Skip to main content

Votes for kids

Kids at a voting booth
Kids voting

Parliament today voted against giving 16 and 17 year olds a vote in the EU referendum.

Those in favour of reducing the voting age can often be heard saying “it’s their future” and “16 year olds can get married, join the army and have kids so why shouldn’t they be able to vote?”

Neither of these arguments is particularly strong.  First, well it is their future… but it’s also my son’s future – he’s five, should he have a vote?  Clearly not since he just about understands that he was born in London let alone that London is the capital of a country called the UK, which is a member of an international organisation called the EU.

So, what does my five year old son teach us?  He teaches us that there has to be a cut off.  There will be some children his age who understand that the UK is a country and London is its capital just as there are some 16 year olds who understand what the EU is and are capable of making a mature decision about the UK’s future.  But, we all know that there are 16 year olds who have no business exercising any sort of important right that can affect society as a whole.

What then of the suggestion that 16 year old’s can marry, have kids and join the army?  Let me begin by questioning the entire premise of the argument – what do marrying, reproducing and joining the army have to do with being able to vote?  In what way is a boy’s ability to convince a girl to sleep with him relevant to making an informed decision about the UK’s future in Europe?  How does deciding you’ve met the love of your life qualify you to make big decisions about the country? Equating these things with voting is simply not a valid argument.

While I don’t for a moment accept that these things are equivalent to voting why do those making the argument pick on those examples but ignore others?  It’s not so long ago that smoking was a hobby for those aged 16 and up, but nobody complained that 16 year olds can have babies but not smoke when the smoking age was raised to 18.  Also, why are those arguing that joining the army means a 16 year old should vote not complaining that these kids can choose to lay down their life for the country but not take a tot of rum when they join the Navy?  How is it that nobody is making the case for 16 year olds to be allowed to drive a car (current age 17) or an HGV (current age 18 if you complete a course in addition to passing your car licence).

Clearly there are plenty of things you can’t do at 16 so let’s not pretend that because you can make some adult decisions you should be allowed to make all adult decisions.

On a more important point, should we be letting 16 year olds join the military?  We regularly criticise tin-pot dictators abroad for using child soldiers yet we ignore our own recruitment of children into the military, no doubt consoling ourselves with the fact that we don’t deploy kids until they hit 18 years of age, which does somewhat undermine the argument that we should let kids vote if they can join up.

If we were to reduce the voting age – not just for EU referendums but for all elections – to 16 then how long will we have to wait until 15 year olds demand the vote?  Will we give it to them?  What about the 14 year olds?

I think two things are obvious: there has to be a cut off age for elections and there will never be a perfect age before which everybody is too immature to vote and after everybody is a wise soothsayer. 

Unless we are going to introduce exams to assess a person’s ability to vote, 18 strikes me as a good age to choose.


  1. 16 year olds were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum last year, and will be allowed to vote in all Scottish elections in future. Having two different voting ages in the UK doesn't strike me as a good idea.
    Another anomaly is that at 16 you are legally entitled to make your own decisions about medical treatment, but can't donate blood until 17. At least, NHSBT says it's not allowed legally, but I have my doubts.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…