Bill to allow 16 year olds to vote to be debated in parliament

If the criteria is brain age comparisons between 16 year old and 70 year old:

16 year old Brain Structure and development: The prefrontal brain cortex is not fully developed until the mid 20s. A 16 year old brain's strength often shows more conservative, loss minimising choices in complex economic tasks due to high analytical processing of risk.

70 year old Brain Structure and development: The brain experiences decreased white brain matter connectivity which can slow communication between neurons. Fluid intelligence declines making it harder to adapt and process new information.

Tuliptree- exactly 😂 😂 😂

icanhandthemback

There is ample of scientific evidence that there is a lack of consequences linked to actions in young people caused by the way the brain is maturing. The Prefrontal Cortex which is responsible for complex, rational, and long-term thinking is the last part to fully mature. Politically the parties might have their ideas but you can't just trounce science. That is what I base my argument against voting at 16.

I’d love all voters to be tested first their capacity for complex, rational and ong long term thinking . 😂😂😂😂

The University of Sheffield and University of Edinburgh did a joint research study and found that as a result of young people in Scotland given the right to vote at 16 in 2014:

1) more likely to vote in higher numbers
2) continue to vote in higher numbers at ages where turn out is traditionally low
3) data sows positive effects on reducing inequality in turnout for different socio-economic groups
4) experts said the findings made the case for giving people younger people the right to vote across the UK to improve long erm voting patterns
5) Younger generations of voters are at ages where they are experiencing life's big changes, joining new circles, considering career choices, considering university and moving out of home etc and those influences could reveal influences that affect peoples motivation to participate over and above voting in the future.

The study found no negative outcomes and encouraged greater political engagement in society overall across different socio economic groups.

I can see no difference between 16 year olds in England than Scotland. Plus it was part of the Labour manifesto, they democratically won the election so now being discussed in parliament.

Some on this post have put forward personal opinions such as 16 year old have might not developed sufficient maturity/life experience/ability to make voting decisions etc. That is not borne out by the research evidence. Does that also mean in reverse- ie we should debate whether there comes an age when people are no longer able to vote because they are not economically active, may be experiencing cognitive decline, no longer have the ability to make voting decisions sensibly etc?

WithNobsOnIt

This shows just how desperate and pathetic Labour are are for voters.

Sine may say need to be at least 18 and have a full time job to vote

Well that would rule out a lot of people on GN 😂😂😂

In Scotland 16 year olds can vote in all except a General Election. I think its madness. Goodness, it used to be 21 and that's when teenagers were given a lot more responsibility and not classed as children within the legal system for any wrong doing.

You move over * Paddyann54* if you believe it’s time for you to do so.
I shall carry on voting as usual.

eazybee

Too young, and some will be influenced by school teachers; not allowed , but it does happen, increasingly.
18 is the age.

I’d be more convinced that they are influenced by parents than teachers.

We are all influenced by somebody. What’s wrong with it being a teacher over a parent or friends or family? Is it because it’s more likely the teacher could have a different opinion than the parents?

Generally the young folk I know are all politically aware ,be.ieve they have the information they need and think they can’t possibly do a worse job than several generations before them.
My opinion is they hit the nail right on the head.
The people of my country haven,t voted for tories in any great numbers….. ertainly not enough to get them into power since 1955 yes that is nineteen fifty five,yet we have been forced to live under Tory rule for over half that 71 years.
That’s not democracy in anyone book.
The young will live with their decisions so let them make their choices and even mistakes.
Let’s face it they have a huge number of mistakes before they even get Westminster in sight.
I,d rather give them a chance than the bigots and the brain dead who have dragged us into wars and out of the EU just to be able to manipulate their rich friends funds.
Arms traders and off shore accounts.
Move over and let fresh minds take your place.
The attitude towards young people on here is disgraceful…I guess you were never young idealistic or had hopes for your country How sad

This shows just how desperate and pathetic Labour are are for voters.

Sine may say need to be at least 18 and have a full time job to vote

Yes that research is very important in terms of the actions we take when young people commit crime, also in terms of safeguarding.

People of course are entitled to their personal opinions. accepting that a personal opinion is just that, personal and not evidence based.

There is ample of scientific evidence that there is a lack of consequences linked to actions in young people caused by the way the brain is maturing. The Prefrontal Cortex which is responsible for complex, rational, and long-term thinking is the last part to fully mature. Politically the parties might have their ideas but you can't just trounce science. That is what I base my argument against voting at 16.

Labour wants to ban under 16s from social media but the minute they reach 16 they want them to vote!

There will surely be yet another U turn when the penny drops.

It may be those political parties Graphite but we here on the forum are talking of our own opinions on the matter.

I really do wish that people would engage with the evidence and not just speak their personal prejudiced views based on no evidence.

electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/votes-at-16/

Where people see votes at 16 in action, they don’t want to go back. In Scotland around a third of adults supported votes at 16 before its introduction, now they have experienced it,60 per cent back the idea.

Sir Keir Starmer said that “if you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote”. Some of Labour’s political opponents—the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru—supported lowering the voting age to 16 in their manifestos.

www.sps.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/assets/doc/Votes%20at%2016%20in%20Scotland.pdf

It’s only regressive parties, the Tories and Reform who oppose.

It doesn’t work like that…21 used to be considered the right age, then 18 was considered the right age, and now 16 is going to be considered.In the future 14 may then be advocated for.

Oops 14😂

‘It’s sometimes what happens isn’t it? From 21 to 18 and now thinking of 16. The ‘old slippery slope’ exists in spite of your sarcasm.’

In order for your point not to be a slippery slope fallacy you would have to produce evidence that votes at 18 has proved to be undesirable and that there is a body of opinion advocating for votes at 24.

DS54

Elections only usually come around every five years so some people now wait until they are nearly 23 for their first opportunity to vote. These years are crucial for people’s futures and they should have a say. I also believe prisoners should be able to vote ( a postal vote for the last constituency they lived in not a taxi to the nearest polling station) . They might be in prison but still have families who are affected by government decisions on things like education.

They lose the right to vote by their crimes.

Tuliptree

‘Not heresy just sensible advice.
Going down to 16 is simply too young, and what next, 14? ‘

Oh the good old slippery slope argument

It’s sometimes what happens isn’t it? From 21 to 18 and now thinking of 16. The ‘old slippery slope’ exists in spite of your sarcasm.

Elections only usually come around every five years so some people now wait until they are nearly 23 for their first opportunity to vote. These years are crucial for people’s futures and they should have a say. I also believe prisoners should be able to vote ( a postal vote for the last constituency they lived in not a taxi to the nearest polling station) . They might be in prison but still have families who are affected by government decisions on things like education.

‘Not heresy just sensible advice.
Going down to 16 is simply too young, and what next, 14? ‘

Oh the good old slippery slope argument

Grantanow

This is heresy but I think raising the.voting age to 21 or more could be a good idea.

😄
Not heresy just sensible advice.
Going down to 16 is simply too young, and what next, 14?

A tremendous amount of assumption here about how young people behave and how they would vote.

Thank you Tuliptree for the link to the Lords library paper:

David Runciman, honorary professor of politics at the University of Cambridge, argues that “no-one should assume they know how young people are going to vote—the point of any democracy worthy of the name is that it should be unpredictable.

According to the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures, there are around 1.6 million 16 and 17 year-olds in the UK. While this sounds like a big number, it is equivalent to less than 3% of the UK’s entire over 16 population, so it would represent only a small increase to the overall size of the electorate (though not everyone included in the ONS population estimates is entitled to vote—for instance those who do not meet nationality requirements).

In Westminster’s first-past-the-post electoral system, what would matter is not just the total number of potential new voters created by lowering the voting age, but also their voting pattern across individual constituencies. ONS analysis of the 2017 general election results found there were 88 constituencies (around 14% of seats) where the number of 16- and 17-year-olds was greater than the winning margin. House of Lords Library analysis based on the same methodology found this rose to 120 constituencies for the 2024 general election (around 18% of seats). Writing about the 2017 election, the ONS noted that if 16- and 17-year-olds had been able to vote in such seats, it would not necessarily have changed the outcome—it would depend on their rate of turnout and which candidates they decided to vote for. Dr Christine Huebner of the University of Sheffield and Dr Jan Eichhorn of the University of Edinburgh—academics whose work examines the impacts of lowering the voting age—observe that “no voter group participates at 100%, and young people do not vote homogenously, so the actual number of constituencies with potential changes to election outcomes would be much lower.