Ep. 237 Widening the franchise and the impact on participation

[gentle music]Granted, there are those who argue that lowering the voting age would not improve participation because of a lack of public support.

In a 2025 YouGov poll, 57% of respondents said that they opposed votes at 16 and 17.

You could also argue that lowering the voting age does not reflect the current move towards seeing childhood extending well beyond 16, as the recent vote in the House of Commons on banning smoking for all those born in 2009 and later attests to.

This lack of public support is one thing, and the impact on participation is another equally concerning thing.

Young people in the UK who can vote often choose not to.

According to Ipsos, just 37% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted in the 2024 general election, compared to 73% of those aged over 65.

Would 16-year-olds be any less apathetic, bothered than 18 to 24-year-olds? Those at school would be highly impressionable and could vote according to peer pressure or how their parents tell them to vote, thus their participation would not be based upon their own self-agency.

So would their participation be particularly meaningful? I want to trash all of these arguments, starting with a lack of public support.

All 16 and 17-year-olds will have the right to vote under the government's Representation of the People Bill 2026.

Most MPs support lowering the voting age, and thus the measure is not doomed to fail because it has actually gained the crucial government support needed.

The new right to vote will undoubtedly be introduced via a public information campaign in schools.

Even if there is public disquiet about votes at 16, opposing something doesn't mean the people affected, i.e. 16 and 17-year-olds, wouldn't take up the offer to vote.

In the same YouGov poll that I just mentioned, 18 to 24-year-olds were actually far more split on this issue than the wider public, with 14% saying that they didn't know whether 16 and 17-year-olds should vote.

Most damning is that 16 and 17-year-olds were not even polled by YouGov, and they are the ones who matter because we can really only judge participation in this group based on how they would participate, not an older age group.

When they have been invited to participate, in any case, they do, such as when 16 and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote in the Scottish independence referendum.

Here, turnout amongst this group topped 80%.

Clearly, 16 and 17-year-olds want to take part in politics.

Their slightly older counterparts, 18 to 24-year-olds, may not vote in such large numbers because they feel let down by the political system that imposes tuition fees and makes housing unobtainable.

Participation is not doomed to be low, but expectations are if the policies aren't right.

When they are perceived to be right, participation spikes.

Youth turnout in the 2017 UK general election increased to 64%, which shows that young people will vote when energized by a specific set of policies like tuition fees and getting rid of them, and by leaders who appeal to them.

In that election, it was Corbyn.

Thus, young people will participate when they feel they have a stake, and in this sense, 16 to 17-year-olds are no different to any other group in society.

Indeed, between the calling of the general election by Rishi Sunak in 2024 and the general election day itself, over 1.6 million people under the age of 35 registered to vote.

And we can push back about questioning the quality of participation when it comes to impressionability.

[gentle music]Granted, there are those who argue that lowering the voting age would not improve participation because of a lack of public support.

In a 2025 YouGov poll, 57% of respondents said that they opposed votes at 16 and 17.

You could also argue that lowering the voting age does not reflect the current move towards seeing childhood extending well beyond 16, as the recent vote in the House of Commons on banning smoking for all those born in 2009 and later attests to.

This lack of public support is one thing, and the impact on participation is another equally concerning thing.

Young people in the UK who can vote often choose not to.

According to Ipsos, just 37% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted in the 2024 general election, compared to 73% of those aged over 65.

Would 16-year-olds be any less apathetic, bothered than 18 to 24-year-olds? Those at school would be highly impressionable and could vote according to peer pressure or how their parents tell them to vote, thus their participation would not be based upon their own self-agency.

So would their participation be particularly meaningful? I want to trash all of these arguments, starting with a lack of public support.

All 16 and 17-year-olds will have the right to vote under the government's Representation of the People Bill 2026.

Most MPs support lowering the voting age, and thus the measure is not doomed to fail because it has actually gained the crucial government support needed.

The new right to vote will undoubtedly be introduced via a public information campaign in schools.

Even if there is public disquiet about votes at 16, opposing something doesn't mean the people affected, i.e. 16 and 17-year-olds, wouldn't take up the offer to vote.

In the same YouGov poll that I just mentioned, 18 to 24-year-olds were actually far more split on this issue than the wider public, with 14% saying that they didn't know whether 16 and 17-year-olds should vote.

Most damning is that 16 and 17-year-olds were not even polled by YouGov, and they are the ones who matter because we can really only judge participation in this group based on how they would participate, not an older age group.

When they have been invited to participate, in any case, they do, such as when 16 and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote in the Scottish independence referendum.

Here, turnout amongst this group topped 80%.

Clearly, 16 and 17-year-olds want to take part in politics.

Their slightly older counterparts, 18 to 24-year-olds, may not vote in such large numbers because they feel let down by the political system that imposes tuition fees and makes housing unobtainable.

Participation is not doomed to be low, but expectations are if the policies aren't right.

When they are perceived to be right, participation spikes.

Youth turnout in the 2017 UK general election increased to 64%, which shows that young people will vote when energized by a specific set of policies like tuition fees and getting rid of them, and by leaders who appeal to them.

In that election, it was Corbyn.

Thus, young people will participate when they feel they have a stake, and in this sense, 16 to 17-year-olds are no different to any other group in society.

Indeed, between the calling of the general election by Rishi Sunak in 2024 and the general election day itself, over 1.6 million people under the age of 35 registered to vote.

And we can push back about questioning the quality of participation when it comes to impressionability.