A quick reminder that we really ought to lower the voting age

Estimable political scientist Philip Cowley (he writes those big, excellent books about UK general elections) objects to lowering the voting age to 16 and sort of idly wonders if we ought to raise it to 21.

This is, of course, ridiculous. It’s a craven defence of the status quo and an unimaginative repetition of a centuries-old prejudice against youth. There are at least five good reasons why the voting age should be lowered (I’m leaving out the obvious sixth one — that it might electorally benefit progressive parties or political entrpereneurs— because, it turns out, that’s not necessarily true).

1. It will make the electorate more open to change, reform, novelty in general. Not much, just a bit. Probably just the right amount, in fact. Parties will work to appeal to the young, updating their programmes more often, trying to stay relevant and modern. Electoral politics will be slightly more dynamic, slightly more open to new ideas — like workplace democracy, basic income, cooperation, life-long learning, preventive healthcare… And, better yet, we might find that some of the concerns of young people even make it into the party manifestos.
2. Children will make better voters than their parents. Votes are just choices. Choices with material outcomes for sure, but still relatively simple choices. It’s not rocket surgery…