Former punk rocker and Big Brother pest Aidan McLindon, who is currently the LNP’s candidate for Beaudesert, has called for the voting age to be lowered to 17. Most campaigning for lowering the voting age has aimed for the age to be set at 16, which is the Greens policy (with voluntary voting before 18). A campaign is building up in the UK to implement voting at the age of 16, with the Labour Party edging towards making it official party policy (although it would not be implemented until after the next election, which Labour look likely to lose). Newham borough council in London conducted a fascinating contest in October when they elected a Young Mayor:
Eleven to 17-year-olds who live, work or study in Newham were eligible to vote at schools, colleges and Connexions Shops throughout the borough. Turnout was 43% per cent; this is on par with the London Mayoral elections, 45%, and surpasses the 34% of the Newham Mayoral elections.
While it isn’t a position with huge power, it actually does mean something and is a fascinating way to get young people engaged a lot more than the current crop of “youth advisory committees” in local councils in Australia:
The 13 runners-up will form the core of the Youth Council, who will support and advise the Young Mayor and his Deputy. The Young Mayor will have a £25,000 budget and he and his council will decide how it will be spent. They will also direct more than £400,000 of Youth Opportunity Fund money into local projects providing things to do and places to go for young people.
From catching public transport, I can clearly say that 16 to 17 year olds know HEAPS!!!!! Let them vote for a better and more just world!!!!! Not like all the old Conservative farts out there!!!!!
I assume that is sarcastic, although it’s a bit hard to tell.
God knows you can’t let those silly kids vote. Because grown-ups are so much more sensible and rational in their voting decisions.
Why 16 or 17? I’m not against lowering the voting age, in fact I think it’s a great idea, but 16 or 17 seems just as arbitrary as 18. At least 18 is in sync with pretty much everything else.
I disagree. There are a number of different definitions of adulthood. You can sign up for the military at 17. You can drive at 16 and on your own at 17. You can leave school at 16, and you can work at 14 and 9 months (and thus pay tax). The age of consent is 16.
Count me in favour. I’ll never forget the frustration I felt at being 17y 10m at the time of the republican referendum.
So you’ve got three different ages there Ben, which one would you prefer and why?
I’d go with 16. Out of all those above-mentioned rights that are conferred at different age, the two most important I reckon are the right to work and be taxed (directly related to questions of representation) and the right to consent to sex.
So while I’d go with 16, I could easily see the arguments for 15.
The point is that the voting age is arbitrary, or at least fluid, which means that there is room to move it for better outcomes.
The truth is that politics in this country (and most western countries) in highly biased against young people. A lot of the time youth policy is dictated by what parents want, not what teenagers want. So while 18-25 year-olds can vote, a 16-25 voting block would be bigger and thus more influential.
The number of young people will always be much larger than the number of voting young people, because there’ll always be a lot falling below the voting age. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t deserving of representation, so the voting age should be the lowest that is justifiable.