Votes for 16 year olds: the scientific argument
The Prime Minister has confirmed plans to give the vote to 16 year olds, and the usual suspects are miffed. But they shouldn't be. Because scientifically, it makes more sense than it doesn't
If you were listening to Radio 5 Live at 9am on the morning of Wednesday, April the 9th, 2025, you would have heard host Nicky Campbell discuss Prime Minister Kier Starmer’s confirmation of plans to reduce the UK voting age to 16.
On paper, there are no grounds to object. Lowering the voting age in this manner was in Labour’s 2024 election manifesto. Labour won the election by a considerable margin. Therefore, the majority of the country voted for the manifesto.
So, it logically should, must happen. In the words of Porky Pig, th-the-the-th-th-the-th-th-the-that's democracy, folks!
But of course, these days democracy is more akin to speed limits; technically ‘the law’, but everyone violates it if they can get away with it. So, obviously, the usual suspects, the ones who suddenly seem less enthused about the ‘will of the people’ than they used to be, are up in arms about lowering the voting age.
Which is why, presumably, Radio 5 Live had a live debate about it. A debate I was asked to take part in.
What people who heard it in real-time presumably won’t know is that I wasn’t at full ‘debate strength’. Because I received the call about taking part at 8:30am. While driving to the gym1. I answered (hands free) and the nice producer explained what the show would be and asked what I thought about the issue. I gave my stance, and was then asked if I’d be up for taking part.
I said yes. If nothing else, this was good exposure for my latest book. But, I was then told the show was happening at 9am. AKA, 25 minutes from the time of the call.
I confess to being a busy person of late, so my gym time is strictly scheduled. Therefore, I had to work around this sudden commitment to 30 mins of live radio debate. Which is why, if the show were a video broadcast, viewers would have seen me making my contribution from the drivers seat of my car, over a zoom call, via a phone precariously balanced on the steering wheel of said car.
Supposed video would have also revealed me wheezing, in a clingy sweat-soaked gym kit, what with having grappled with the rowing machine for 10 minutes right before the show. Because when you’re a busy married father of 2 who doesn’t want to die young, every second counts!
My point is, I probably didn’t convey every point I was hoping to make during the live broadcast. Full disclosure, I do think 16 year olds should be given the vote. I also see why people disagree. I just believe that, on balance, the evidence favours the former over the latter. By some margin.
So, in the interest of full transparency, here’s what I would have said, in response to every point made against lowering the voting age.
“16 year olds don’t have mature brains!”
Guys, we’ve been over this. The whole ‘brain doesn’t work properly until you’re 25’ idea is flat out wrong.
But even so. Let’s take the notion that “you need to have a brain that’s operating at maximum capability before you can vote” at 100% face value. I guess this could mean you should exclude 16 year olds from voting. And you should probably exclude a lot of 18 year olds too. And 20 year olds. And 22 year olds.
Because, sure, the ‘peak’ of cognition tends to2 happen later. However, it seems like everyone assumes this peak is permanent. Like, you scale the Mount Everest of brain development, and just live there from then on.
But that’s not what happens. Like with mountaineers, once you hit the peak, you then descend. And insofar as ‘peak brain performance’ is a single concept that can be measured accurately, it seems to decline in your thirties, if not earlier.
So if the argument that ‘16 year olds don’t have brains capable of understanding voting’ is accepted, the same logic would mean that there should be a maximum voting age, too. Never mind broadening the voting age, it should be restricted to those ranging from their mid 20s to mid 30s.
Maybe some people would only get to vote once. Seems harsh, but if you’re going to allow voting rights based purely on age-related cognitive performance, that’s the only logical approach. Unless your goal is purely to suppress younger people. Which seems to be the case for far too many people.
“Teenagers are all criminals with knives!”
One caller to the show made the point that teens like 16 year olds are responsible for a lot of knife crime, therefore they shouldn’t get the vote.
Sure, teens are involved in a lot of knife crime. But then, you could argue that there are a boatload of social and poverty issues that are behind this, not just some “they’re immature so they love stabbing!” nonsense.
And if we’re judging an age range’s right to vote based on the criminal behaviour of the worst elements of that range, then 16 year olds are by no means the most common age of convicted criminal. They tend to be much older. Should we therefore strip the vote from the 30, 40, or 50 year olds? Just in case? Because if some of them commit crimes, they clearly can’t be trusted, right?
Yes, it’s incredibly hard to determine how many of a certain age range commit crimes. But that applies to all demographics. The idea that it should only be applied to under-18 year olds is, again, incredibly unfair. Especially in world where career criminals in their 80s can be elected to the most powerful political position on Earth.
Naming no names, like…
“They don’t have enough life experience!”
This was another common one. 16-year-olds don’t have enough life experience to appreciate the impact of their vote. So, they shouldn’t have one. Apparently.
I personally disagree with that on principle. Because “not enough life experience” could be easily used to disenfranchise all but the oldest voters. The ones who are most likely to die before any of the things vote for come to pass.
I’m not saying that’s exactly what happened with the Brexit referendum. But I’ve certainly though it more than once.
Basically, ‘life experience’ is not something anyone can quantify or measure. Many 16 year olds have spent years caring for infirm parents or siblings, shouldering the crucial responsibilities and decisions of adults on a daily basis. Meanwhile, many people in their fifties demonstrably don’t even care for their own children. Why should the latter be given the vote without question while the former are denied it?
And the whole “not all teens do that!” argument is irrelevant. Many of them can, and do, do it. Therefore, they’re capable of making mature and rational decisions. So, should be allowed to vote in the future of their society. If you can prove that nobody in any other age range ever makes a wrong or ill-informed decision, because ‘life experience’ then this argument would hold water. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on that score.
And this is assuming that life experience is 100% informative and accurate. As was raised on the Radio 5 Live show more than once, countless older people chastise the younger generations for not having their own homes, because they still think that it requires a small fraction of an annual salary, rather than… considerably more.
What good is life experience if that experience is irrelevant to the situation you’re in when you enter the voting booth?
“Teenagers are too gullible!”
According to a surprising number of people, 16-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they’re too gullible. They get all their information from TikTok and similar platforms, which aren’t regulated or anything. So you can’t allow them to vote, surely!
Fair point, well made. But, counterpoint… gullibility to online misinformation is by no means exclusive to teenagers. Quite the opposite. Evidence suggests that the older you are, the more likely you are to believe and share fake news.
True, 16-year-olds don’t have as much experience, so wouldn’t be as able to discern facts from nonsense. But older people have a more rigid mental model of how the world works, so are far more likely to adhere to confirmation bias, and only believe things they already believe.
Overall, the point is this. Neurologically, scientifically, logically, practically, and morally even, there are valid reasons to deny 16-year-olds the right to vote.
But each of those reasons applies to every other age bracket too. Often even more so. So if you’re going to object to younger people voting on such grounds, you’d logically need to explain why they apply to only younger people. Because as far as I can see, they don’t.
But then I’m just a common or garden variety neuroscientists. I don’t have a regular column in a broadsheet newspaper. So presumably my take isn’t relvant.
If you care about teens and their contribution at all, you could do worse than buying my latest book, Why Your Parents Are Hung-Up on Your Phone and What To Do About It
YES, I go to the gym. Quite often. No, I know it ‘doesn’t show’, but I’m working on that. And have been for 3 years now. It’ll kick in eventually. I assume.
This bit is in italics because, like all things brain-related, it’s not a hard and fast rule. Some people may reach peak mental powers earlier, some later. Humans gonna human, basically.
Just the article I needed to challenge my initial flabby-minded boomer reaction! Thank you :)
"Therefore, the majority of the country voted for the manifesto."
Logic alert! Your own source tells us that "The party's vote share was 33.7%, the lowest of any majority party on record, making this the least proportional general election in British history according to the Gallagher index."
Unless I misunderstood, and you were being ironic? To avoid confusion, please capitalise any text that is meant to be subtle ;-)
I guess most of these arguments could apply to even lower ages. So why even have a floor?
Why not 15 or 14 years olds.?
Having age 18 as a cut-off for many things breaks down when you go through some of the arguments like you just did above. But society decided it was an acceptable enough cut-off point because somewhere along the line, we believe people (on average) become more capable.