One person, one vote. It’s one of the fundamental principles of modern democracy. So why are there people seriously advocating tinkering with the basics – from age-weighted voting to capping the voting age, to raising the voting age, to abolishing voting ages altogether?

There has always been a generational divide in our politics. However, it feels like political divisions between the age cohorts are entrenching; from the February 2020 Irish election, to Corbyn-supporters and Brexit voters in the UK, to Trump-supporters in the US, age is often a determinant of political beliefs. That is why some people want to change the way voting works.

The problem is not going away. Europeans are living longer than ever, and as average life expectancy has been rising, birth rates have also been falling. The trend is clear: the number of older Europeans will continue to rise, while the proportion of younger people falls. Even if young people turn out to vote (which is never guaranteed) the remorseless logic of demographics may see younger generations consistently out-voted by the old.

In the theory, none of this is a problem. After all, younger generations will eventually grow older themselves. However, it becomes a problem when issues operate on longer timescales than electoral cycles, such as with climate change, or when the social benefits younger people stand to inherit are somehow diminished or reduced, which may be the case when it comes to questions such as the sustainability of pension funds, healthcare systems, or the housing market.

What do our readers think? One proposed solution was to lower the voting age to 16, as a way to boost the youth vote. However, our reader Maria thinks that’s a terrible idea because “young people know nothing but just follow Greta Thunberg without question”.

To get a reaction, we took this rather provocative comment to Ashton Applewhite (@thischairrocks on Twitter), an anti-ageism activist and author of the book “This Chair Rocks: A Manifesto against Ageism”. How would she respond to Maria?

That’s an incredibly ageist, and offensive, and patronising thing to say! Any generalisation on the basis of age about a person or group of people like that is the definition of ageism. Younger people experience it as well – and we’ve seen a lot of it with Greta Thunberg, with people saying: “She’s just a kid, what can she possibly know?”, or with the disgusting ad hominem attacks she’s faced, in particular from (shocker) older white men.

To address the climate crisis we need brave and inspirational leaders from every domain, from every country, from every expertise. Greta Thunberg has more than earned her place among them.

For another perspective, we put the same comment to Samira Rafaela, a Dutch MEP with the liberal D66 party. How would she react?

Younger people need to be more involved, and they need to have a bigger and louder voice in the legislation and policies we make. When I was 16, I remember that I could participate very well in complex and relevant political discussions, so I think we should not underestimate 16-year-olds. Instead, I think we should see how it works when we engage them, so I think I’m in favour of a lower voting age. And my own party in the Netherlands have said that we are open to the options when it comes to engaging young people politically from the age of 16.

Next up, we had a comment from David, who worries that “with ageing populations there is the danger that governments make policies that appeal only to older voters”. He asks if an argument can be made for setting a maximum voting age (he suggests 85) as well as a minimum voting age.

What would anti-ageism campaigner Ashton Applewhite say to David’s comment?

That’s the perfect incredibly ageist bookend to Maria’s comment! I think people should be able to vote at 16, and I think people should be able to vote as long as they are able to understand the issues.

Let’s not forget that population ageing is a permanent, global demographic trend. This is the world that David, I assume, hopes to live long enough in to inhabit as an older person. So, we really need to rethink roles and institutions across all of society, and think in terms of equity across the lifespan. Young people need a tremendous amount of support too, because they don’t have assets, because they are raising young children – a society that is good to grow old in, according to World Health Organization’s criteria for ‘age-friendly cities’ – has parks, public transportation, social services. Guess what? That is a community that’s good for all ages.

So, these things tend to be framed as: ‘Why are we spending money on expensive old people?’ when, in fact, we are spending money on things that are good for everyone (including David right now). And, once he’s older, I think he’ll be really glad to see this from a more balanced perspective.

Finally, how would Dutch MEP Samira Rafaela reply?

I mean, that’s not the essence of democracy, is it? We should respect the values of democracy, we are not going to exclude people from voting! People above 85 are equally part of our society and we should respect them, and we should also not forget, as younger generations, that the older generations – our parents and grandparents – I mean, they did a lot for us. Come on. We should also respect and value that.

There is also a question of loyalty, about respecting the elderly, so we should definitely not cap the voting age. We should make sure more young people are engaged in politics so we can find more of a balance. That is the main solution for this problem. The solution is not excluding people. The solution is including people.

Should there be an age limit for voting? Should we abolish age limits for voting completely? Or lower the age limit to 16? Or introduce a maximum age for voting? Or would that undermine basic democratic principles? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: Photo by Arnaud Jaegers on Unsplash; PORTRAIT CREDITS: Applewhite (c) Adrian Buckmaster, Rafaela (c) European Parliament

26 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar

    Yes. Don’t allow people over 49 to vote.

  2. avatar

    For 2020 only those 42 and 43yo, with glasses and grayish beard should vote.

    • avatar

      would say 20-70

  3. avatar

    Not only an age restriction, but many other restrictions should be applied. Not everyone should be able to vote, since most people give no damn about it. The vote should be EARNED and not granted.

    • avatar

      Yes… only those that vote on the correct candidates…

    • avatar

      that’s absolutely not what I said.

  4. avatar

    There should be a policy-neutral test: just to prove basic knowledge of how the political system works.

  5. avatar

    I would rather see the voting system be changed from a party/politician vote to program voting where we all are able to give voice to what is important for us in each domain. Let’s be honest, how many people can say they read every single manifesto and electoral program? It would be great to have more involvement of the civil society as to exactly which direction each society wants to progress towards. Besides, it would give government a clear vision endorsed by the public, to which they are accountable for.

  6. avatar

    “A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life, a civilian does not.”

  7. avatar

    And only right handed people with IQ minima…and NO gingers !!!

  8. avatar

    Let the 15 or 16 years olds vote. It is not as though they could vote for worse than us adults.

  9. avatar

    You shouldn’t bother after 70. You are a gonner

  10. avatar

    There are two types of intelligence: fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence. Based on the former, an 18-year old compares to a 40-year old. Based on the latter, an 18-year old compares to a 85-year old. So an maximum age limit is justified based on these numbers. For complex decision making like voting in modern times, I’d intuitively say both types of intelligence matter. A nice middle ground would a voting range of 18…78. Going for 16…infinite range is another option that feels just, but this will hurt the quality of democracy.

  11. avatar

    I believe that people should only be allowed to vote after passing a randomized nonpartisan test regarding current events and politics– the test guarantees that voters know what they are voting for, and the randomization helps to prevent cheating.

    • avatar

      Yes it should be changed on both ends. 30 until retirement age.

  12. avatar

    There shouldn’t be a voting age. Voting ages treat children as less than human.
    Having your opinion respected is a human right. Not an adult’s right.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.