This is the same argument that was previously used against allowing the under 30s to vote, allowing the working class to vote, allowing women the vote in the 1920s and then to argue against lowering the voting age to 21, and then to 18. Today, most would think it to be highly immoral to prevent any of these groups from voting. It is equally immoral to prevent 16 and 17-year-olds from having a say in who should represent them.

This would not be the case, as 16 and 17 year-olds are more likely to be in, or to have recently been in, an environment where politics can be discussed. This means they will have a developed interest in the subject and will be more likely to vote. Even if reducing the voting age were to reduce the turnout, it is preposterous that we should limit the franchise to avoid producing an embarrassing statistic. There would be more people eligible to vote and hence the actual voting numbers would presumably increase, even if percentage turnout didn’t.

"Some people are concerned that lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections, the theory being that a larger voting population made up of younger voters, who are currently less likely to vote, would reduce the overall turnout. However, analysis by the Electoral Reform Society shows that if 16-18 year olds turned out in the same proportion as the 18-24 age group, there would be virtually no effect on turnout. Even if not one 16-18 year old voted, overall turnout would drop by only 2%.

Women are less likely to vote than men, poor people less likely than the more affluent and people from minority ethnic groups less than white people. Nobody suggests that these lower turnout groups should have their voting rights removed. No one should suggest that some 16 and 17 year olds not voting is a good enough reason to deny the many that do want to vote." - Electoral Reform Society

A line has to be drawn somewhere, but 18 is not that age. A 16-year-old is likely to be well aware of the effect a government will have on their education and work prospects. They can pay tax. They can join the armed forces. They can raise children. A 16-year-old has just as much interest in who governs the country as any other person. Does it really matter what the voting age is in other countries? This could even be an opportunity to take a lead and to inspire other nations to follow in our footsteps. We should certainly not leave the voting age at 18 because it’s ‘the norm’.

16/17 year olds joining the armed forces sign up to a period of at least 4 years, meaning that at 16, they are making decisions which may place their lives in danger for half of their minimum time in the armed forces. Similarly, while 16/17 year olds in England and Wales require the permission of their parents or legal guardians to marry, being granted the legal responsibility over ones sex life, with potential health risks and/or creation of new life should not be underestimated. Finally, while VAT is indeed paid by anyone, this is clearly different to direct contributions to national insurance and jobseekers allowance paid by those over the age of 16.

The Electoral Reform Society