Why we should be optimistic about lowering the voting age to 16

We’ve been here before. In 1969, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, but its introduction was opposed by many, in the same way that votes for 16-year-olds are being opposed today.

This summer, the government set out concrete plans to lower the voting age for Westminster elections to 16. This was a manifesto commitment, and will bring Westminster elections in line with elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments.

Supporters of votes for 16-year-olds claim that the move will engage young people with the democratic process, and give voice to a generation with worryingly low trust in politics. Opponents counter that 16 year old voters lack the maturity to use their votes responsibly, and could be easily influenced.

We’ve been here before. In 1969, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, but its introduction was opposed by many, in the same way that votes for 16-year-olds are being opposed today. In 2025 we talk of 18 as though it has always been the age at which people get the right to vote.

In 1969 there was a general consensus that the voting age should be lowered from 21, but there was disagreement about what it should be lowered to. Many MPs backed the age of 20, but the government threw its weight behind 18 as the appropriate age. MPs debated these recommendations in the Commons, with both sides citing the maturity (or otherwise) of 18 and 20 year olds as a justification for their position. This led one MP to remark “In our discussion tonight about votes at 18, I have had the impression we have been talking about cheeses rather than people.”

He had a point, but a quick glance at the present day debate suggests we have learned nothing. Opponents of change suggest that 16-year-olds are too young to understand the mechanism of the voting system, and that they wouldn’t be able to make an informed decision on whom to vote for. One teenager even pointed to evidence that the frontal lobe of the brain isn’t fully developed until the age of 25. They did not say whether they thought the voting age should be adjusted upwards accordingly.

All this misses a fundamental principle of our democracy. The right to vote in the UK is not connected to intellectual ability. As soon as we embark on such thinking, we quickly get into dangerous territory. If we say that one group can’t vote because they’re not intellectually capable, we introduce the idea that only clever people deserve the right to vote. This line of reasoning leads us nowhere useful, and nowhere good.

Another expression of this idea is that lowering the voting age would lead to more voters making the “wrong” choice. Both today and 56 years ago, we see great anxiety that young people might be more vulnerable to extreme ideologies. In 1969, that was classed as support for “extreme nationalist movements” in Scotland and Wales as well as the “racialist doctrines of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South West” better known to us as Enoch Powell. Today, we are more likely to talk about Reform UK, or Jeremy Corbyn’s new party capturing the disgruntlement or idealism of the youth.

This symmetry tells us two things. First, even if young people are more prone to idealism or extremism, they are not a homogenous voting block. Second, any attempt to predict how a disenfranchised group will hypothetically vote in future will be a shot in the dark.

Who wants the vote anyway?

So let’s say 16-year-olds do get the vote. Who is to say they are going to use it? One of the great disappointments of lowering the voting age to 18 was the fact that turnout among 18 - 25 year olds has always remained low. Predictions that bringing 18-year-olds inside the democratic tent would encourage them to engage with democracy fell flat. Today polling suggests that, when asked, around half of 16-year-olds said they didn’t want the right to vote.

To say that lowering the voting age to 18 was a mistake, though, would be absurd. As one MP said during the 1969 debate, “If an intelligent young person thinks he or she knows how the country should be run…it is frustrating to know that he or she can do nothing except demonstrate in the streets.”. The UK was a world leader in lowering the voting age to 18, but now 18 has been accepted as the minimum voting age in countries all over the world to the extent that it is hard to imagine it was ever controversial.

A similar case can be made in 2025. Today’s 16-year-olds may not be jumping for joy at the chance to vote, but when they are outraged by social injustice, or inspired by a campaign for positive change, what a difference it could make to know that they can add their voice to the calls for change on election day.

Lessons can also be learned from the implementation of votes at 18. We know that simply giving younger people the vote is not enough, we must also lower barriers to them using it. A system of Automatic Voter Registration will mean that teenagers no longer have to jump through bureaucratic hoops just to get on the electoral register. Better citizenship education in schools will also help support young people when they come to cast their first ballot.

Democracy is always changing

From the archaic trappings of Westminster it may look like British democracy was born, fully formed, at some point during the 19th century. The truth is though that our democratic system has been constantly evolving and modernising since its inception.

In the long history of democratic reform in the UK, lowering the voting age by a few years is relatively small fry. Throughout the 19th century, the franchise was gradually expanded to include more and more of the male population, but it wasn’t until 1928 that adult women and men got the vote on equal terms. Even the principle that every voter should get only one vote per election is relatively recent. Many business owners and holders of university degrees were given multiple votes, until the practice was abolished in 1948.

Every expansion of the franchise is a response to changing social realities. British democracy shows strength and resilience through its ability to adapt and grow.

There is no higher authority which dictates who gets the vote, why, and how. Instead, we revisit the question time and time again, and sometimes the answer to that question changes. That is part of what living in a democracy is all about.

This blog was first published to Left Foot Forward 06/08/2025