Voting age to be lowered to 16 by next general election

Electoral system vs. voting age

• Several argue changing first-past-the-post (FPTP) to proportional or alternative systems would do more for democracy than tweaking the voting age.
• Past reform attempts (e.g. the 2011 AV referendum) are cited as poorly designed and politically sabotaged, then used to claim “the public chose FPTP.”
• Some note UK already uses multiple voting systems in devolved bodies, making the national insistence on FPTP look purely self‑serving.

Motives and partisan advantage

• Many see lowering the age to 16 as a tactical move by Labour, assuming younger voters lean left. Others predict this could backfire if youth swing to right‑populist or “TikTok strongman” figures later.
• A recurring view: parties only support reforms that increase their own power; functioning democracy is secondary.

Maturity, brain development, and consistency

• One camp argues 16‑year‑olds lack judgment, are more emotional/peer‑driven, and are easier to manipulate, citing popular neuroscience claims about brain maturation to ~25 (which others challenge as oversimplified or misleading).
• Counterarguments: many adults vote emotionally and are poorly informed; 16‑year‑olds may actually be more civics‑engaged via school; and they have a larger long‑term stake than older voters.
• Inconsistencies are highlighted: at 16 you can work, pay tax, have children, join the army in training roles, but not drink, marry, or buy certain products. Some say the rights/duties package should be aligned; others reject tying all civil liberties to one age.

Stake, taxation, and who “deserves” a vote

• Some propose limiting or weighting voting rights by tax contribution or “stake,” or via civics exams; opponents call this a classic disenfranchisement tactic vulnerable to abuse.
• Selectorate theory is invoked to argue that simply enlarging the electorate (even if voters are “naive”) improves mass welfare by forcing broader competition for support.

Practical impact and manipulation

• Several expect turnout among 16–17‑year‑olds to be modest, so aggregate impact limited.
• Others worry new young voters are particularly vulnerable to social media propaganda, though some argue older cohorts are already worse affected.