The idea of lowering the voting age to 16 has been gaining traction in recent years, especially among those who argue that young people should have a say in shaping their future.
While this instinct may come from a good place, it’s worth asking whether our current democratic system is in any shape to extend the franchise further and whether it is fair to ask 16-year-olds to take part in a system that doesn’t even work properly for most adults. Just ask yourself, your family and your colleagues do you believe the political system is working well?
The Case in Favour
Supporters of votes at 16 years old often point out that young people can join the armed forces, pay taxes, and start work at that age, so why not vote? They argue that earlier engagement could create a lifelong habit of political participation and increase youth turnout over time.
There is also the belief that young people are already politically aware and are driven by the climate crisis, housing insecurity, and growing inequality. They should be heard.
16-Year-Olds: Lets take a Closer Look
The experience in Scotland is often cited by campaigners. Since the voting age was lowered to 16 years old for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and subsequent Scottish Parliament and local elections, turnout among 16- and 17-year-olds has been relatively high compared to older young voters.
Many showed a keen interest in political issues, particularly around independence and social justice. That initially presents as a good argument.
The Reality on the Ground
At 16, most young people have only experienced the school system. They haven’t had the chance to face the world of work, financial independence, or housing, all of which dramatically shape a person’s political understanding.
College education, with its broader exposure to political, economic, and social issues, often acts as the first real encounter with complex, competing perspectives. That shift in awareness is significant and it tends to happen after 16 years old.
What is more, schools are not neutral spaces when it comes to politics. While many educators work hard to present balanced views, the curriculum is narrow and often avoids truly critical engagement with how power works in society.
A 16 year old’s political knowledge is mostly what they’ve been told not what they’ve lived. When you are struggling to pay the rent then your view changes but when you are earning good money then your view can change again.
The WEU Believes There is a Deeper Problem:
A Broken System
Before we debate who should vote, we need to talk about what we are all voting for. Voter turnout not just in England but across the UK has been falling for decades, particularly among working-class communities.
In the 2019 general election, over 14 million eligible voters stayed home that is roughly a third of the electorate. That is a shocking figure!!
In local elections, turnout is often below 35% which means that over 65% did not vote. People don’t stay home because they’re lazy, they stay home because they see no real difference between political parties, no reason to believe that voting will change anything, and no confidence in politicians who promise much but deliver little.
In this context, lowering the voting age is surely just a distraction by the Labour Party. It risks adding new voters to a system that already fails the majority. It looks like progress, but it doesn’t fix the real problem: a democratic system that too often serves the interests of a political system that is removed from real issues. They are interested in maintaining their own wealth and position whilst leaving ordinary people behind.
Lowering the voting age doesn’t feel that it is being pushed because politicians want a fairer democracy. It’s because certain parties, especially The Labour party, believe 16-and 17-year-olds are more likely to vote for them. It’s about gaining an edge, not fixing what is broken. That’s not voting reform but it is a strategy dressed up as principle.
Before we throw open the doors to younger voters, we need to stop pretending our democratic system is fit for purpose. It’s not.
It’s broken and anyone involved in the Trade Union movement knows it. if you’re extending the vote just to gain political advantage, you’re treating democracy like a game.
Look at the Postal Vote Scandal
Let’s be blunt, Our electoral system is barely trusted now. Trade Union members who’ve tried to vote by post in recent elections have faced lost ballots, delayed forms, or just silence. Many never even received the paperwork. It’s not a glitch, it’s disenfranchisement. Worse is that some households report far more postal votes than people living at the address.
When even adult workers, juggling shifts, childcare, and compulsory zero-hours jobs can’t reliably vote, how is expanding the vote going to fix anything? It won’t. It just adds more people to a broken process.
Could it be that Apathy Isn’t the Problem, It’s Anger
Turnout is falling because working people feel nothing changes. In the 2019 general election, over 14 million people didn’t vote, and they weren’t all young or disengaged. Many were just done with being promised the earth and getting nothing but dust. Local elections? Turnout regularly drops below 35%, especially in working-class areas.
That’s not apathy. That’s anger and offering votes to younger people without changing the system is just asking them to get angry earlier.
A Better approach: Compulsory Voting with Real Choices
If we are serious about democracy, we should start by making voting compulsory, with a “None of the Above” option on every ballot. This would not only boost turnout, but also shine a harsh light on how many people reject the current political choices. It would force the system to confront its own legitimacy crisis.
Only once we have rebuilt trust in politics, by giving people real choices, by making elections matter again, should we look at extending the franchise. Otherwise, we’re just asking 16-year-olds to enter a broken system that’s already failing the rest of us.
Conclusion
Votes at 16 years old might sound progressive, but without deeper democratic reform, it’s a cosmetic fix. Before we ask teenagers to take on the responsibility of voting, we need to give them and all of us a system worth voting in.
While there are some youth-led groups campaigning for votes at 16, such as Make It 16 UK, the British Youth Council, and the Scottish Youth Parliament, these efforts are relatively small. They are largely absent from mainstream political debate.
Unlike the mass movements that forced historic voting reforms, from the Chartists to the Suffragettes, today’s campaign lacks the scale, urgency, and grassroots pressure that have traditionally driven democratic change.
There are no marches in the streets, no national mobilisation, no widespread civil disobedience demanding this voting right. That matters. Hard-won rights tend to be more valued and more vigorously defended.
Without a clear, broad-based demand from 16 year-olds themselves, it’s reasonable to question whether this change is being driven by those most affected, or by others seeking to shape the electorate for their own purposes.
The WEU knows better than most how rigged the current system is. From postal voting failures to politicians ignoring workers’ voices, the problem isn’t the voting age, it’s the political class and the hollowed-out process they defend.
Let’s not rush to drag 16 year olds into a system that is clearly broken. Let’s fix the process first and then talk about who gets to use it.