logo
The Guardian view on votes at 16: democracy belongs to the young too

The Guardian view on votes at 16: democracy belongs to the young too

The Guardian6 days ago
Elections are imperfect reflections of public sentiment. But they are the least worst means to distribute political power. Each vote does count, however unsatisfactorily, under Westminster's electoral system – except when people are denied one. For too long, those missing out have included 16- and 17-year‑olds. These teenagers are old enough to work, pay tax, join the army and make medical decisions. Yet they are judged too young to help decide who governs them.
The government proposes to resolve that anomaly. The decision to lower the voting age by the 2029 general election marks the largest extension of the franchise in more than 50 years. It is a long-overdue reform that brings England and Northern Ireland into line with Scotland and Wales. In democracies, those affected deserve a say. Opponents claim teenagers are too immature to vote. Political insight isn't bestowed by a birthday. Foolishness and wisdom are spread across age groups. Younger people vote less reliably – but many adults also don't bother. Apathy is no bar to suffrage.
Britain's youth are already political – on social media and in the streets. What they've lacked is formal power. Little wonder that many feel alienated. Policies have too often favoured older voters – with higher turnout rates – while the concerns of younger generations, from climate breakdown to housing insecurity, go unheeded. A system skewed so sharply by age erodes its legitimacy. Sixteen-year‑olds in Scotland made history by voting in the 2014 independence referendum. They now cast ballots under proportional representation in Scottish and Welsh elections. Their participation is serious, their presence uncontroversial. Yet some teenagers who voted in 2014 couldn't vote again in the 2015 general election or in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
A growing list of countries – including Austria, Brazil and Argentina – allow 16-year‑olds to vote in national elections. There is some evidence that voting becomes a habit when it starts in school. Such a reform belongs in a broader rethink of how our democracy works. Improving political education in schools is a must in the UK's constituent parts. Lowering the voting age from 18 without addressing the digital information ecosystem would be an incomplete measure. If we entrust 16- and 17-year-olds with a vote, we must also ensure that they're not the most vulnerable to manipulation, misinformation or disengagement. Ministers have so far fallen short of this challenge.
The pollster Sir John Curtice thinks new voters will add only about 3% to the electorate. Half of teenagers surveyed say they might not vote. But that doesn't invalidate the principle. Expanding the franchise isn't about party advantage – whatever some in Labour think – but about fairness. The leftwing party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, the Greens and Reform UK could all benefit. Political outcomes may surprise.
Young people deserve a say in the future that will shape their opportunities. To turn that right into engagement, parties need policies that speak to their concerns. Lowering the voting age will not by itself revive trust in democracy. If young people are not made to feel genuinely included in political life, it may have limited impact. But at a time of record‑low turnout, it is a signal that politics still belongs to the people. Including the young is not a gamble, it's a commitment to the future.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump and the GOP working on an ‘agenda 2027' to tell voters what to expect if they retain Congressional control
Trump and the GOP working on an ‘agenda 2027' to tell voters what to expect if they retain Congressional control

The Independent

time8 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Trump and the GOP working on an ‘agenda 2027' to tell voters what to expect if they retain Congressional control

President Donald Trump and his White House are influencing GOP congressional candidates and advising who to run and who to stand down as Republicans try to keep control of both chambers of Congress in midterm elections next year. The White House is strategizing to make sure Republicans win enough seats and is putting together 'a 2027 policy agenda' so Trump, who plans to join candidates on the campaign trail, can explain what continued GOP control of the House, Senate and the White House could look like, a White House official told Politico. This strategy includes telling which Republican candidates to run for office and which to 'stay put,' the official said. For example, Iowa Republican Rep. Zach Nunn was weighing a gubernatorial run when the president told him to 'stay put,' the outlet reported. Nunn this month announced he was running for re-election. 'After prayerful consideration with his family and the strong support from President Trump, Zach is more committed than ever to maintaining the Republican majority and advancing the America First Agenda,' the congressman's campaign spokesperson said. The president has also publicly endorsed Nunn. The president also advised Michigan GOP Rep. Bill Huizenga to avoid running for Senate. Trump instead publicly backed Senator Mike Rogers this week, saying he 'has my Complete and Total Endorsement — HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN!' Earlier this month, Trump met with Iowa Senator Joni Ernst to encourage her to run for re-election, Politico previously reported. Questions about Ernst's political future swirled after her viral remark about proposed Medicaid cuts: 'We all are going to die.' 'President Trump is the unequivocal leader of the Republican Party — just look at those who have bet against him in the past because they are no longer around,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Politico. 'The President will help his Republican friends on Capitol Hill get reelected, and work to pick up new seats across the country.' Democrats are likely hoping for a repeat of the 2018 midterms, when they destroyed Republicans' trifecta by taking control of the House during Trump's first term. ​​'I'm sure there's some memories from 2018, but it's all about these last two years of his presidency and his legacy, and he doesn't want the Democrats nipping at his heels all the time for the last two years,' Tony Fabrizio, the pollster for Trump's 2016 and 2024 campaigns, told Politico. Trump has acknowledged the power he has to influence voters. He recently suggested holding rallies for candidates, two White House officials told the outlet. The president reportedly told one of the officials last week: 'We're going to have to campaign in the states and really get out there a lot, huh? Because really, it's just me that can pull them out in a lot of places.' Republican strategists have said they plan to use the threat of Trump's third impeachment, should Democrats take the House, to compel voters. 'We know what the stakes are in the midterm elections,' John McLaughlin, a Trump pollster, told NBC News this week. 'If we don't succeed, Democrats will begin persecuting President Trump again. They would go for impeachment.' The White House also plans to use its 2024 campaign strategy as a guide, targeting young and working-class voters that came out to support Trump in droves. 'One of the main strategies is to put Trump on the ballot in the midterms,' one of the White House officials told Politico. 'We'll have a midterm agenda that we're running on. Not only here's what we've done, but here's what we're going to do next.' Democrats are eating up that idea. Democratic National Committee spokesperson Rosemary Boeglin told the outlet: 'The White House has the DNC's full support in their plans to put Trump on the campaign trail with frontline Republicans to tell the American people that they took money out of their pockets, took food off their table, and took away their health care in order to give massive handouts to billionaires.'

The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right
The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right

The Guardian

time9 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right

Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer enthused about teaching speaking skills. So schools campaigners were understandably dismayed when oracy – otherwise known as speaking and listening – did not appear in the interim report of the curriculum review for England headed by Prof Becky Francis. Peter Hyman, the former New Labour adviser who became a headteacher, has been a key figure behind the revival, over the past decade, of an idea developed in the 1960s. Steps to embed the importance of verbal communication in education have already been taken, with more than 1,000 schools working with the charity Voice 21, and a parallel project in Scotland. The hope expressed by children's authors and others last week is that its absence from the draft report was an oversight which will soon be rectified. The task before Prof Francis's commission is a daunting one, with reformers of all kinds looking to it for solutions. An evidence call attracted 7,000 responses, with the future of special educational needs provision, and a wish to reduce exams, among key issues raised. But it should be clear to the panel, and to ministers, that oral learning also matters. One reason is the rising number of children arriving in primary school with speech and language skills below the expected level. While some pupils catch up later, others need specialist help. Communication difficulties are one reason for the increase in the number of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which set out what such support entails. The reasons for such complex changes are not yet fully understood, although the pandemic has had an impact. The challenge of artificial intelligence, in relation to university studies as well as schools, is another factor behind a renewed emphasis on talking. Given the easy availability of technological tools to aid writing, it is arguably more important than ever that people are equipped to share ideas and knowledge through speech as well. In many European countries oral examinations are far more common, in schools as well as universities, whereas in the UK 'vivas' are mostly reserved for postgraduate studies. In foreign language learning, the importance of speaking is taken for granted. But while oracy already features in the maths and science curriculum, as well as in English, it is often marginalised. The tricky task of reformers is to alter teaching practice so that more weight is placed on verbal communication, without making this yet another assessment hurdle to be cleared. For its champions, the core of oracy education is the ability to make connections. They want young people to be able to express themselves, and point out that this is a vital life skill – for example, in job interviews and the kinds of public‑facing work that seem least likely to be taken over by machines – for which school should prepare them. Big gaps in confidence about public speaking have long been recognised among the most glaring social inequalities. This doesn't mean that everyone should aspire to be a debating champion. Different accents, personalities and ways of relating should be valued, not ironed out. But if our schools are to keep pace with our frenetically changing world, it is surely right that they should maximise the facility for language, which is part of what makes us human.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store