Right answer, wrong question?

The BBC is reporting that the Electoral Commission has recommended no change in the minimum voting age for the UK. Many proposals had suggested reducing it to 16, but that suggestion appears to have been narrowly defeated in debates. Thankfully, they are recommending redressing the imbalance between voting and standing ages. You will now, should you so wish, be able to stand for election as an MP aged 18, rather than the current 21.

It seems, however, that the Electoral Commission’s report is based on the wrong question. According to the BBC: The review was prompted by the 39% turnout among 18 to 21-year-olds was the lowest of any age group at the 2001 general election. That’s as opposed to the fact that 16 year olds can serve in the armed forces, get married, move out of home, and pay taxes.

I’m particularly sensitive to that last factor. Moving to the US, one of the things which has seemed particularly ironic is that in a country partly founded from the slogan no taxation without representation I will be expected to pay taxes without any right to representation. I know that such things are difficult to manage, but it would seem that the UK has a relatively easy option to address that issue for one major segment of the tax-paying population, by reducing the voting age.

Extending the right to vote should be about allowing all ‘stakeholders’ a say in their society, not simply padding out statistics.