Young voters

Should the right to abstain be extended to 16 year-olds? In justice, there are good arguments for doing so. But Laban Tall sees a plot afoot:

The liberal left see a fantastic opportunity to gather votes in the idea of lowering the voting age to 16. As a general rule the more you are cocooned from the real world, the more likely you are to vote for a left party. And with compulsory citizenship classes it is hoped that the kids will know which way to vote.

Certainly, young people are more left-leaning than older ones. This ICM poll (pdf) puts Labour’s lead over the Stupid Party at 31 percentage points among 18-24 year-olds, whilst they lag by four percentage points among over 65s.

Why is this? Narrow economic self-interest says young people should be more strongly in favour of low taxes than older ones; old people’s tax-paying days are over, or nearly so. Younger people have less need for a big expensive health service. And, of course, young people should favour fiscal conservatism whilst older ones should want big budget deficits; a deficit is just deferred taxation.

On top of all this, young people are often more tolerant about drugs, immigration and sexual orientation.

On all these grounds, young people should favour limited government, which should bias them to some types of Conservatism. So why aren’t they Conservative? I’d hazard three possibilities:

1. British Conservatism has never really taken the form that would appeal to younger people. Social libertarianism has been – unnecessarily – captured by the left.

2. Traditionally, Labour voters are disproportionately from the lower social classes. And these die earlier. Older people aren’t Conservatives by belief, but by natural selection.

3. It takes considerable intellectual maturity to be a humane Conservative. You need an appreciation of the limits of human rationality, pessimism about the potential for progress, and the humility to appreciate that our ancestors, who bequeathed us this imperfect world, might have known as much as we do. None of this comes at all naturally to young people. Only age, which brings a cognizance of one's own past follies, can teach it. Some knowledge, as Michael Polanyi pointed out, cannot be communicated easily; we know more than we can tell.

All this raises two questions. First, is this last point really important enough to deny under-18s the right to vote and if so why? Second, doesn’t it show that our political beliefs are perhaps not shaped much by economic self-interest?

Comments

[dearieme]

16? Why are radicals always so conservative? Why not 10? 3?

[Monjo]

Please explain why low taxes will help the young people who work for £5.20 an hour in McJobs, or go to uni, or are office juniors on £11k a year.
The Liberal Democrats want it at 16 as the 16-21 demographic would be strongly Lib Dem. Why? The Conservatives are still unfashionable, Labour has become unfashionable... Lib Dems promise no tuition fees.

Also maybe people vote in their children's and grandchildren's better interest?

[chris]

My thinking was that young people would anticipate years of high future earnings, and want low taxes on them. Surely, it's easier anticipating your own future interests than to anticipate one's grandchildren's. Isn't this an argument for letting 16-year-olds vote? And there is a big difference between a 16-year-old and a 10-year-old. The 16 year-old has completed statutory state education and is therefore one, one must presume, fully ready to participate in society...

[Katie]

As a young person (well, 22, but I feel about 14 most days) I can tell you that I have met plenty of old people who have never learned humility in the face of the past, anthony charles lyndon blair being one of them. I think economic self-interest ends once people are not starving, and before they are very rich.

[Monjo]

Chris, yeah I follow that, but people vote for what's best today, not what's best in 10 or 20 years time. On the other hand older people realise their 'today' is in the evening and so act more selflessly (assuming they can afford to do so).

And there's no difference between a 10 or 16 yr old. If we let 5 year olds vote they may opt for the party they offered bigger portions of chips at school dinners. But anyway, pointless debate that one! A true democracy wouldnt exclude anyone from voting. And if lack of knowledge about politics, or a poor education were a block to the right to vote... how many people would be allowed to vote?

Katie. Im not so sure. You need to appeal to people's jealousy :) Yeah you could pay these taxes to help your fellow countrymen... or you could be spending it on a 2 week holiday in barbados.

[EU Serf]

.....If we let 5 year olds vote they may opt for the party they offered bigger portions of chips at school dinners. .....

The Bribes change, the motives remain the same.

[esbonio]

I do not think we should give 16 year olds the vote. I believe supporters of such an extension of the franchise have selfish motives. There are always going to be anomalies in this area. Hence the age of consent is 16 and you can also marry at 16 but only with your parents' consent. However yoyu cannot own land until you are 18 nor can contracts be enforced against minor. Would supporters of votes at 16 also wish them to be open to being sued on contracts?

[Robert Schwartz]

You are single, therefor you have sexual relations more than once a blue moon. I am married which means that I get to spend my time with a 17 year old boy. He is actually quite bright, but I am not prepared to say that he should be allowed to vote. In fact, I have begun to think that the voting age should be put back to 21. You do not really want teenagers to influence the political system. Trust me on this one.