Forum menu
Interesting Long Read in the Guardian today.
Should we give the vote to children as young as six years old? Would it make politics more inclusive and less divisive?
The arguments against allowing children to vote always start with the basic question of competence. But what that means is that we are applying standards to children that we have given up applying to anyone else. It is true, of course, that many children would struggle to understand complex political questions, especially younger children. It is hard to envisage a group of six-year-olds getting to grips with fiscal policy. But many adults also struggle with complex political questions, and all of us have big gaps in our political understanding.
We don't set any minimum threshold for competence when voting for anyone so why exclude the young? We don't disenfranchise the elderly even when mental competence may start to wane.
Would it make the political process better or worse if politicians had to engage with everyone down to primary school age?
Its an intriguing idea. I quite like it.
It wouldn't guarantee an improvement to our politics but it certainly wouldn't make them any worse.
I get the argument but wouldn't most children do as they were told - after being thoroughly indoctrinated (many for life) by their parents? Better to wait until they are old enough to make up their minds for themselves?
Shouldn't the argument be the other way around?
But many adults also struggle with complex political questions, and all of us have big gaps in our political understanding.
Work out how to improve political understanding then, not dumb it down even further.
Imagine the Party Political Broadcasts on CBeebies, though!
Mr Tumble for Home Secretary.
It is hard to envisage a group of six-year-olds getting to grips with fiscal policy.
I know, at least allow them to get through prep school.
Maybe not 6, but I do think lowering the age to 16 might be a start. Now, thinking back to when I was 16 I wouldn't consider that a grand idea given my allegiance to the 'radical'(in my head anyway) communist end of the spectrum, however, I feel today's younger generations are far better informed - or at least have the tools necessary to be able to be better informed and equipped - than I was. And lets be blunt - they can't bugger it up anymore than we manage to do year in year out - its their planet they are inheriting after all.
I'm not necessarily against it. But on the point of "We don’t set any minimum threshold for competence when voting for anyone so why exclude the young?"
The barrier for entry is do you care enough to go to the polling station or have the forethought to organise a postal ballot.
Do it at polling stations and in a large number of cases you will just be doubling their parents vote, and whilst ignoring those who have disengaged parents.
Do it at schools? I can't see a way that this doesnt end up with people being effectively forced to vote.
Until there is a "none of you" option on the ballot card I cannot agree with mandatory voting.
No.
Politics is dumbed down to twitter posts and two syllable sound bites as it is.
Voting should be something only those who can think properly and rationally are able to do.
We have idiots in power because idiots voted them in.
I reckon we should also cap the age of voting...once at pensionable age they don't get to vote.
I get the argument but wouldn’t most women do as they were told – after being thoroughly indoctrinated (many for life) by their husbands?
FTFY 😉
I reckon we should also cap the age of voting…once at pensionable age they don’t get to vote.
I would cap it at 50. Goodbye tory party.
I think we should increase it to 30. 18 year olds know NOTHING! they have no life experience outside of the education system.
I think we should increase it to 30
Yeah, wait until they have the SLC knocking at their door and have been utterly disenfranchised, that's a great solution.
Why set it at an arbitrary age? Why not make voters sit a test ie on current affairs, geopolitics, economics, problem solving and statistics. Should you pass, you get to vote.
Alternatively just put me in charge of running the country and extrajudicial justice - the rest of you miserable lot can vote for celebrity dance off instead.
Work out how to improve political understanding then, not dumb it down even further.
+1.
Children should have agency and authenticity in their learning and life.
They are not however to be held responsible for the world we are creating.
Work out how to improve political understanding then, not dumb it down even further.
^ that.
No one read the article did they?
They are not however to be held responsible for the world we are creating.
But shouldn’t children be protected for as long as possible from having to deal with the harsh realities of the adult world? Shouldn’t we preserve them from grownup responsibilities? These are also familiar arguments, and ones that were made against giving votes to women: why burden anyone with unnecessary responsibilities when the hard work of taking difficult decisions can be left to others? Simone de Beauvoir had a clear response to this line of thought in The Second Sex: it’s always the people with power who say they want to protect others from exercising it. Men say it. Women don’t. Colonisers say it. The colonised don’t. Adults say it. Children don’t. People without a say don’t want to be protected from the burden of having a say. They want to experience it. And once experienced, they don’t want to give it up.
No one read the article did they?
Why would I do that? No fun.
Makes sense that the future should be steered by those who have most of it in front of them. You're legally allowed to have sex at 16, it seems somewhat perverse that you're trusted to start reproducing but have to wait another year or two before you're allowed to put a cross on a bit of paper.
I get the argument but wouldn’t most children do as they were told – after being thoroughly indoctrinated (many for life) by their parents? Better to wait until they are old enough to make up their minds for themselves?
That was my first thought. Consider, at what age do kids stop following their parents' religions? How common is it? Do we get many Muslim offspring of Christian families or vice versa?
Now, at what age do kids stop following their parents' politics? How common is it? Do we get many Tory offspring of Labour families or vice versa?
Is "free will" all that free, or are we still just blindly doing what we were brought up to do, what we've always done? People are creatures of habit. How many minds have changed between the milk and honey of 2016 and the "hey, anyone remember fruit?" of 2021? A few have but not many.
In which case... what, voting is bollocks and the system is inherently broken?
Voting should be something only those who can think properly and rationally are able to do.
A more effective approach might be to have some sort of pre-vote questionnaire so that we can ensure that national decisions aren't being made by people with pig slurry for brains, but that would be something of an affront to "one person, one vote" democracy. Hey, maybe have people sit the Nationality Test. (-:
And, who watches the watchers?
As ever, The West Wing is my go to in these situations:
No one read the article did they?
Even skimming through it took a long time. It's a very long waffly piece full of nothing. (eg I don't care if the writer and son listen to the same or different music - that has nothing to do with voting....)
The first party to suggestowering the voting age from 21 to 18 was the Monster Raving Loony Party (also the first to suggest passports for pets)
The voting age was lowered to 18 before the Monster Raving Loony Party came into existence.
Maybe not 6, but I do think lowering the age to 16 might be a start.
Suffrage has been extended to 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland for a while. Its widely accepted to have been a positive move.
For a professor of politics at Cambridge the article was full of unsupported assertions. He kept bringing up arguments against the idea & then just dismissing them...because. Is he also proposing the age of criminal responsibilty be reduced to 6? How about driving licences? Longwinded clickbait from the Guardian.
How about driving licences?
Well I would say that the average 12 year old has significantly faster reactions than the average 52 year old, so I can't see a problem with allowing 12 year olds to drive.
Unless a sense of responsibility and maturity is considered necessary.
Suffrage has been extended in Scotland on matters of devolved competence e.g Scottish Parliament and local authority elections. Younger people tend not to vote for the party in power (yes I know I should cite that) so the matter of course is unlikely to gain traction more widely.
It is an interesting idea which I hope will prompt further conversation - Greta Thunberg and her blah blah blah sums it up very well.
Also - appealing as the idea is of some kind of intelligence test for voters - I would oppose that with every breath I have, see anything ever written about voter suppression in the USA.
I get the argument but wouldn’t most children do as they were told – after being thoroughly indoctrinated (many for life) by their parents?
Its actually more effective to influence parents via their children than to influence children via their parents.
If children genuinely can be co-oreced by their parents then the worst that can happen is children's votes have no effect.
Also – appealing as the idea is of some kind of intelligence test for voters – I would oppose that with every breath I have, see anything ever written about voter suppression in the USA.
Sure. It's logically sensible and would almost certainly result in a better system. However, it's morally bankrupt.
If children genuinely can be co-oreced by their parents then the worst that can happen is children’s votes have no effect.
Not really, you've just discriminated against the childless / weighted in favour large families.
Consider, at what age do kids stop following their parents’ religions? How common is it? Do we get many Muslim offspring of Christian families or vice versa?
Switching between Abrahamic religions is probably quite rare (notable exception in the current news though)
Switching between an ethnically determined Abrahamic religion and atheism and vice versa, I'd probably say mid to late teens.
Sure. It’s logically sensible and would almost certainly result in a better system. However, it’s morally bankrupt.
depends who writes the questions.
Does suitable knowledge of current affairs mean you can name at least 3 of the following:
The home secretary, this years love island winner, the premier league champions and the CEO of tesla.
Or is it going to be a test that well educated white middle aged men will have a significant advantage at?
Shouldn’t the argument be the other way around?
But many adults also struggle with complex political questions, and all of us have big gaps in our political understanding.
Work out how to improve political understanding then, not dumb it down even further.
Its not actually that difficult - we don't need a political understanding. No matter how informed and nuanced your understanding of politics and economics and your grasp of current affairs the only thing you are doing every 4 - 5 years is putting one tick in a box next to a short list of options. So really your vote, no matter how informed, really only reflects a very vaguely stated approval of one set of values over another. That can really be summarised as 'I am voting broadly for my own self interest' or 'I am voting fo broadly for the interest and well being of others'. In choosing one of those options you know full well which party you would vote for even if you've been living in a cave for the last ten years. Knowing more than how you feel about those two sentiments is pretty much pointless, your vote doesn't get counted twice just because you've done your homework.
If children genuinely can be co-oreced by their parents then the worst that can happen is children’s votes have no effect.
Not really, you’ve just discriminated against the childless / weighted in favour large families.
Only if statistically 'parents' have a particular political allegiance. But presuming that breeders have the same spectrum of political views and appetites as everyone else everyone's children voting in the same way as their parents has not effect
Extending to 16 is right in my eyes. As above all scottish elections are now 16. All ages for stuff should be 16 IMO - apart from perhaps driving? But buying booze, getting married without your parents permission, voting, leaving school, full adult pay.............
You’re legally allowed to have sex at 16
I think its more pertinent when voting for a government that spends public money is that you can be paying tax and national insurance at 16.
Just working on my manifesto, Christmas three times a year, two day school week, free chocolate and sweets, come to think of it probably garner a few votes off here.
I get the argument but wouldn’t most children do as they were told
You don't have children, do you?
I think this is a great idea! Surely at this point anything would be better. Can you give the vote to only children?
It wouldn’t guarantee an improvement to our politics but it certainly wouldn’t make them any worse.
Everyone loves an optimist. I can think of many ways it would make it worse, not by the kids but by adults seeking to influence
All ages for stuff should be 16 IMO – apart from perhaps driving? But buying booze, getting married without your parents permission, voting, leaving school, full adult pay………….
Getting deployed on operations by HM armed forces?
Police officer?
Etc etc
People probably underestimate teens all the time. In every day, and in every way. And they overestimate “adults”.
Police officer?
I am fairly sure I've seen 16 year old coppers.
Edit : Visited a friend in a critical care unit last week and the doctor who came to explain their care plan couldn't have been much more than 16. Really nice kid.
All ages for stuff should be 16 IMO – apart from perhaps driving? But buying booze, getting married without your parents permission, voting, leaving school, full adult pay………….
cigarettes? fireworks? gambling (I presume there was a reason we just put the lottery up to 18)? buying solvents? sit on a jury? get a tattoo? borrow money?
Its not actually that difficult – we don’t need a political understanding. No matter how informed and nuanced your understanding of politics and economics and your grasp of current affairs the only thing you are doing every 4 – 5 years is putting one tick in a box next to a short list of options. So really your vote, no matter how informed, really only reflects a very vaguely stated approval of one set of values over another. That can really be summarised as ‘I am voting broadly for my own self interest’ or ‘I am voting fo broadly for the interest and well being of others’. In choosing one of those options you know full well which party you would vote for even if you’ve been living in a cave for the last ten years. Knowing more than how you feel about those two sentiments is pretty much pointless, your vote doesn’t get counted twice just because you’ve done your homework.
Thanks for distilling down my voting decisions to those two simple options. Now, tell me which name to put my cross beside because neither of those options are on my ballot paper. I'll typically have at least 5 candidates:
Labour Party
Liberal Democrats
Conservative and Unionist Party
Scottish National Party
Green Party
I'm not only genuinely unsure (despite having been voting for over 20 years and interested in politics for all of that) which of those party's best serve my selfish self interest if I am so inclined and which best serve the well being of others. You see I think they would all claim to do the latter - whether that be through economic prosperity, tax and spend, long term climate policies or moving political decisions closer to those most affected.
Allow them to vote for certain things biut not everything. Otherwise they'll just vote for whichever party appears as the funiest clown. Oh wait...
I am fairly sure I’ve seen 16 year old coppers.
I'm afraid it's not a sign of your youth when you start thinking that.....