The voting age should be 16. The age of consent is 16, you can join the military at 16 and you can drive at 17. You choose A-Levels at 15 or 16, and you apply to university at 17 (verging on 18). Clearly, young people are capable of making important life decisions, so why should voting be any different?
What can we already do between 16 and 18?
The legal age for consensual sexual intercourse is 16, while individuals can obtain a driver’s licence at the age of 17. Both driving and having sexual intercourse can have drastic consequences for the people involved. driving can cause accidents and even take lives, and Intercourse can result in pregnancy and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), both of which can result in health issues. Pregnancy is life-altering, whether the baby is kept or not.
You can join the military at the age of 16, which comes with the risk of dying for the country. Many come out of the military emotionally scarred and struggle with life afterwards as a civilian. At the age of 16, you can make these decisions about whether to risk these consequences or not. Also, there is the risk of crashing your car at the age of 17.
Why is it that you can drive or enlist, before you can vote?
Many 16-year-olds have jobs, and although most of them don’t make enough money to be taxed on, they are still working and contributing to society. Some of them may even be making taxable amounts, meaning they are already giving back to the economy. In a capitalistic society, driven by economic factors, is this not a reason for these individuals to be valued? If you can pay taxes to the government, then why can you not choose what government that is going to be? If 16 and 17-year-olds are responsible enough in the eyes of the law to hold up a job, they should be considered responsible enough to vote too.
Making key decisions
At the age of 16, young people make key decisions that will influence their careers, such as what A-Levels to study. They must know what to do with their lives at such a young age. Teenagers who say they don’t want children when they’re older, are told they might change their minds. They are also expected to know what to do with their careers and lives, such as joining the military. This suggests that society expects young individuals to know if they will ever want children, and to have clear plans.
Army recruiters go into secondary schools and even primary schools (they did when my sister was in Year 6), to do physical activities with children, but also to expose them to the military. I recall an army recruiter coming into my secondary school in Year 9 or 10, to talk to us about joining the army. Often, they target young working-class people, who may have less of an access to alternative career options. Apparently, this is allowed. How does it make sense that 16-year-olds are allowed to sign themselves up to learn to fight in a war, but not vote? If you can give a 16-year-old gun training, why can’t you give them a slip of paper to put in a ballot box? Where is the danger in that?
What are the arguments made against lowering the voting age?
In response to this, some claim they’re too young at age 16 and may not know who to vote for. However, many adults often face the same uncertainty. Misinformation is spread so easily, especially on online platforms such as Facebook. For example, take what happened over the summer when misinformation spread about the young man behind the killings in Southport. There were claims that he was a Muslim and a terrorist, when in reality he was a black Christian from Wales whose parents are immigrants from Rwanda. This led to rioting against all people of colour. At a time when the country should have been mourning respectfully, discrimination and hatred were fuelled online.
It would be easy to point out that the attacker was 17, which is just under the voting age. It could be said that his age is proof that 17-year-olds are too ignorant to vote. But this is a mindset that unfairly tarnishes all youth with the same brush. Each generation seems to have disdain for the younger generation. Whilst today’s youth have grown up online, we live in an information age.
If young people are directed to places that can help them make more informed decisions, this would help. One example is being signposted to the websites of political parties to see their manifestos for themselves. Additionally, seeing how their MPs voted, and the speeches they’ve made (available online through websites such as TheyWorkForYou), would help them make more informed and balanced decisions.
Concluding thoughts
In my opinion, politicians deliberately target uneducated masses, because their propaganda is more persuasive to those who do not have a political education. Political education seems only to be afforded to those who actively decide to study politics, not a subject that can be studied at GCSE level. The closest to it is the Power and the People module in GCSE history and A-Level politics. Whilst just under 10% of A-Level students study politics (a significant amount for an A-Level), it is essential for everyone to have a basic understanding of how our political system operates. I’m not suggesting that all students study A-Level politics, but I think that they should be encouraged to read or learn about politics in their spare time. This may be through signposting (showing them where to find the correct resources and giving access to them, so they have the means to know these things), and guidance.
If we leave school without knowing who to vote for, what is highlighted is the need for education in politics. Education should at least teach the basics like how to register to vote, and things like how to read party manifestos and policies should be in the curriculum.
Instead of this, we learn Pythagoras’ Theorem (which, at almost 21, I am yet to use), and algebra.
Political education is crucial for creating an informed voter base, capable of advocating for themselves and voting sensibly, regardless of age. Therefore, lowering the voting age would be an even more sensible idea.
Sixteen years olds can enlist
Young people are the future of this country. Not allowing a population of approximately one million people to vote is wrong. A 16-year-old can enlist in the military, a path often encouraged for working-class teenage boys. They are led to believe that their service is noble and dutiful. However, at least 10% of people coming out of the British military had PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) symptoms, and the actual figure is most likely higher, due to the stigma surrounding mental illness and toxic masculinity. Furthermore, there is minimal support available for veterans once they transition out of the army.
For working-class young men who face challenges in school, often due to the educational gaps caused by poverty, the military may appear to be an appealing option. However, they are often unaware of the harsh realities of war. Allegedly, 16-year-olds are uninformed about voting, but surely, they are just as uninformed about the military, yet they can still join and risk their lives. They should be more informed, but the hypocrisy in the argument about voters being ignorant at 16 is blatant.
If a 16-year-old can learn to fight with a gun for the nation, and go on active duty as soon as possible, why can’t they fight for their country using the ballot box?
