Catch21 Productions | Lowering the voting age?

Lowering the voting age?

In my last entry on the Catch21 Blogosphere I spoke largely about an issue that had finally reached a climax after two years of constant coverage and debate, the American Election. This week I’m focusing on another issue that – although not constantly in the forefront of our minds – always seems to cause a stir in Britain one way or another, the proposed lowering of the voting age to 16.

Many reasons are offered for lowering the voting age, and previous reports have analysed and presented these reasons in the context of either being for or against any proposed changes. The latest Report entitled ‘Making Your Mark’ by the Youth Citizens Commission – formed by the Ministry of Justice – will end the consultation stage on the 20th January next year and the initial findings have made for some interesting reading. The talk of extending the voting ‘franchise’ is very much based around the sociological implications of such a move, however it still wrestles with the blunt question that is on a lot of peoples minds when it comes to the issue – why bother?

At one point the report seems to suggest it would be worth implementing votes for 16 and 17 year olds even though it might prove to be ineffectual. A strong argument for the case of bringing in votes for 16 and 17 year olds is that it will engage people at a critical point in their development within society and therefore instil a voting habit in them that will last throughout their life, but in this lies the very problem – its based around a theory of idealism and predictability of human nature based on that idealism. The report suggests that as 16 and 17 year olds are largely interested in participation in ‘low’ political events such as protests and debates, they would automatically be more inspired to participate in the electoral process. However my response would be that with the current figures of participation in the 18-24 year age group only reaching 37%, isn’t there an inherent problem of translating political interest to political activity that stretches beyond simply the ‘right to vote’ as there is not a massive gap between 16 and 18 in terms of age and development?

I suppose I can only speak from a personal point of view, but at 16 although I was politically aware and moved to develop allegiances and opinions based around me by world events (in my case 9/11 being the prime political mover of the time) I still saw the vote as something to obtain through a right of passage to adulthood that awaited me. In that scenario I suppose we can view an interest in ‘low’ politics (such as protests and local political organisation) being just as important as the enfranchisement we should expect to obtain at 18 in any democratic and free society. In this respect I suppose waiting for the right to vote made it even more valuable. Of course the problem with this argument is that not everyone was as politically aware as I was at a young age, so in that case why would they bother to vote anyway? There would still be a massive shortfall in the amount of votes actually cast by 16 year olds. This in itself leads to the question ‘Why would they vote at any age?’ and as such what can be do as a society to make sure people should always have a reason to vote at any age.

No matter how many times we raise this debate over voting ages, voting participation will only increase when the electorate feels more connected with the democracy they are part of. This would be the case for someone with the potential to vote at 16, as it would be the case for someone at the age of 64. Due to the bureaucratic nightmare that would follow expanding the electorate, I would suggest any proposed change to the voting age be held off until we have seen a sustained increase in the amount of people currently taking part in elections at both the local and the national level. This increase will be brought about both through ‘high’ and ‘low’ political changes. Firstly, the parties in Parliament have a duty to make their members more representative of their communities in terms of gender and ethnic history if ethnicity is a concern of a constituency at hand. In terms of local changes, we need to make voter registration easier and make political parties a source for social interaction in the community as well as political activism.

Undoubtedly as political participation increases, more citizens at a younger age will not simply ‘like’ the idea of having a vote, but demand it. When that happens, they will be out on the street and making their voices heard. Our country works best and has always got its most vital changes in the Voting Franchise when that is the scenario played out. In the mean time, lets fix whats already broken.

Write a comment

Required fields are marked with *.

McDuff
Posts: 2

http://mcduff.livejournal.com
Reply #3 on : Sat November 29, 2008, 15:50:00

The blogosphere is a collective term for all the blogs on the internet, or for the general environment in which blogging takes place. You can't have a blogosphere of one blog any more than you can have a biosphere of one country. You <i>can</i> use it to carve out larger chunks within the internet as a whole (the "liberal blogosphere" or the "cooking blogosphere"), but since even monster group blog sites such as the Daily Kos don't qualify for their own blogosphere Catch 21 can't get ideas above its station.

Sorry to be pedantic but, well, some of us intertubes oldschoolers can't help but grind our teeth when you whippersnappers use our words wrong.

As for what you wrote below, well, last time I checked suffrage was regarded as a right, and rights were normally regarded as something the government did not get to decide you couldn't have because you were lazy and it was too much work for them. If there is a compelling argument that 16-18 year olds have a right to vote (and I would say that there is) then the other discussions are all pretty much irrelevant, aren't they?

admin
Posts: 1

Re: Lowering the voting age?
Reply #2 on : Sun November 30, 2008, 14:08:17

Hi McDuff.

Thanks for your comments. At C21 we have a lot of new bloggers, those who may not have blogged before. I'm sure you understand that for those who have not blogged before it is very tempting to use buzzwords without knowing what they actually mean! I totally apreciate your sentement though!

I'm afraid that the reality is that rights do seem to be something that the government decides you either deserve or do not. Look at the debate on whether those in prison have the 'right' to vote or not.

Si C21
Posts: 2

Apology
Reply #1 on : Sun November 30, 2008, 18:54:17

McDuff,

In regards to the blogosphere, I simply meant the community that views the C21 website. But please accept my apology and I am slightly baffled that you would view its use as the site getting ideas above our station

I also have to second the point made by admin. After all I was simply trying to write the blog from a realist perspective. Rights are something that we earn by petitioning the body that we currently elect to extend the franchise. So in that respect it does mean it will not likely come about unless there is a sea change in electoral apathy which seems to be spreading through our society at an alarming rate.