Votes at 16
Despite working for a youth charity, I’ve never been particularly engaged by the usefulness of giving 16 year-olds the vote. But this, in today’s Guardian, may just make me change my mind:
in the 2005 election, national turnout was 61%, compared with 37% among 18- to 24-year-olds, down 2% from 2001… But a more detailed examination seems to indicate that if you give young people the vote early, then their democratic engagement will increase. Treat them like citizens and they will act as such. Research by YouGov and the Social Market Foundation into how people develop voting habits has found that those who are old enough to vote while still at school are more likely to vote again than those who have to wait until their 20s for their first chance. In the 2001 election, for example, turnout among 27-year-olds was 49%, compared with 65% among 28-year-olds who had been old enough to vote in the 1992 election.
Interesting that if this trend holds, it’s lkely that my year group, born in 1979-80, are much less likely to vote than those a few months older. I was a precocious kid, which is unlikely to surprise you, and I was furious at being seven months too young to vote in 1997.
The idea of 16 year olds being given the vote is nothing more than a sign of desperation on the part of the political establishment. Voter turn out at elections is in free fall therefore something must be done.
I do not find the thought of year 11 pupils at my local school having a say in the government of Britian to be a reassuring one. In the main, they do not have the maturity, life experience or requisite stake in society to cast a vote in a meaningful way.
The present voting age of 18 is the right balance.
Voter turnout is declining across all age groups because people can’t see the relevance in voting for almost indistinguishable political parties. There is also a growing awareness that whoever you vote for, the system of class and privilage that really runs Britain carries on undisturbed. Democracy and capitalism make uncomfortable bedfellows. One is about equality (one person one vote), the other does everything possible to undermine it. Who has more power in Britain? One million voters, or Rupert Murdoch? And even if a decent person does slip through the net and get elected, what can they do in this globalised free market economy? Apart from some social issues like gay weddings and so on, every party has to dance to the same neo-liberal tune.
It’s not true that young people aren’t interested in politics. Look at all the social movements or the kids who came out of school for the anti-war protests. The problem is that democracy doesn’t really work under this system. Pretty much everybody is disillusioned. Even those who do vote, often do it negatively to stop someone else winning. Up until the 80’s, people felt they had a fairly clear choice between Labour and Tory. There existed then a form of participatory democracy, excercised through trade unions and the Labour Party. No longer is that the case.
Capitalism is facing an unseen crisis of legitimacy, and I’m not convinced that the major problems, e.g. War and terrorism, third world debt, pensions, the economic expansion of China etc, can be resolved within the existing framework of a formal democracy, in which parliament acts as little more than a weak trade union negotiating with the real powers on behalf of the electorate.
Sorry for the long comment. Nice blog, btw
Dom, I think you are spot on there. Brown has shown an interest in the Power Report, he will be speaking at their conference in London on March 25th. Hopefully there is some substance behind his interest and he will suggest concrete policies.
Des, you have to remember that 18 is the MINIMUM age. The AVERAGE age that someone gets to vote in a general election is 20+ and some i.e. me, had to wait until they were nearly 23. Reducing the minimum age to 16, will still mean an average of 18+ and some voters having to wait until they are 21. As Antonia points out, there is a 16% gap in turnout between those who vote at 18 and those who have to wait into their 20s.
Saying that the more important recommendations of the PoWEr report are;
1. Proportional representation, the single transferable vote or open list PR.
2. Clearly defined powers for executive, parliament, and local government. With much more power devolved to lowest level.
3. Referendum on issue if 2% petition of electorate collected.
4. Individuals can choose whether or not to award 3 pounds of state funds to a party of their choice by ticking appropriate box on ballot paper. (I like this because it provides an excellent incentive for all parties to increase turnout, while leaving the decision about state funding to the individual).
5. Limit on concentration of media ownership.
I think if these are implemented we will be well on the way to getting our democracy back. I do take your point about the erosion of democracy by globalisation though.
Neil - you and I don’t need to have another argument about PR, so let’s not, eh?
I’m uneasy about referendums: these type of local ballot initiatives have in the US resulted on many local infringements of lesbian and gay and immigrant rights, and I don’t see how it doesn’t concentrate power more strongly in the hands of organised educated middle class people.
I’m also desperately uneasy about state funding of parties: if tax pounds are so limited, there are many things I would spend them on before political parties. One of the reasons I am a member of the Labour party is because of the link to the organised working class in the form of the trade unions, and state funding jeopardises that.
I’ll go with limiting the concentration of media ownership, though.
I am concerned about state funding of political parties because, well how would one regulate it! Plus the thought of some of the very minor political parties being funded by the British taxpayer makes me feel ill!
If someone wants to give £3 of their money to political parties, let them give directly rather than this complicated way through taxes! Administering this scheme would cost a lot and involve the wasting of more money.