We are campaigning against lowering the voting age to 16 as most of the 16 year olds dont5 care about politics and who they would vote for because they have better things to do such as exams etc. Yesterday, Labour Party Conference voted to include extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds in our next manifesto. This comes following the National Policy Forum’s vote in July in support of votes at 16. There was a warm welcome for the vote – as you might expect – from a number of national youth organisations. There were also a few critics, including Guardian journalist Michael White and Tom Harris MP. Three main arguments were put forward against votes at 16. Now that votes at 16 will be in Labour’s manifesto there is likely be a repeat of these criticisms from those opposed to votes as 16. On the face of it, these criticisms may initially seem to be ‘common sense’, but they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Argument 1: ‘Introducing votes at 16 would be bad for democracy because it would result in a fall in the percentage turnout of eligible voters at elections’ This argument was put forward by Tom Harris MP, who wrote: “If 16 and 17-year-olds are to be given the vote, I worry that the most significant effect will be a huge increase in the number of “voters” who don’t vote.” This argument is flawed on at least three counts. First, its premise - that the percentage turnout is what matters in terms of how ‘democratic’ an election is judged to be - does not make sense. Imagine a society of 100 people. A situation where 60 people are eligible to vote and 40 of them do so (i.e. 66% vote) is not necessarily more democratic than one where 90 people are eligible to vote and 45 of them do so do so (i.e. 50% vote). After all, in the later case more members of the society actually vote. Second, the argument confuses legitimate and illegitimate means of encouraging higher turnout. Making it easier to register to vote, moving voting to weekends and running campaigns to encourage voting: these are all legitimate ways of encouraging higher turnout. Deciding who is eligible to vote on the basis of how likely they are to do so is not. The rationale of this argument would also justify excluding other groups with low turnout, such as ethnic minorities or those in social classes C2DE. The third and final nail in the coffin of this argument is that - even if you accept its flawed reasoning - it is far from certain that the percentage turnout will fall. In Germany the voting age was reduced to 16 in some municipal elections, and the result was that a higher proportion of 16 and 17 year olds voted than those aged 18 to 24. Indeed, a lower voting age may even lead to an overall increase in turnout if young people pick up the habit at school and continue to vote throughout their lives – meaning a whole cohort of people more likely to vote than their forebears. Argument 2: ‘16 year olds aren't allowed to buy alcohol, drive, etc. and therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to vote’ One objection to this argument – raised by a commentator on Michael White’s article attacking votes at 16 - is that it confuses public and private rights. Drinking, smoking and driving are private rights, not public ones. On the other hand, voting is a public right. It is not incompatible for 16 years olds to have one but not the other. This argument also misunderstands why it is that 16 and 17-year-olds are not allowed to drive, drink, and smoke. It is not because we believe all 16 or 17-year-olds, if they were allowed to do these things, would end up having alcohol-induced car crashes or hooked on smoking for the rest of their lives. Rather, it is because a substantial minority are likely to do so, and in doing so are likely to hurt themselves or others. Where the line is drawn is a matter of judgement and common sense - rather than hard and fast rules. An individual 16-year-old is able to do a lot less damage with a ballot paper and a pen than a ton of mobile steel. There may be a very small minority who abuse their right – but there are 50 year olds who may do the same.