Teenagers celebrate turning 16, because we suddenly have a much greater degree of independence than ever
before: we can marry and have children; get a full-time job and even join the army. Given that the State judges that we are
now responsible to make these important decisions, including dying for our country in war and having to pay taxes if we work,
it seems ridiculous that we cannot help to choose the party which sends us to war or spends our taxes.
People have been campaigning for votes at 16
since the 1970s and ever since 2003 there has actually been a Votes at 16 Coalition. Opponents of lowering the voting age
argue that the majority of the voting population don’t want to extend the voting age. However, such arguments are flawed.
When
the vote was extended to women over 21 in 1929, and later to all over 18 in 1968, the vast majority of voters at the time
opposed it; yet it would be absurd to suggest that these reforms should not have happened. Of course there is a minority of
16 and 17-year-olds who do not want the vote, many persuaded by media coverage hostile to young people’s opinions. But
the majority have taken a more informed view, and want the voting age raised. This surely shows that we are capable of weighing
up options and reaching a considered conclusion: if 16 and 17-year-olds can do this on issues like the voting age, surely
we can decide which political party to vote for?
The voting turnout has been decreasing with every general election,
suggesting that the enfranchised population are politically apathetic. Ever since 2001, citizenship education has been compulsory
in schools, with the result that 16 and 17-year-olds should be, if anything, more politically-minded than the rest of the
population. Moreover, if the voting age were extended to 16, there would be a greater chance of engaging voters when they
were young for life, perhaps reversing the current trend of political apathy.
Currently, it is all too easy for politicians
to ignore the petitions of teenagers because we have no political standing whilst we cannot vote. It is often said that young
people are difficult to contact, but if the voting age were lowered to 16, politicians would have a vested interest in visiting
schools and listening to potential supporters.
In the light of the financial downturn, the policies of whichever
party is voted into power this May will have long-term consequences. In ten years, when today’s 16 and 17-year-olds
will be a crucial part of our workforce, we are still likely to be contending with the results of 2010’s policies and
as such, 16 and 17-year-olds should definitely have the right to vote.
Ultimately, there are currently more than one
and a half million 16 and 17 year-olds denied the right to vote and it’s time we gained this basic right. Not only is
it wrong that 16 year olds can die for their country without choosing the government that sent them to war, but extending
the vote would bring many positives to our society and would perhaps reverse the current trend of political apathy: the time
is right to extend the voting age.
Imogen
supports the Votes at 16 Coalition
The Vote is the only implement, tool,
weapon or device in the armoury of the citizen against the power of the State.
The State
has a vested interest in reducing the power of the vote - indeed it is the mark of a despotic regime that the vote has no
value.
Increasing the franchise - or increasing the number of people able to vote - but without increasing
the options and alternatives, is identical to creating money without increasing the supply of goods. Everything costs more
(gets more votes) but the output is the same (one MP) - so the unit-value of each vote is reduced. If the number of voters
doubled, the “value” of each vote would halve.
On voting day, every voter is equal;
the vote cast by the wisest and most conscientious person ranks equally with every other vote cast - including the “village
idiot’s”.
Moreover, the candidates care not for “the value” of any vote
they receive, they are concerned only about the number - with one non-transferable vote and a first-past-the-post system,
a majority of one is sufficient.
Therefore, it is in the candidate’s interests not to pursue any quality
aspect in his electorate but to chase the cheapest, easiest, least considered and most easily influenced votes.
Increasing the Franchise does not, therefore, increase the average quality and value of the vote but to the contrary
tends to reduce the quality and value of each vote - to the extent that in many parts of this country it is already considered
valueless and people decline to exercise their democratic power.
Reducing the voting age to 16 - effectively
giving school-children equal power to influence their government and its policy - is nothing but a cynical electoral ploy.
By
definition younger people have little experience, they have few responsibilities, they are idealistic rather than pragmatic
and they are relatively naive - pure putty in the hands of the most cynical, underhand, back-stabbing low-life known to man
- the politician and the political party system.
While there is a very much stronger case for increasing the voting
age and qualification requirements for the electorate than for reducing the voting age, a purely cynical lowering of the voting
age to 16 would actually have one benefit: it would destroy forever any faith that voters have in the present political and
voting system.
John Upex is
the independent prospective parliamentary candidate for Harrogate and Knaresborough. John's website
