Young Voices Matter: Lowering the Voting Age in Britain

As I turned 16 and started sixth form, politics became the most common topic amongst my peers. Conversations went from makeup brands and TV shows to UK politics and electoral systems around the world. Students were more informed about politics through News and discussions with teachers. I recall the whole class receiving a BBC News notification on our phones when the UK’s former Prime Minister, Liz Truss, resigned on the 20th of October, 2022.

The UK democracy is in crisis, with voter turnout at the 2024 general election being only 59.7%, the lowest since 2001. When considering those eligible but not registered, turnout drops to 50%, the lowest since universal suffrage. Even more shockingly, only 14% of the entire UK population (including those not eligible to vote) voted for the Labour Party in June 2024, amounting to only 9 million people out of a total of 68 million. Let that sink in. Only 14% of the population supports our government – this is a serious concern. This puts the mandate of the winning party in question, undermining the legitimacy of the government.

So, would lowering the voting age to 16 rescue Britain from a democracy crisis?

Lowering the voting age is beneficial to democracy

Lowering the voting age to 16 would increase political participation, directly addressing the participation crisis that Britain is facing. Brazil has a minimum voting age of 16, and in its most recent general election in 2022, the voter turnout was around 80%. Similarly, Austria’s minimum voting age of 16 has contributed to a high turnout of 77% in its 2024 legislative election. These serve as examples highlighting how lowering the voting age may enhance turnout.

Young people nowadays are keen to participate in politics despite being unable to vote. A youth-led charity, My Life My Say, creates conversation between the young and policymakers, ensuring that young people’s voices are heard at every stage. My Life My Say has reached over 6 million young people since 2013, with over 453,000 registered in 2024. This clearly shows young people’s desire to be heard and the need for their voices to be heard.

This June, my school held a mock election, allowing pupils to cast a vote on the parties they support in the 2024 General Election. Party manifestoes were put up everywhere in the school corridor, and pupils in year 12 (16 to 17 years old) secured the highest turnout amongst all year groups. This, again, clearly shows the eagerness of young people, especially 16 to 17-year-olds, to engage with politics.

A lower voting age would encourage politicians to appeal to citizens of all demographics, as voters will vote for what best represents their interests. The young would no longer be neglected during campaigns that are often targeted towards the older population. Undoubtedly, it is unfair for people of the future generation to not have a say on the policies that they are or will be involved in the most. An example of this was the introduction of the Advanced British Standard under the former Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, which proposed making English and Maths compulsory A Level subjects. In the 2022 to 2023 academic year, 78% of students aged between 16 and 17 took A Levels. This means the students who would have been affected by ABS were unable to vote to express their views.

If 16-year-olds can work, pay taxes, and join the army, they should also have the right to vote. They should be able to express their opinions on policies and determine their own future.

Lowering the voting age may be harmful to democracy

However, lowering the voting age to 16 may pose concerns for democracy. Many 16 to 17-year-olds are still in full-time education and can be easily influenced by the opinions of their peers, parents and teachers. Whilst young people may have their own views, these may not truly reflect genuine beliefs, as the information they are presented with is often ‘spoon-fed’ by the educational system.

Additionally, some individuals at this age arguably lack the maturity needed to make decisions that impact the entire country. The issues at hand may be too complex for younger voters to understand, and their understanding of the political landscape and the implications of their votes is often limited. Instead of engaging with complicated political matters, students should focus on education.

Ultimately, some 16 to 17-year-olds may be politically ill-informed and ill-equipped to bear the responsibility of voting in general elections, which involve matters that could affect the whole population in the UK. This can distort the desired outcome and lead to an illegitimate and inaccurate electoral result, which, despite being representative, is harmful to democracy.

What can be done?

Indeed, most 16 to 17-year-olds are still in full-time education and may hold views that are influenced by others, making it difficult to have their own judgement. It is also valid to argue that individuals at such a young age are not fully informed about or aware of the political system, making them lack the necessary information and intellectual maturity to make decisions.

Nonetheless, this can be tackled by ensuring students and teens are being educated on the correct information and that teachers are restricted from offering their personal views. This is known as political impartiality, an important principle that all teachers and staff in schools should uphold. Students should also be encouraged to develop critical thinking skills to form their own opinions, without interference from other parties.

It is also unfair to reject granting voting rights to the younger population because of their assumed ‘ignorance’, as adults can fit into the category as well. If the argument withstands, should unknowledgeable adults have their voting rights withdrawn too?

Therefore, the concerns regarding 16 to 17-year-olds would be fine if addressed properly. This makes lowering the voting age to 16 a legitimate solution to address Britain’s participation crisis.

What’s best for Britain?

One of the most critical issues currently facing Britain is, undoubtedly, a participation crisis, which poses a significant risk of a democratic deficit. Extending the franchise by lowering the voting age to 16 would directly address the issue by increasing participation. This approach allows young people who are eager to participate to do so, whilst not pressuring those who may feel unprepared to vote.

Widening participation will undoubtedly increase the number of votes – it’s just statistics. However, this will not necessarily translate to higher voter turnout, as some eligible voters may still choose not to engage. The underlying reason for the low voter turnout is the public’s diminishing trust and confidence in Britain’s political system, which is at a record low. A survey by the National Centre for Social Research revealed that as many as 58% of respondents say they ‘almost never’ trust politicians in Britain to tell the truth. This lack of trust not only creates political apathy but also perpetuates a vicious cycle of disengagement, harming democracy. This cycle of low participation will never end if we don’t reform the British political system now.

It's time for a change. Our future, our say.

Queena Chong, Intern at Unlock Democracy