Vote-at-16: Is it time for the UK to lower the voting age?

​
By Aswin Valentine Pushpakaran​

Introduction
In today’s society, you can do a lot at the age of 16.By British law, you can consent to sex,
you have the right to work (thanks to your National Insurance Number) and you could even
potentially pay National Insurance if your earnings with a single employer exceed £183 per
week or go to court and get tried as an adult, all in the age of 16. We could say that you
would have a trial or induction of adulthood at the age of 16 before going for the real deal 2
years later. But one right that 16 year olds in the UK don’t get is the right to vote, which could
be seen as nonsensical or as MP David Liden put it ‘ridiculous’ (“Votes at 16 - Hansard”)

I decided to make my dissertation about the Votes-at-16 movement, more specifically,

should the UK give people at the age of 16 the right to vote? Ever since the Representation
of the People’s Act of 1969 which lowered the voting age to 18, many advocates such as
The British Youth Council (BYC) and even some left-leaning political parties want the voting
age to be lowered even more- this time to 16. This overall became a controversial topic in
the political world,which came with so many questions as well as arguments.

Advocates for the ‘Vote-at-16’ movement such as Alex Folkes argue that by allowing the
voting age in the UK to lower to 16, we would be allowing them to participate in votes which
they can say how the country is run as well as gaining knowledge on the political world in
which they can apply later in life or as he put it we would be “…reconnecting an entire
generation of young people with our country’s democratic structures…” (Folkes).This is also
something Jim McMahon(Party chair of the cooperative party and MP for Oldham West)
touched upon saying ‘For our United Kingdom to be truly united,we must have democratic
equality’ (“Votes at 16 - Hansard”) Advocates also argue that since you would vote as an
adult anyway, by allowing people to vote at the age of 16, It can become a long term habit in
which they can get used or ‘habit-forming’ (Franklin). Alongside Alex Folkes, people such as
Christine Heubner and Jan Eichorn turn to Scotland for their argument, as in 2014 Scotland
lowered the voting age to 16 for their independent referendum which would later be applied
to the 2016 national referendum. According to Ruth Davidson (Former leader of the Scottish
conservatives) 75% of 16-17 year old in Scotland have participated during voting adding
‘The democratic effect turned out to be entirely positive’

However,there are also some researchers such as Reuben Cooper who present some
counter arguments against the Votes-at-16. First they point out the fact that 16 year olds
aren't as responsible as we put them to be or as Cooper put it harshly “Today’s teens are
unable to confront challenging democratic ideas and even more ill-equipped to tackle life in
general” (Cooper). As well as Cooper, many other researchers also present some counter
arguments which include the fact that young people are not really interested in politics or
“politically less mature than older people”(Chan and Clayton) and as well as this, Cooper
raised the argument that the Votes-at-16 is just a way for left leaning parties to try gain
votes-following a trend of younger people voting for left wings parties or as an infamous
Winston Churchill put it “If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a
conservative at 35 you have no brain. (Burn-Murdoch)

In this dissertation I aim to draw a line within this conundrum by coming up to a conclusion to
the topic of whether the UK should lower the voting age to 16. In this dissertation, I would
like to explore the idea of maturity i.e., what age is one person considered mature or
responsible before presenting both sides of the argument referring to the likes of Alex Folkes
and Rueben Cooper as well as others. I would also be conducting my own research and
discussing the results which would include trends and reasonings before finally making a
judgement in my conclusion
Literature Review
Review Intro
For my literature review, I aim to explore 3 ideas: The idea of an ideal age of responsibility
and why it is considered by many as 18 (from an article published by Loughran et al.), the
pros of lowering the age to 16 with such arguments presented by Alex Folkes, David Liden
and Christine Huebe as well as the cons from Rueben Cooper. I will also be referring to case
studies like Scotland and the Electoral Commision of 2004, which nearly lowered the voting
age to 16

The Age of Responsibility

To start off this dissistation, we would need to explore a key idea within this whole debate,
the idea of maturity or responsibility, more specifically at what age is one considered mature
and responsible? This question was given a variety of answers from different people with
different viewpoints.

For example, in their online brochette ‘The Teen brain- 7 things to know’ the National Mental
Health Institute states that ‘The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s’
(“The Teen Brain: 7 Things to Know - National Institute of Mental Health”). This fact is
also stated by Alan Greenblatt the author of the article ‘What is the age of responsibility’ in
which he says “neuroscientists are clear about the fact that different parts of the brain
mature along different timetables. In other words, executive thinking may not reach its peak
until 25” (Greenblatt).This is mainly because both articles may be referring to the part of the
brain known as the prefrontal cortex which ‘one of the last parts to mature’ and that ‘This
area is responsible for skills like planning, prioritising, and making good decisions’(“The
Teen Brain: 7 Things to Know - National Institute of Mental Health”). However,despite
the fact that the area responsible for making good decisions develops in the late 20s,
Greenblatt still states that “most people are capable of performing many adult functions
adequately at an earlier age--probably between 16 and 21” (Greenblatt). In general most
people at the age of 16 to 21 are able to perform adult functions including voting- however
despite this range many governments have decided that there is a definite age to adulthood
as well as voting is 18 and the reason why (ironically) is the UK.

Why 18?
In 1969, The UK became the first nation to have its voting age at the age of 18 by parliament
passing ‘The Representation of Peoples Act 1969’.Thomas Loughran, Andrew Mycock and
Jonathan Tonge commented about the impact it had on the world saying that the UK
‘triggered a wave of change elsewhere’ (Loughran et al.).This is further evidenced as today
according to the ACE electoral college network, 205 out of 237 nations in its database have
a minimum voting age of 18 (Schumacher and Connaughton).So the real question here is
why 18?

An explanation is given by Loughran et al. who say that the lowering of the voting age to 18
was largely “driven by the motivations and actions of UK political leaders,mainly within the
Labour party”(Loughran et al.). This means that unlike the Vote-at-16 movement,the public
didn’t need to interfere as the will of lowering the voting age is one of the politicians not the
people. However the same article also dismissed the fact that the labour party at the time
didn’t do it for their advantage but rather the authors recognised that the government had
been moved by the changing societal expectations of the UK during the 60’s: ‘The UK
government was keen to recognise that young people were reaching traditional markers of
adulthood’ (Loughran et al.). Loughran et al. refer back to the works of Authur Marwick
‘measured response theory. Marwick believed that the UK government had a liberal
response when it came to the ‘transformations in youth culture during the 60s’ which
contrasted with the other ‘aggressive strategies’ from other Western powers (Marwick cited
by Loughran et al.).
However, Loughran et al. make a comment on how that today, this revolutionary act had
‘little recognition’ from politicians,media and voting age reform campaigners.It can be argued
by others that the time is ripe for the voting age to be lowered again to 16 and therefore this
once revolutionary act is irrelevant. However, unlike the so called Votes-at-18, the
Votes-at-16 has had many debates which outline the pros and the cons of the argument-
Which leads us to the next section of the literature review.

Votes-at-16 : The Pros

Advocates such as Alex Folkes which include the likes of MPs such as David Liden and
John Lamont (who actually was against it at first!) present many arguments which encourage
the lowering of the voting age- which include for the ‘sake of equality’ as well as the hope of
a ‘habit-forming’ (Franklin cited by Huebner) nature around voting.

According to ‘Chartered accountants’ people at the age of 16 are not allowed to work but
they would also “pay National Insurance if your earnings with a single employer exceed £183
per week (2020/2021).” (Pryse). As well as this by British law, you can consent to sex,get
tried as an adult in court and even go to the military at the age of 16. In fact, this was even
briefly touched upon by David Liden (MP for Glasgow East) in a parliamentary debate who
feels that it is irrational to allow people at 16 to have these rights but not the right to vote. He
went on to describe it as a ‘ridiculous situation’ that ‘we ask young people to pay tax to a
government who spends it on the health service or going to war,but don’t have the ability to
influence that government’ (“Votes at 16 - Hansard”). In the same debate, Labour MP Jim
McMahon, also the Party chair of the cooperative party and MP for Oldham West agreed
with Liden even adding ‘For our United Kingdom to be truly united,we must have democratic
equality’ (“Votes at 16 - Hansard”). This is also supported by another MP, John Lamont
who interestingly was against the Votes-at-16 in Scotland(“In my past life as a Member of the
Scottish Parliament, I voted against lowering the voting age in Scotland, along with my
Scottish Conservative colleagues”(“Votes at 16 - Hansard”) but now comes as a ‘convert’ in
the same debate as Liden and McMahon, even saying that ‘lowering the voting age is the
right thing to do’.

This talk of MPs supporting the Votes-at-16 movement, brings in the next reason for lowering
the voting age to 16- For the interest of politics.Apart from the Votes-at-16 activists such as
the British youth council. Many MPs from different parties actually advocate for the
Votes-at-16 movement, with examples being the previously mentioned David Liden (from the
SNP) , Jim McMahon (from the Labour party) and John Lamont (From the conservative
party). But that's not all. In his article ‘The case for Votes at 16’, author Alex Folkes mentions
a statement from the Commision on Local Government Electoral Arrangement in Wales who
state:‘we recommend that the age of entitlement to vote in local government elections should
be reduced to 16. We realise as a consequence that they can also vote on the local
government of Wales”(Folkes). Alex Folkes even makes his own comments on, in which he
makes a point that we would be allowing them to participate in votes which they can say how
the country is run, or in his own words “…reconnecting an entire generation of young people
with our country’s democratic structures…” (Folkes). In fact this whole situation of MPs and
other big names in the world of politics is similar to the situation presented by Loughran et al.
when talking about how the Representation of Peoples Act 1969 came to be and how the
voting age was lowered to 18, which goes back to the point that was made on how it is
‘curious’ that the act has “little recognition from UK politicians, the media, or even
contemporary voting age reform campaigners” (Loughran et al.). However, it can again be
argued that the Representation of peoples Act 1969 is irrelevant as it lowered the voting age
to 18 and the new aim is to lower the voting age and even normalise voting at 16, which
nicely brings on to the final argument.
Another point that can be made which can support this argument is that by allowing 16-17
year olds to vote, it can form a long-term habit. This argument goes about a similar approach
from the sociological theory of ‘primary socialisation’ and ‘secondary socialisation’. These
theories presented by Tallcott Parsons entail how a child learns norms and values, first from
their family then outside the family (ie teachers,school or the media). People such Jan
Eichorn and Christene Huebner argue that this can be applied to voting in general with
Eichorn even adding: “Many younger first-time voters retain a habit of voting and participate
in greater numbers than older first-time voters. The findings strengthen the case for
enfranchising younger voters across the UK to improve long term voting
behaviour.”(Eichhorn and Heubner). This idea is also put further in Huebner’s own article
“How Young People in Scotland Experience the Right to Vote at 16: Evidence on
‘Votes-at-16’ in Scotland from Qualitative Work with Young People” in which Heubner
introduced the ideas of M.N Franklin which state that early voting experiences are
‘habit-forming’ (Franklin cited by Huebner). As well as this Heubner mentions how Franklin
recognises the importance of schools if the right was given:”When younger people are
enfranchised, schools and civic education gain importance in shaping early voting
experiences”(Franklin cited by Huebner)- which ties in nicely with Parson’s theory of
secondary socialisation as schools and teachers are made an essential part of Prason’s
theory.

Votes at 16 : The Cons

While they’re are some justifiable arguments for the ‘pros’ arguments, the same can be said
for arguments against the Votes-at-16 movement, with authors such as Reuben Cooper
presenting reasons such as a ‘lack of responsibility’ and how young people are ‘not
interested in politics’ to justify their claims.

When arguing against the Votes-at-16 movement, many people say that it's because most
young people aren’t really interested in politics. This argument roots back to the political
activity of 18-24 year olds. According to the British Youth Council, the voter turnout for 18-24
year olds was ‘not as consistent’ (Randhawa from the British Youth Council)compared to
those 25+ years old. This blog also made a comment on how “After the Representation of
the People Act was implemented, 65% of 18-24 year-olds voted” which would eventually
decrease overtime to “its lowest level in 2001, when only 23% voted”(Randhawa from the
British Youth Council). While the British Youth Council believes that the Votes-At-16 would
help increase the voter turnout of 18-24 in the future, others don’t believe so, saying that
nothing would change. For example, Jan Eichhorn cited Johnson and Marshall, who stated
that “the age group 18–24 and showed that indeed those young people tended to be less
politically engaged than the average population’’ (Johnson and Marshall(2004)) cited by
Eichhorn and Bergh). This idea was taken further by Markus Wagner, David Johann and
Sylvia Kritzinger as in their joint article stating “Young people under 18 simply mirror the low
levels of turnout found among those aged between 18 and 21” (Wagner et al.). Simply put,
due to the lack of interest in politics in the 18-24 year old range group due to the low voter
turnouts as well as minimal evidence of participating in non electoral political activity, many
suspect that people under 18s would have the same lack of interest.

Another reason for being against the Votes-at-16 movement is due to people of that age
having a lack of responsibility. This argument would be based on the human brain maturing
in the mid-20s (“The Teen Brain: 7 Things to Know - National Institute of Mental
Health”). Many such as Rueben Cooper use this as a basis when arguing against the votes
at 16. In his article ‘A Case Against Lowering The Voting Age’ Cooper states that ‘Today’s
teens are unable to confront challenging democratic ideas and even more ill-equipped to
tackle life in general’ (Cooper).Essentially, Cooper is trying to say that young people are not
informed enough about politics (due to their lack of interest) to the point that they are not
able to reasonably vote. This is also a sentiment shared by researchers Tak Wing Han and
Matthew Clayton who in their article ‘Should the Voting Age be Lowered to Sixteen?
Normative and Empirical Considerations’ stated that young people are “politically less
mature than older people”(Chan and Clayton). Cooper also tackles a point made by the
opposing side which state that Young people have alot of rights that adults have by saying
that due to their lack of responsibility, these same rights are “minimal, irrelevant and
diminishing”(Cooper). Copper comments on the lack of interest in politics among young
people, and how it would lead to using votes irresponsibly,essentially wasting their vote:”A
lack of understanding and engagement in politics could see them vote for random
candidates (the Monster Raving Loony Party or my dog”(Cooper). Overall, Cooper presents
an argument on how despite having the right to consent to sex and go get a job, people at
16 are not responsible enough to make a huge decision, which doesn’t just affect them but
the whole country as a whole.

A final argument that could be made when discussing why the Votes-at-16 shouldn’t go
through is that it can be manipulated for political or self-benefit. In his article, John
Burn-Murdoch started out with a quote which had been said by many political figureheads
including Winston Churchill: “If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a
conservative at 35 you have no brain. (Burn-Murdoch). This quote outlines a long standing
trend in politics which is how younger voters tend to vote for left leaning parties while older
voters tend to go the opposite way. Well, the problem that the Votes-at-16 movement brings
is that it benefits left-leaning parties such as the Labour party who, according to Loughran et
al, were driving for the passing of the 1969 Representation of Peoples act which lowered the
voting age for the first time in the UK. Many authors such as Reuben Cooper call this out
saying “The parties that support this bogus policy know that their farcical narratives of
victimhood, disingenuous crusades for social justice and fantasy economics, will rack up
their votes at the ballot box.”(Cooper). However there are some cases of countries allowing
16 year olds to vote but in certain elections,which is known as temporary
disenfranchisement. For example in Germany had disenfranchised its 16-17 year old voters
in national elections, but according to the Cambridge Press, in their sample based in the
German state of Schleswig-Holstein, “Almost half of 16- and 17-year-old respondents who
voted in the state election said they also intended to vote in the national elections”
(Leininger et al.).

Case Study 1: Scotland

Among the many examples of countries that have allowed the lowering of the voting age to
16 which includes the likes of Austria,Brazil,Argentina and UAE), the most notable for this
dissertation in particular is Scotland. It's rather confusing to say the least on how the whole
nation of the UK as a whole didn’t allow 16-17 year olds to vote, but one of its constituent
countries did. However, many researchers such as Jan Eichorn and Christine Heubner use
Scotland as an example on the success the UK would have if they submitted to the demand
of the Votes-at-16

In their joint paper,Eichorn and Heubner made a comment on how “In the referendum itself,
newly enfranchised 16- and 17-year-olds turned out to vote in greater numbers than their
slightly older peers, albeit still at lower rates than the average public” (Eichhorn and
Heubner). They have also made a comment on how the results of the referendum fared
compared to the voter turnout in Austria:“It matched results from other countries having
lowered the voting age to 16, such as Austria”(Eichhorn and Heubner). This can be further
supported by the Electoral Commission of 2014 which reported 75% of 16-17 year old in
Scotland have participated during voting with MP Ruth Davidson adding ‘The democratic
effect turned out to be entirely positive’ (“Scottish independence referendum report v1”)

In their paper, Eichhorn and Heubner also mentioned some of their primary research they
have done for themselves to prove their point. In their research, they used an online survey
to which they asked 609 participants to fill in.According to the paper, the sample they used
was described as a “representative sample of 16- to 31-year-olds”(Eichhorn and
Heubner).Overall,the research found that when it comes to turnout, lowering the voting age
had a positive long-term impact, however the same cannot be said for other forms of political
participations,such as rallies or petitions.

As well as this, the paper also discussed some other factors, one of which is socio-economic
class. Unlike the general trend of the upper class getting high-voter turnout while the class
below have voter turnouts under 60%, In the 16-17 year old bracket, there are ‘no major
differences’, with all socio-economic classes having a voter turnout of over 70% (Eichhorn
and Heubner). Another factor is political discussion with friends and family in which the
report suggested that ‘Young people of all ages who had talked about politics with their
families and friends were much more likely to have voted in the 2021 Scottish Parliament
elections compared to young people who did not.(Eichhorn and Heubner). This is notable
as this can be argued to support the ‘primary socialisation socialisation’ theory from Talcot
Parsons, hence it can be argued that voting becoming a habit isn’t so far fetched at all. In
fact, in her own article ‘How Young People in Scotland Experience the Right to Vote at 16:
Evidence on ‘Votes-at-16’ in Scotland from Qualitative Work with Young People’, Christine
Heubner mentions how the ”impact of the family and of education in schools is crucial for
young people’s early voting experiences”(Huebner). As well as this, Heubner also mentions
how a young voter’s first ever voting experience can impact them for the rest of their life:
‘the salience and electoral context of one’s first-ever election can also have a lasting effect
on how young people come to experience electoral politics’ (Huebner).

Overall to sum up this case study, Scotland is presented as a prime example of the effects of
lowering the voting age, with a long-term positive impact on voter turnout as well as the
dissolution of the differences of the turnout of different socio-economic groups shown in
older groups. Scotland shows how the UK could also be affected if it had followed its
example, however there are some still arguing against the Votes-at-16 despite the
arguments made for it.

Case Study 2: The Use of Social Media

The 2021 London Mayoral Election is one notable election. It comprised serious candidates
(from political parties) but also some candidates that most pundits put down as a joke such
as Count Binface and two youtube influencers: Niko Omilana and Max Fosh. Now this may
seem irrelevant at first especially when 16-17 year olds couldn’t vote but this may give us
almost like a foreshadowing to the youth turnout (18-24) was high due to the likes of popular
youtubers.while this shows youth interest in political matters, it does also show how these
interests can be manipulated to one's favour

First,both youtubers make arguments on how young people are not represented (specifically
in London). In an interview with the BBC, Max Fosh stated that he wanted to run to ‘increase
youth turnout’ (BBC News) In his own youtube video How I Won The London Mayor Election
,Niko Omilana stated that his reason for running is that ‘Young people are not represented in
politics’ (Niko Omilana) and later in the same vide he also made a point on how ‘Young
people can vote when they are really behind something’ (Niko Omilana) which can return
back to the Scotland whose 16-17 year old voter bracket had a voter turnout above 60% in
the Independence referendum to have their say in Scotland’s Independence. This is further
proven by Niko’s own performance in the London mayor vote, who has 2% of the vote
coming 5th place just above Laurence Fox while Max Fosh was 20th place with 0.2% of the
vote. After the election, Niko added on to his achievement by saying “We showed that young
people need to be represented” (BBC News).This overall, goes along with the script that the
Votes-at-16 and the British Youth council go by- the youth are interested and will show that
interest if someone encourages them to, similar to the case in Scotland where 16-17 year
old voter turnout was over 60% in the Independence Referendum and over 70% in the
Scottish parliament election.

However there is also this idea of using these youth votes for fame and self-benefit. After all
during this time the media were not taking either of them as serious candidates. Even Max
Fosh himself said “I told my audience not to vote for me.. I would’ve made a terrible mayor”
(BBC News) and in his Manifesto, Niko Omilana stated to ‘build two London eyes’ and
‘Freezing the river Thames’ as part of it (Niko Omilana). However, according to the BBC
‘Youtube searches for the names have increased by 70%’ (BBC News). As well as this Max
Fosh added that his subscriber count has gone up and his bid for mayor has created some
good content despite making a loss of £5500. While this may seem irrelevant, it can show
the risks of how the Vote-at-16 can be used for one's benefits, such as increasing votes for
left wing parties according to Rueben Cooper.

To sum this up, the bids of mayor from two famous youtubers has shown how the youth
including people of the age of 16 are actually interested in political matters however it can
also be an example of how it can be twisted to benefit one person or party via achieving
personal gain.

Review Conclusion
To conclude the Literature Review, we can firstly say that the age of responsibility is roughly
around 16-25 but many would say that it is 18 due to cultural changes which may have led to
the passing of the 1969 Representation of Peoples Act which lowered the voting age from 21
to 18. Furthermore, we have covered why people would either support or be against the
Votes-at-16.The Pros side includes how 16 year old almost have the same rights as an 18
year olds, how this is in the interest of politics and how it can become a long term habit while
the Cons include how the Youth don't have an interest in politics, how the youth has a lack of
responsibility and how it may benefit some political ideals. Finally we covered some
scenarios with one in Scotland where the Votes-at-16 is in action while the other in London
shows how the running of two youtubers presents the effects of youth voting.

Discussion
Research Introduction
For my discussion section of the essay,I aim to critique the arguments brought up from my
literature review by testing their validity through my own primary research. I will be talking
about three ‘research projects’ that I have done which would include my method, the sample,
results I used and my own personal hypothesis. Then,using the results of my research, I
would be giving a verdict in their theory which would include a personal analysis on the
results.

Why would 16-Year Olds Vote?

Within their research, Eichhorn and Heubner concluded that if the Votes-at-16 were
implemented, chances are that the vote turnout would be higher than the turnout of older
people “newly enfranchised 16- and 17-year-olds turned out to vote in greater numbers than
their slightly older peers” (Eichhorn and Heubner), Which they found evidence in the
Scottish referendum as well as in countries like Austria. As well as this, the high youth
turnout this time in the 18-24 in the London Mayoral election, showed that young people
which would include 17 and below need to be represented according to Niko Omilana ("We
showed that young people need to be represented” (BBC News).). As a summary, we could
say that there is an overall hypothesis that the youth are willing to use their right to vote in
their given situation.
However there is an alternative hypothesis, which can be based on something that Niko said
over his campaign which is that ‘Young people can vote when they are really behind
something’ (Niko Omilana). This quote, while vague, may point out that in general, the
youth don’t use their right to vote when given, unless something that piques their interest.
This is supported by the general trend that 18-24 year olds have a low voter turnout which
has constantly been pointed out by researchers such as “the age group 18–24 and showed
that indeed those young people tended to be less politically engaged than the average
population’’ (Johnson and Marshall(2004)). In fact other sources commented on the fact
that the turnout of the youth is ‘not consistent’ (Randhawa from the British Youth Council)
since the right to vote was given. The general turnout of 18-24 year olds has generally gone
down from “65% of 18-24 year-olds voting” to “its lowest level in 2001, when only 23%
voted”(Randhawa from the British Youth Council). Generally speaking, an alternative
hypothesis could be that there could be a general ‘hype’ to the youth when voting for the first
time or when there is something that peaks their interest like say two beloved youtubers
running in the mayoral elections. So when the discussion of lowering the voting age to 16 is
propped up, many would quickly disregard it fearing the same effect of the predecessors.

Overall, Youth turnout is a very important factor when it comes to lowering the voting age
and its overall dependant on the interest of the youth. We could say it is somewhat similar to
the analogy of a business selling a product in the sense of the actual hype of it when first
introduced and the fact that If there is low demand, then why sell it? With two different
theories being presented in regards to Youth turnout, I wanted to test the ‘demand’ of
lowering the voting age specifically in my school via the form of a questionnaire.

Research 1: Questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of asking my sample (which in this case are students from Year
7 to 13 in my own school) if they wanted to lower the voting age to 16 and why. The reason
why I asked this first question is because the answer to the question could be reflective of
the participant, specifically how politically active their are which was also commented on by
Eichhorn and Heubner As well as this, I also asked the people who replied ‘no’ to the first
question what they thought the voting age should be. The sample that I have used consisted
of students of my school from Year 7 all the way to Year 11 (aged 11-18) within my school as
I thought that since everyone is classified as a young person, they would be the most vocal
when it comes to voting age.

In this questionnaire, I would be looking at two things: the amount of people who answered
the questionnaire in the first place and the amount of people who would answer yes to the
question. These two factors are interesting in particular, in order to reproduce the results that
Eichhorn and Heubner got which is a high turnout relative to the 16-17 year old population of
Scotland except I would be doing it on a smaller scale, i.e. the population of students within
the school.

As a sort of hypothesis, I predicted that the vote would in each year group and as a school
as a whole would be in favour of lowering the voting age to 16, due to the fact that so many
young people outside of school, with many examples include the MYP positions in
parliament and the elections in Scotland resulting in a higher voting turnout in the 16 to 17
bracket. As well as this,it would correspond to the relatively high voter turnout statistics
which were found by Eichhorn and Heubner.However, I am also predicting that the turnout
would be lower in Year 13 and Year 11 due to upcoming exam which would affect their
availability to answer the essay anyway and as well as this Year 13 in particular.
Out of a population of 1120 pupils to which had access to the survey, only about 195 people
responded to the survey, which resulted in a 17.4% turnout rate, which is a very sharp
contrast to the 75% of 16-17 year olds in Scotland reported by the Electoral Commision.
Ironically, this result is actually more in line with the historic low voter turnout of 18-24 year
olds in the UK in general, which is in fact going in line with the theory of Wagner et al. who
stated that “Young people under 18 simply mirror the low levels of turnout found among
those aged between 18 and 21” (Wagner et al.). As well as this, I also found out that a large
majority of the sample who responded actually responded when the survey was actually first
sent out. While that may not be worthy information to find at first glance, It actually
corresponds to the high voter turnout of 18-24 year olds when the Representation Act, which
was stated by the British Youth Council (“After the Representation of the People Act was
implemented, 65% of 18-24 year-olds voted” (Randhawa from the British Youth Council)).
However, when looking at each subgroup separately, there is not really a trend or pattern to
comment about, in the interests of age being a factor in turnout, apart from the fact that ‘Year
13s’ on a whole had the lowest turnout as expected, due to their exams. It could be
theorised that the lack of a trend may show the inconsistency of voter turnout,which is again
mirrored from the 18-24 year old bracket in the UK in general. But compared to my original
hypothesis as a whole, it would seem that my overall hypothesis is inaccurate when it comes
to the turnout as a whole. While the reasons why may be broad (ie, exams), this could be
due to the fact that the survey and politics as a whole may not peak the interest of the school
population,which is suggested by the ‘alternate hypothesis’ and by Wagner et al.

Moving on from the turnout as a whole and into the context of the survey itself which
constited with a Yes and No Question of whether to lower the voting age to sixteen and the
reason for their answer. With this particular statistic, I measured as a percentage rather than
a whole number, as since the sample is more open, chances are the sample of each year
group is ideally representative of the population therefore the percentage as a whole is
representative to the proportion of the people who would say Yes or No to the question in
each year group.
This is a graph to show the percentage of people who said ‘Yes’ to lower the voting age to
16. Compared to the sample, the overall ‘Yes percentage’ was 50.2% within the whole
sample, which overall makes the matter more of a split issue rather than one opinion going
over the other. Now, unlike the last graph, which showed no general trend, This graph shows
a negative correlation (apart from the anomalies in Year 8 and Year 12), in other words the
older the person is the less likely they are to say yes to the question.

However, that's not the full story as I asked the participants why they chose their answer.
After checking all the responses, I realised that the younger years i.e. Year 7-9 were more
short and less sophisticated compared to the older years. In fact some participants actually
have put something along the lines of ‘I don’t know’ and ‘i'm not sure’ while others said
things that were technically not true such as ‘they have the right to vote’, meaning that they
could’ve put yes just for the hype of it or it could be that there are under the influence of
other pro votes-at-16 participants. So overall, we could say that these results are somewhat
unreliable or not really certain.

To summarise, the key take-aways I have gained from this is that, the overall turnout of the
essay in general through all the school is actually quite low and insignificant in a way with
17.4% of the whole school population answering the survey, and those who did answer,
slightly more people said yes to the idea however some people who said yes gave some
answer which are nonsensical to say the least.

Is there a Demand to the Right to Vote?

After the questionnaire, I can conclude that despite the majority of participants saying yes to
the question of ‘Whether the voting age should be lowered to 16’ and my hypothesis being
half-proven, we can say there is overall little to no demand for the vote among the target
demographic. This conclusion can mostly be pointed out to the fact that only 17.4% of the
school population only answered the survey and overall and as a school only 7.86% of the
population wanted the voting age to be lowered, which is generally not significant at all given
to a change in law.
In fact, given the nature of how most participants answered near when the survey was first
sent out we can probably say that the second hypothesis is more accurate compared to the
first one. The participation of each year group is in fact inconsistent like Randhawa said and
we can say that people just answered the survey just for the hype of it. This can even branch
on the conclusion that young people are in fact not interested in politics at all and that they
have indeed “mirror the low levels of turnout found among those aged between 18 and 21”
(Wagner et al.) because in itself, they had a right to answer the survey and the fact that
most people didn’t use that right gives the impression that they wouldn't use that right to
vote.

However, despite this result, the questionnaire overall is not really accurate in ruling out the
first previously mentioned hypothesis. The reason why I don't completely rule out the
research and theories of Eichhorn and Heubner is simply because they researched a
different place compared to myself. While I have researched a school in Wolverhampton in
England, they have researched all over Scotland. While both are in Britain, that doesn't
mean that the political landscape is the exact same. Compared to England, Scotland can be
said to be more politically more socially democratic than England which does generally
encourage Votes-at-16. As well as this, Eichhorn and Heubner als took into account other
factors other than age such as social class and social background meanwhile my research
only focused on age.

Can We be Responsible at 16?

The current voting age can be justified with scientific research and current societal views. As
we saw in the Literature review, we have seen that the brain fully develops around your mid
20s: ‘The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s’ (“The Teen Brain: 7
Things to Know - National Institute of Mental Health”). However Alan Greenblatt offered
a broader range of age, when referring to a person’s ability to make good decisions: “most
people are capable of performing many adult functions adequately at an earlier age-probably
between 16 and 21” (Greenblatt). While science gives a broader range, we can rely on
societal views to narrow this down to the age of 18, in which ‘The Representation of Peoples
Act 1969’ played a huge role in it with giving the right to vote at 18.

Since then, we as a society have always been associating the age of 18 as reaching
adulthood or reaching a responsible age, after all you are given the right to buy alcohol, the
right to hold a contract meaning that you can buy a house and of course, the right to vote.
However, this view originated from 1969, which was 55 years ago- what if this is not the case
anymore? After all the change to the Vote-at-18 can be argued to have come about due to
the UK the ‘transformations in youth culture during the 60s’(Marwick cited by Loughran et
al.). Compared to 1969, we can say that 16-year-olds are not the same when it comes to the
generational gap between 1969 and 2024 as well as individually. We can argue that these
societal views are too narrow minded, not every 16 year old would act like we would expect
and the same can be said for all people of all ages.