Voting at age 16

Earlier, I wrote:

While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these proposals (except perhaps lowering the voting age to 16, although I'm willing to be convinced if someone wants to try)

Neil Harding has taken me up on this and offered an excellent and well-considered support of the proposal. The point I found most compelling was this:

By reducing the lower age to 16, no-one would have to wait past 21 to be able to vote.

However, I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. Not against, mind you, just not convinced. Obviously, if Anytime Voting were to be implemented, all voters would be able to lodge their vote the moment they turned 18. This would address Neil's concerns in a much more direct way, and without unintended consequences.

Without Anytime Voting, the proposal has to be evaluated in terms of the requirements and unintended consequences. Is the requirement that all voters be allowed to lodge a vote in a general election by the age of 21? No: Neil later advocates general elections every 3 years, guaranteeing a vote by the age of 19. This is actually two requirements at once: improving accountability by reducing the election period, and improving enfranchisement by guaranteeing a vote by an earlier age. These are both goals I find laudable (after all, Anytime Voting guarantees a vote by the age of 18, and makes accountability instantaneous).

But are they achieved without significant unintended consequences? My argument is that they are not.

Reducing the election period without moving to Anytime Voting increases the time representatives (in this case, MPs) must spend campaigning and fund-raising. Every general election is preceded by a period of governmental inaction as the candidates and parties concentrate on re-election rather than legislation, and it's possible for the civil service to be paralysed by a predicted (but not inevitable) change of government. This is a delicate balance of course - without Anytime Voting, some measure of election fever has to be accepted, since elections achieve the far more important goal of accountability. The problem isn't that elections every 3 years are worse than every 5 (they aren't), but that they don't achieve the goal of increased accountability without unintended and negative consequences.

Reducing the voting age to 16 does indeed achieve of goal of guaranteeing a vote by the age of 21 (or 19 if the election period is also reduced). Following Neil's line of thought (a good one), the unintended consequence is allowing some voters to vote before the age of 18. Neil correctly points out:

Remember also, that only a quarter or fifth of new voters will get to vote at 16. Most will still be over 18 by the time they get to vote in a general election.

That figure of course changes to a half or a third of new voters if the election period is reduced. Does the unchallenged benefit of allowing all voters to vote by the age of 21 (or 19) outweigh the unintended consequence of allowing 16 and 17 year old kids to vote? Possibly, but this is where I remain unconvinced. I would prefer to solve the problem without the consequence.

Basically, I'm in full support of Neil's goals, but I think Anytime Voting is a better way to achieve them. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?