Readers deeply divided on lowering the voting age to 16 – from ‘only fair' to ‘blatant gerrymandering'

Independent

6 days ago

The government's decision to lower the voting age to 16 has sparked intense debate among Independent readers, with opinions sharply divided over whether the move strengthens democracy or serves party politics.
A poll of readers found that 38 per cent believe it's fair for 16-year-olds to vote, while 62 per cent said they are too young to head to the polls.
Critics were quick to dismiss the reform as politically motivated, arguing that most teenagers lack the life experience or political understanding needed to make informed decisions. 'Why not let 13-year-olds vote next?' one reader scoffed, describing the move as 'blatant gerrymandering' by Labour to win over idealistic young voters.
Supporters, however, hailed the change as long overdue. Many pointed out that 16-year-olds in the UK can already marry, work, pay taxes and even join the armed forces – so it's only fair they have a say in how the country is run.
'They're more mature than most adults I know,' said one commenter, while others noted that political education in schools has left many young people well-informed and engaged.
Some readers proposed a middle ground – such as lowering the age to 17 or linking voting rights to leaving full-time education.
Here's what you had to say:
If they can marry and work, they should vote
Of course they should. If they don't get the vote, they should pay no tax or National Insurance, be banned from joining the military, become a NEET or do anything the government tells them to do at that age.
You can get married at 16, have sex at 16, ride a moped at 16, drive a car at 17 (16 for some severely disabled people), and yet Tories do not wish them to have a say in their futures.
LadyCrumpsall
Should 16-year-olds be trusted with the vote – or is it a step too far? Share your views in the comments below.
So much nonsense about how sixteen-year-olds don't have the experience, wisdom, knowledge, etc., etc., etc., to have the vote.
Having been politically active for most of my life, the lesson of decades of canvassing is that the majority of adults don't really have the faintest idea what they're voting for, or why.
You'd be amazed, for instance, at the number of people who say that they're going to vote for X Party because they think that they'll be the election winners – as if they're backing a horse race.
bottlebank
16-year-olds can be more mature than adults
Many 16-year-olds I know are more mature than many adults; not all, I appreciate that, but to say they aren't mature enough is ludicrous. If they're allowed to get married, then they're old enough to vote.
I welcome this move – it'll modernise the voting system and bring in more points of view. The voting population will be getting older and older, and we'll end up with a load of pensioners making decisions based on 'what's good for me' rather than what's good for the up-and-coming generations.
deadduck
They've studied politics – they're clued up
At the age of 16, students have studied politics as part of community studies. I am old so don't talk to many teenagers, but those that I have spoken to – serving staff in cafés, relatives, etc. – are all pretty clued up and invested in what is their future. They can join the forces at 16, get married at 16 – surely if they are mature enough to do that, they are mature enough to vote?
DafB
Zero life skills
A very small minority are politically aware, most aren't. They have zero life skills, experience of bills, home or car ownership etc. Some will argue they are old enough to join the forces. Yes, where you are told what to do by others. It is clearly an idea of Labour, backed up by the Liberals and Greens, to gain a potential two million more votes – all three being poor or struggling in the polls.
Sooperhooper
Most kids don't care – but neither do adults
I don't think most kids today give a darn about politics or are educated well enough to know what's at stake. I'd even go so far as to say that many adults aren't educated well enough to understand the same things. We're at a critical junction in world history and politics. We must make wise choices and hope those who make the laws are of good heart and want to represent their actual constituents. At the moment, and with a somewhat cynical eye, it doesn't look that way.
AwareReader
Wait until they've left school
My thoughts are they could have the voting age dropped to 17 years after they have left school and found out what the world of work is all about. Also, in the final year at secondary school they have education in politics and the voting system.
Billydes
Open to influence
In my experience, teenagers have little in the way of original thought when it comes to politics. Lacking experience, they're still malleable and open to influence, and it would be easy to see how their thinking could be influenced by others who have a darker agenda.
RickC
Five reasons for
Yes 16-year-olds should vote. Why? Because:
It should encourage an interest in politics and democracy.
It might stop some claiming, "What's the point – no-one listens to us..."
It seemingly only has a marginal effect on outcomes in any case.
It'll focus politicians on our future – our yoof.
Although our youngsters are often a tad idealistic – i.e. leftish – that's fair enough, as it should help counter the barmy rightie oldies. :-)
DevsAd
They live with the consequences
Young people have the most to vote for, as they are voting for their future. They are the ones who will have to live through the impact of their vote, which will mostly impact (though not entirely) those who are of working age.
Legally, people aged 16 can work, pay taxes, join the military, have children, etc. – then it is only right that they get a say in the running of the country. Those complaining are all moaning about "woke leftie kids voting", but I can assure you they won't be voting Labour!
SoMrHarris
E lectoral gerrymandering
If 16, why not 15? If 15, why not 14? If 14, why not 13? Where is the cut-off?
My 7-year-old pays taxes in the form of VAT every time she uses her pocket money to buy something. Should she be allowed to vote?
Labour simply has no convincing logical argument in favour of extending the franchise to 16-year-olds, especially given that we as a society currently think they are too immature to buy fireworks, get tattoos, open a bank account, gamble, pawn something in a pawn shop, and view pornography. Yet we are supposed to buy into the notion that they should be allowed to help choose the next government "because they can pay taxes".
It is blatant and desperate electoral gerrymandering of the most partisan kind, from a man who promised to "put country before party". Labour appears to have belatedly bought into the idea that there is an emerging crisis of legitimacy in politics that has been brewing for decades. Their publicly-stated analysis of the cause of this crisis is frankly laughable. Do they seriously believe that this crisis can be fixed by managerial tinkering with the electoral process?
That people think politicians are duplicitous troughers only because 16 and 17-year-olds are not more engaged with politics? It is nonsense. The issue is that people see politicians continually lying, gaslighting, claiming they will do one thing while literally doing the exact opposite, and generally serving their own agenda rather than that of voters, who they treat with barely disguised contempt. Will giving 16-year-olds the vote solve that? Of course not. It will make it worse.
sj99
I trust my teenage son more than some voters
My son was 17 this week. He is sane, smart, sober, politically aware and I would back his judgement in a polling booth ahead of any Reform UK voter of any age.
SteveHill
Why not?
Why not? They are at least as intelligent and mature as the pensioner gammons who voted for Brexit. I suggest that as well as lowering the voting age, we should insist on a mental competence test for people over seventy – just like you need to renew your driving licence beyond that age – and I speak as a seventy-two-year-old.