1.2.3 The work of current movements to extend the franchise

Votes for 16

The Votes at 16 campaign is a contemporary movement aimed at lowering the voting age in the UK to 16.

This movement advocates for the enfranchisement of 16- and 17-year-olds, arguing that young people are mature and informed enough to participate in the democratic process.

Objectives:

• To extend the right to vote to 16- and 17-year-olds in all elections across the UK.
• To ensure that young people have a say in decisions that affect their lives, education, and future.

Tactics of votes at 16:

The tactics of the Votes at 16 Coalition are twofold:

1. Young people gain much of their information from social media, therefore Votes at 16 has established a major presence on the internet through the imaginative use of Twitter, Facebook and #Vote16. It also encourages school and college debates and its memorable slogan.
2. The support of MPs is vital in winning parliamentary support for changes to the law. In 2017 and 2018, a Private Member's Bill to extend the voting age to 16 failed in the House of Commons and so success depends on creating as much cross-party support as possible for change. The Votes at 16 website lists all MPs and Lords who support its campaign in order to maintain high-profile momentum for change.

Methods and Activities:

Advocacy and Lobbying:

• Parliamentary Support: The campaign works to gain support from MPs and political parties. It has backing from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party (SNP), and the Green Party.

• Petitions and Debates: Organizes petitions and participates in parliamentary debates to keep the issue on the political agenda. Public Awareness Campaigns:

• Media and Social Media: Utilizes traditional and social media to raise awareness and build public support. Campaigns often feature testimonials from young people, celebrities, and politicians.

• Educational Workshops: Conducts workshops and seminars in schools and communities to educate young people about the importance of voting and civic participation. Collaborations and Coalitions:

• Youth Organizations: Works with youth organizations such as the British Youth Council, National Union of Students (NUS), and Young Citizens.

• Cross-Party Groups: Engages with cross-party parliamentary groups to build broad political support.

Achievements and Progress:

Scotland and Wales:

• Scottish Referendum (2014): 16- and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote, setting a precedent for youth enfranchisement.

• Scottish Elections (2015): The Scottish Parliament extended the voting age to 16 for all Scottish elections.

• Welsh Elections (2019): The Welsh Parliament passed legislation allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in Senedd elections. Ongoing Campaigns in England and Northern Ireland:

• Continued Advocacy: The campaign continues to push for the extension of the franchise in England and Northern Ireland, aiming for consistency across the UK.

Challenges:

Political Resistance:

• Some political parties and figures argue against lowering the voting age, citing concerns about the maturity and political awareness of 16- and 17-year-olds. Public Opinion:

• There is an ongoing debate among the public about the appropriate voting age, with some sceptical about lowering it to 16.

Key Arguments for Votes at 16:

Maturity and Responsibility:

Civic Participation: 16-year-olds can work, pay taxes, join the armed forces, and get married (with parental consent), demonstrating a level of responsibility and maturity that merits the right to vote.

Education and Awareness: Citizenship education in schools prepares young people to understand and engage with political issues.

Inclusion and Representation**:**

Democratic Rights: Extending the franchise would ensure that young people's views are represented in the democratic process.

Youth Issues: Young people have unique perspectives on issues like education, employment, and the environment, which should be considered in policy-making.

Engagement and Turnout:

Early Engagement: Engaging citizens in the political process at a younger age can foster lifelong voting habits.

Turnout Boost: Evidence from Scotland's 2014 independence referendum, where 16- and 17-year-olds could vote, showed high levels of political engagement and turnout among young voters.

Youth Parliament Participation:

Elections for the UK Youth Parliament, organized by most local education authorities, demonstrate substantial engagement. In 2017, 955,000 young people aged 11-18 decided on debate topics for the Youth Parliament through the Make Your Mark campaign, showing significant political involvement.

Scottish Independence Referendum:

The 2014 Scottish independence referendum saw 75% turnout among 16- and 17-year-olds, indicating high engagement. Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, praised the positive democratic impact.

Consistency in Voting Rights:

Since 16- and 17-year-olds can vote in Scottish Parliament elections, it is illogical to exclude them from voting in Westminster elections.

Early Civic Duty:

Allowing young people to vote earlier will foster early adoption of civic responsibilities, especially since these habits can be encouraged while they are still in school.

Arguments Against Votes for 16:

Parental Permission:

• Some claims are misleading. Parental permission is needed for 16- and 17-year-olds to join the army or marry, except in Scotland, indicating they do not fully exercise all adult responsibilities. Maturity and Experience:

• It is misleading to claim that 16- and 17-year-olds can handle all adult responsibilities. They lack the maturity and life experience that older voters possess. Tax and Stake in Society:

• Many 16- and 17-year-olds are still in full- or part-time education and are less likely to pay taxes, meaning they do not have the same 'stake' in society as older individuals. Youth Apathy:

• Turnout among 18- to 24-year-olds is lower than for other age groups. Extending the vote to younger teens might exacerbate youth apathy. For example, in the Isle of Man, turnout for 16- and 17-year-olds decreased from 55.3% in 2006 to 46.2% in 2016. Susceptibility to Influence:

• Young people have limited life experience to base their voting decisions on and are more likely to be influenced by social media and peer pressure. International Standards:

• Although Scotland allows voting at 16, this is not common practice globally. Most countries maintain the voting age at 18, aligning the UK with international norms. Political Partisanship:

• Reducing the voting age to 16 could be seen as politically motivated, particularly as the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has strongly identified with the youth vote.

Prisoner Voting in the UK

In the United Kingdom, prisoners are not entitled to vote.

This is based on the principle that incarceration signifies a temporary renouncement of citizenship rights.

Legal and Human Rights Context

The issue of prisoner voting rights gained attention through the cases brought by John Hirst against the British government.

Hirst argued that prisoners should retain the right to vote. Although his claim was dismissed by UK courts in 2001, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in 2004 that the blanket ban on prisoner voting violated Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This article guarantees the right to free elections conducted by secret ballot at regular intervals. Consequently, the British government was found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Advocacy and Political Response

Pressure groups such as Liberty and the Howard League for Penal Reform have supported the cause of prisoner voting.

Despite their efforts, this issue has not garnered significant public support, unlike the campaign for votes at 16. When the topic was debated in the House of Commons in 2011, it faced overwhelming opposition, with 234 MPs voting against prisoner voting and only 22 in favour.

Government Response and Public Interest

The Hirst cases highlighted the tension between the British government and the European Court of Human Rights. This tension persisted, leading the UK government in 2017 to propose a limited concession: granting voting rights to a small number of prisoners on day release.

This move aimed to alleviate friction with the ECHR but did not generate much public interest. Consequently, the likelihood of a broader change in the law regarding prisoner voting remains low due to the lack of substantial public and political support.

Arguments in favour of prisoner voting:

• Voting is a basic right and everyone should have access to it.
• Everyone deserves to have their opinion heard.
• These restrictions prevent a large group in society from having their opinion heard, this means that future policies implemented will not have considered this certain group within society.

Arguments against prisoner voting:

• The public has not expressed a strong interest in restoring the votes for prisoners.
• Many people in prison have committed heinous crimes and therefore do not deserve to have their opinions represented.
• They gave up this right when they committed the crime and entered prison.
• If politics were being influenced by those with the tendency to commit dangerous crimes, they could not contribute to the stability of society through expressing their political and social beliefs.

Compulsory voting

Is Compulsory Voting Necessary to Increase Voter Turnout?

In 2015, David Winnick, a Labour MP for Walsall North from 1979 to 2017, advocated for compulsory voting in the House of Commons.

The low turnout of just 44% among 18- to 24-year-olds in the 2010 general election supported his call for reform.

However, by the 2017 general election, this age group's turnout had risen to 64%, the highest since 1992, indicating that when politicians offer radical alternatives, more people are inclined to vote.

Despite this improvement, youth turnout still lagged behind Australia's national turnout by at least 25%.

Arguments For Compulsory Voting:

Civic Responsibility:

• Voting is a civic duty, similar to jury service. When citizens neglect their civic duties, the principles of civic society are undermined. Addressing Political Apathy:

• Political apathy is widespread in many liberal democracies. For instance, only 58% of the electorate voted in the 2016 US presidential election, and the 2017 UK general election saw a turnout of 68.7%. Low turnout can undermine the legitimacy of election results, especially if it falls below 50%. Inclusive Decision Making:

• Non-voters are often from ethnic minorities, poorer communities (D and E voters), and young people. Compulsory voting would ensure politicians are responsive to all demographics, not just older and wealthier voters. Flexibility in Voting:

• Compulsory voting does not force individuals to make a choice. In Australia, for instance, voters can spoil their ballots if they do not support any candidate. However, they are required to attend a polling station. Educational Impact:

• A legal obligation to vote can encourage citizens to become better informed about political issues, thereby enhancing the overall quality of democratic participation.

Arguments Against Compulsory Voting:

Freedom of Choice:

• Citizens should have the right to choose whether or not to vote.

• It is the responsibility of politicians to generate public enthusiasm by offering compelling political choices. Quality of Voting**:**

• The votes of disengaged citizens may carry less weight than those who are genuinely invested in civic responsibilities.

• Random voting could potentially undermine the legitimacy of election outcomes. Coercion:

• Compulsory voting relies on coercion, which is contrary to the British political system. Voting is a civic right, not a duty like paying taxes. State Power:

• Liberal political theory advocates for resisting the extension of state power over individuals, as it limits personal freedoms.

• The British state traditionally intervenes minimally in the liberties of its citizens, as exemplified by the voluntary nature of the National Citizenship Service. Expression of Dissatisfaction:

• Choosing not to vote can be a deliberate act of expressing dissatisfaction with the candidates or the electoral process.

Conclusion

The debate on compulsory voting hinges on the balance between encouraging civic responsibility and respecting individual freedom. Proponents argue it ensures broad political participation and inclusivity, while opponents contend it infringes on personal liberty and can lead to uninformed voting. Both perspectives highlight essential aspects of democratic engagement and governance.