Parliamentary Petition: Call a referendum before extending voting rights to 16 & 17-year-olds

[POWNewcastleEastWallsend]

Parliamentary Petition:"We call for a referendum before extending voting rights to 16 & 17-year-olds"

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/733679

We call on the government to hold a national referendum before extending voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds in general elections.

We think this is a profound change to the democratic franchise, such a significant constitutional reform should not be without the direct consent of the British people.

We think the right to vote is one of the most consequential aspects of citizenship and expanding it to a new age group should not be decided solely by politicians, but by the electorate itself in a fair and open referendum.

The UK has held referendums on major democratic reforms, such as devolution (1997), the Alternative Vote (2011), and Scottish independence (2014). We think changing the voting age is no less significant and deserves the same public scrutiny.

---

Not part of the Petition, just as a point of information:

• there is no lower age limit on who can start or sign a Parliamentary Petition
• neither is there any requirement to be on the Electoral Register.

There’s already been one it’s called the General Ekection. This proposal was in Labours manifesto.

That was not a referendum it was representative Parliamentary democracy.

Labour won 34% of the vote last year. They were chosen by fewer than 10 million people out of the 48 million people eligible to vote.

That's hardly resounding approval for every single policy in Labour's manifesto.

Agreed. In addition, their success was due in large part to Tory voters staying at home or voting for other parties than Labour, notably for Reform, so it was not a win for the Labour Manifesto but rather the rejection of a tired Tory regime.

Its a huge change to make without a referendum.

I have an unpopular opinion.

I think 16 and 17 year olds should definitely be able to vote. They are are engaged, interested and invested in the future of the country.

But the question becomes - how engaged and how invested?

Well VERY, compared to people like my dear parents (RIP), who lived the last years of their life with zero mental capacity but were still encouraged to vote through care homes, proxy voting, postal votes, you name it. I don’t think anyone without mental capacity should be allowed to vote.

And tbh, in an ideal world I think there would be another threshold for engagement to give people the vote in the first place… but maybe how you get to that threshold is for another thread.

It follows though that I think the vote should be given to all who can use it well, and taken away from those who can’t.

The only people who don’t want 16 and 17 year olds to get the vote are the ones who are scared of what they’ll vote for.

The only people who don’t want 16 and 17 year olds to get the vote are the ones who are scared of what they’ll vote for.

My opinion is that is completely normal to be concerned about the consequences of poorly thought out legislation. We protect 16 year olds from consequences of their choices in lots of situations. Do people intend to change that as well?

So you think a 16/17 year old will make a worse choice than those without mental capacity who still get to vote?

Wow.

Personally I also think voting should be mandatory, with fines for those who don’t vote and the ability spoil your ballot for those who don’t want to.

We didn’t need a referendum to extend the franchise to women…
and in one of the referendums the OP mentions 16 and 17 year olds did get to vote…
I live in Scotland and 16 and 17 year olds here seem to manage to vote fine.

I agree.

Tories have no issue with Tory 16/17 (and even 15) year old voters when they’re electing the next PM (Johnson, Truss, and Sunak) as members of the Tory party. So let’s not pretend they wouldn’t be all for it if they thought they’d vote for them.

I’d also say that if 16/17 year olds were right wing, Labour would suddenly develop a new objection to the idea though.

And the Tories in 2010 and 2015 got 36% - it's quite usual not to win over 50% of the vote. It last happened in 1931 so I think you can get off your high horse on that particular point

If you’re dissatisfied with the current method of electing our government, go and campaign on that.

But this was a manifesto pledge by Labour. They were elected and are doing this. That’s hardly surprising.

There is no need to be rude to a PP making a legitimate point.

The fact that it was in the Labour Party Manifesto is also a valid point.

However, it is also unusual for political parties to honour all their Manifesto commitments and they tend to excuse the lapses by describing their Manifestos as "aspirations" rather than promises. I am really not convinced that everyone who voted Labour did so because they wanted or expected to see every Manifesto commitment met.

Lots of valid points on both sides.

I am not generally in favour of referenda but, just a thought, if there were to be a referendum on this issue then should 16 and 17 year olds have a vote?

As far as I am aware there is not strong evidence that they want the franchise to be extended to include them. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong about that.

I’m a bit worried their decision will be highly influenced by some sudden arrival on TikTok who has ‘amazing’ ideas -previously people voted green and got transgender policies. What’s promised doesn’t usually materialise.

I agree.
The referendum itself would be the means of the electorate showing their approval or disagreement with such a radical change.
For me the most valuable aspect would be the open and public discussions around the topic which would inevitably throw up some serious discussion points especially regarding the consequences of such a change.
As someone who spent their working life with this age group in education I am torn in my opinion.
Many young people in this age group have open and enquiring minds and I was often amazed and intrigued by their perceptiveness.
We also know that this age group, possibly the one most affected by the Brexit referendum, didn’t have a say in their future, and that was clearly wrong.
On the other hand this age group can be fickle, easily manipulated and tend to think subjectively making them more prone to emotional responses and decisions.

Though you raise an interesting point, it’s not about age v mental capacity (yet).

Restricting who can vote based on capacity would require an overhaul of the whole ethical approach regarding who is eligible to vote. Women’s suffrage fought against the notion that women were lesser beings whose fluffy brains couldn’t be relied upon for such serious matters as voting. At the moment, if you are a citizen who has reached a certain age you are treated equally to every other citizen. Whatever your iq or mental capacity.

The referendum itself would be the means of the electorate showing their approval or disagreement with such a radical change.

For me the most valuable aspect would be the open and public discussions around the topic which would inevitably throw up some serious discussion points especially regarding the consequences of such a change.

I agree with both points.