January 18, 2004 at 10:14:13:
|
In the UK we are currently debating whether to reduce the voting age to 16 and the tide seems to be swinging in our favour (pro-reduction). Our minimum ages centre on 16 as the age at which society accords people responsibilities: compulsory education finishes, full liability to income tax begins, age of consent etc. The simple argument is that when society engages its citizens (which we do from 16) then it should accord them the right to vote irrespective of whether they know anything about politics, own particular assets, contribute tax or have what some deem to be ‘sensible’ or ‘mature’ views. This is universal suffrage. A minimum should be set at or above the age where people are generally capable of making informed decisions, which studies have shown to be at 12. By 16, 90-95% of people will be able to make such judgements. In the UK, the ‘arguments’ against are usually something like ‘I wouldn’t trust a 16-year-old’ or ‘These are politically ignorant and immature people’. It is interesting to read some of the alternative arguments against posted and linked here. I hadn’t thought about the issue from the angle used in the kuro5hin post, which is interesting. In response I would say that those aged 16 should indeed be entitled to decide whether they go to school or not. To trespass on the US debate, I would say that it does not matter whether high school students are ‘far more politically aware’ than college students. What you must ask yourselves is what you expect of high school students over 16, and whether your expectations are sufficient to engage those people in adult society. If so then they must be given the vote, if not then they need not be. I cannot comment on this matter as I don’t have a detailed knowledge of US society. A further important point to make is on the comment that voting amongst under-18s would ‘actually be lower than those aged 18-25, making any change utterly useless’. The first question to ask is whether this would actually be the case. Where the voting age has been reduced to 16 in Germany and Austria, the 16-18 age group has shown a higher turnout than that for the 18-24 group. In one election, the turnout for 16-18s was something like 60-70%. In general, I think it is inevitable that a two-year reduction in the voting age would reduce turnout overall, all things being equal. However, to say that this is a reason not to reduce the age is nonsense. This is only relevant if we like to see large turnout figures. If we were to play that game then we would disenfranchise all those who don’t vote and have turnout percentages of 90%+. Reducing the voting age will not supress the current turnout as no-one will stop voting because of the reduction, there will simply be new non-voters. I expect that the UK will reduce the voting age to 16 soon, and I wish Miranda Rosenberg and all of her colleagues across the US the best of luck in their campaign. Posted by Ross on December 15, 2003 at 7:53 PM | |