger voters' ability to influence the adults in their household (doesn't this cut against the claim that they don't influence election outcomes?)
* younger voters' having a greater commitment to and positive opinion of democracy - and here she points to, was it Switzerland? Anyway, another country with very young voters, which instituted a stepped-up civics curriculum at the same time, which suggests that telling kids how to vote can be... beneficial.
There's also something about their turning out at higher rates than their older peers who are - and I would imagine this is key, as others have pointed out - in a "transitory period" between life under parents' sway and life as independent adults. But increased turnout is not necessarily a "benefit" - see, for instance, the vote that resulted in Boaty McBoatface.
She insists that this isn't a Labour tactic to create more Labour votes. But then she undercuts that claim with all the "benefits" she mentions.
Where's a cafe post when you need one?! My husband is telling me Stephen Colbert has been fired!
Correction: his show is being cancelled as of next May. The producers are at some pains to emphasize that it's not about him - just that they're up against it, financially.
well it kind of is about camelbert, part of the whole john stewart entourage,
"The producers are at some pains to emphasize that it's not about him - just that they're up against it, financially."
Hating on Trump 24/7/365 is not enough to keep the lights on?
shockingly know, I noted that spitting image, the edgy puppet satire from the 80s, is still on,
Over 10% of UK under 18 population is Muslim. That will continue to grow. The Grand Mufti will take over within 25 years
"The producers are at some pains to emphasize that it's not about him - just that they're up against it, financially."
Does
"The producers are at some pains to emphasize that it's not about him - just that they're up against it, financially."
Does seem to be about him, then.
Banning social media for those under 16 won't likely endear those voters to the banners.
"Banning social media for those under 16 won't likely endear those voters to the banners."
You're never too young to learn that you don't always get what you want.
They didn't have gay marraige or transsexxuals when I was a kid! That milton berle cross dressing was a COMEDY! Sheesh, all these black rights, gay rights, youth rights... If I didn't have it, you won't have it. ~BoomerQueenBee
I worked on Barry Goldwater’s campaign for President when I was 17. I guess I haven’t changed much over the years.
Incidentally, I think he would have made a much better President than that other guy.
Jersey Fled said...
I worked on Barry Goldwater’s campaign for President when I was 17.
They warned me in 1964 that if I voted for Goldwater that we’d be in a serious shooting war in Southeast Asia. Well I did, and sure enough we were!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/?ref_=ls_t_6
As a society we need to decide what the age of maturity is for everything. Old enough to vote at 16? Fine, old enough to be a legal adult, serve on a jury, get drafted for war, drink a beer, etc. If not mature enough for all of those, you're not mature enough to vote. Personally, I think as long as the voting and draft age is 18 the age for tobacco, weed and alcohol should also be 18.
I'm sure the leftists on this blog are pleased. after all, if the soon to be Muslim country of England can support marriage at 9, certainly they can let boys vote at 16. someone tell Inga that those she supports ban women voting, at all. or driving, or typing letters to blogs.
My first votes were my worst votes, but there is no doubt I thought I knew what I needed to know. I didn't. Not even 10% of it.
I don't believe the supporters of this really think 16 year-olds are equipped to vote responsibly. They just see a means to an end - a very cynical end.
What's so magical about 16? Why not 12? Pregnant women (whatever that is) should get two votes.
bagoh20 said...
“What's so magical about 16? Why not 12? Pregnant women (whatever that is) should get two votes.”
I dunno, bagoh20. That might be considered ballot harvesting.
More people who have never worked voting themselves other people's money.
Considering that it has been scientifically proven that the male brain (frontal cortex) develops around the age of 21, without a good political education, general culture, etc., I don't think there should be voters from the age of 16-17. Basically, it would be a good manipulation table for any type of extremism.
It’s weird, from an American point of view. We are citizens, because of our Constitution. Our government governs with the consent of the governed. And so, it makes sense for us to tie rights to responsibilities. Those who work and pay for the government, or go to war to defend it, should ultimately be the ones determining its direction. But the British are Subjects of the Crown. Which means, to me, that there is a disconnect between these. The people there aren’t sovereign - Chuck is, following his mother Lizzie. And back for some 950 years.
Here, the idea of giving 18 year olds the vote was stupid, and giving it to 16 year olds would be ludicrous. That would give our hard left teachers unions control over the votes of 16 and 17 year olds. But then, giving the vote, or electoral representation, to legal aliens is bad, but giving it to illegals is, again, ludicrous. They all sever the tie between voting and responsibility. Which, of course, is one of the purposes of this, since those pushing it are, essentially, Marxists, trying to destroy the fabric of our country for their own benefit.
So the left's agenda is to dominate the schools of indoctrination where children are taught to be liberal Democrats.
Of course they want 16-year-olds to vote, because 16-year-olds still have some trust in authority figures and what they say. The whole model for teaching in schools is that an authority figure tells you things, you write them down, and are rewarded for how well you regurgitate the information on the test.
When I was in law school, I was like, "Oh my God, this is a real education." That's because the authorities were in dispute, and you had to decide who was right. You had to think.
Many, many people discover, as they get older, that they were misled by authorities when they were young. When I was a kid, I thought Joseph McCarthy was really, really bad. Also Nixon. We did not talk about the evils of Stalin, or Mao. It did not come up. I had a lot of lessons about anti-Communist hysteria. And no lessons about mass murderers killing innocent people.
So of course Democrats want young, indoctrinated children to vote.
I should clarify, Democrats are not in favor of mass murderers killing innocent people. They're opposed to that. Democrats just think that Communism has never been tried, and we should give it another go. Maybe we'll get it right this time!
Normal political party, after losing an election:
"We might need to change our ideas, our positions, our laws, our ideology. Or we need better politicians to advance our ideas, our positions, our laws, our ideology."
Insane political party, after losing an election.
"We need to bring in different voters."
Maybe we should have a rule that nobody can vote unless they register for the draft.
Hillary was a Goldwater Girl when she was in school.
16 year olds have minds full of mush and hormones. They are emotional, excitable, misinformed about most things but think they know it all, and have zero sense of either history or economics.
In short, they could run for Congress, but they should not be allowed to vote.
WHY CAN'T 12 year olds vote?
THIS IS FASCISM!
The worst effect of the 18 year old vote has been the politicization of our universities.
"Only stupid people will vote for us - how can we get more stupid people?"
Hmm. Which demographic in the UK is having the most children and has the best chance to dominate the voting population soonest?
People in the 16-18 age range tend to vote much more liberal than older people. They're a lot more gullible and inexperienced. Also, many of them have never had a job or had to pay taxes.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.