With 16-year-olds set to vote in the next general election, questions are already being asked about whether they’re ready (or reliable). But it may not be the problem you think it is. Here’s why.
In May of 2024, I was elected as a borough councillor where I live. People kept telling me I looked too young to be there – on their doorstep, at the election count, in the council chamber. I was 31 at the time.
I wonder how those same people reacted when they saw Keir Starmer’s announcement that 16 and 17-year-olds will have the right to vote in the next general election. Presumably, they were horrified.
The change to voting age is part of a package of other reforms which include simpler voter registration, closing loopholes on political donation rules, and tightening protections against intimidation in elections. Labour says that their plans will improve youth participation and restore public trust in government. A Conservative MP has called the move “hopelessly confused”. So what happens now, and who’s right?
Young people and the voting gap
There are certainly reasons to be worried about the state of our elections. Turnout has fallen slowly over the past few decades, with growing gaps between people who vote regularly (more likely if you hold a university degree, own a home, or are over 60) and those who don’t (younger people, renters, and those without degrees or in working-class jobs).
Meanwhile, trust in government is at a record low and abuse of election candidates and councillors is rising disturbingly fast. The relationship between voters and the people who represent them seems to be seriously damaged.
In my own work, I’ve met a number of people who don’t see the point in voting any more. They’re often those who suffer the most from policies of austerity: parents of children with special needs, young workers in inadequate housing, pensioners worried about seeing their doctor. But I rarely get to talk to the generation that grew up amid the financial crash. Following the “digital native” Millennials, we might call them austerity natives: Gen Z.
Will 16-year-olds actually vote?
Giving a vote to 16-year-olds is a move which rests on three assumptions: that young people will vote, that they will vote in predictable ways, and that their votes will move the needle on a national level. However, we can’t take all of those assumptions as read.
Let’s start with whether 16-year-olds will use their votes. When 16 and 17-year-olds have been given the vote – in the Scottish independence referendum, in some US municipal elections, and in Denmark and Austria – it seems to be habit-forming. In other words, if you vote as a teenager, you’re likely to keep doing it. However, turnout is still fairly low. And while 16-year-olds might be thrilled to get the vote, 18-year-olds are least likely to use theirs. No one can fully explain why that drop-off in voting happens.
Who will they vote for? It’s not that simple
Then there’s the question of how 16-year-olds vote. The answer is: Not the way you’re expecting.
You can tell what our political parties assume is going to happen based on how they reacted to the news. Labour came up with the idea because they expect a high level of youth support, and the Lib Dems (my own party), Greens, and SNP are supportive for similar reasons.
However, they’re not necessarily correct. In the 2024 general elections, smaller parties like the Greens and Lib Dems only won in places where voter turnout was high. Younger voters may not turn out enough to make a difference for them.
Then there’s the fact that, even though lower voting ages are usually championed by left-wing parties, the result can be a bigger vote share for right-wing parties. The Conservatives and Reform don’t officially support a lower voting age, but when a poll found that Reform was the second choice among 16-year-olds, Nigel Farage was quick to say that “we’re going to get 16 and 17-year-olds to vote for us”.
There’s a chance he’s right, at least among teenage boys. It’s widely said that Gen Z men are more conservative in general, while Gen Z women are one of the most liberal generations to date. The question is whether they will balance each other out at the ballot box.
In most polls and studies, men self-report that they’re more likely to vote. However, when you look at the actual electoral records around the world, it’s women who show up on polling day. One researcher even found that Gen Z men’s swing to the right went hand-in-hand with a lack of political activity.
Does that mean a swing to the left in our next elections, pushed on by our youngest voters? It’s an inspiring idea, but Gen Z are unlikely to make the political weather at the moment. Gender differences aside, if every 16-year-old in the UK voted in the next election, they would still account for less than 3% of the vote.
The more significant question is how much 16-year-olds might change the national conversation in other ways: through discussion, activism, and representation.
Online noise vs real political power
When we talk about young people in politics, most people start with social media. But here again, it’s hard to judge real-world impact. People who talk on social media are mostly preaching to a choir of similar friends, not to the wider audience that you need to reach to get votes.
Take the example of Andrew Tate: he’s a figurehead for online misogyny, especially among young people, but when he announced his own reactionary political party…well, nothing really happened. The BRUV website is pretty much just an email sign-up form and an AI-generated slide deck. His destructive influence on young men is clear, but it’s only an influence, not direct political power. And by the same token, online left-wing conversations won’t translate into many votes without political action offline.
We need the representation
Next, there’s representation. The government’s policy paper on election changes clarifies that young people still won’t be able to stand for election until they’re 18. Most people will likely agree with that decision, especially given the headlines that have followed an 18-year-old becoming leader of Warwickshire County Council. Local councillors get dropped into the job from the second the election results are declared; without previous work or life experience, it would be a dizzyingly steep learning curve.
However, representation does make a difference, and we urgently need a more diverse range of people at every level of politics – including younger people. The best politicians are imaginative and empathetic, but that’s still a poor substitute for having people in the room who are living through the challenges of unaffordable housing, struggling education and SEND systems, and a shrinking job market.
Fresh energy, fresh activism
Finally, what about activism? This is where Gen Z could make the biggest splash.
We tend to value the knowledge that experience brings, without noticing that it can also be paralysing. Our younger voters don’t remember the big democratic disappointments of the generation ahead of them, like the fruitless protests against the Iraq war or the introduction of tuition fees. They have not yet spent much time trying to navigate bureaucracy on their own. They are fresh to the fight for what they believe in – whether or not the rest of us agree.
One of the tricky things about living in a democracy is that a lot of the important work is not very exciting. Once you’ve seen the inside of a polling station, there’s not much more to see as a voter, and it takes a certain amount of belief in the system to stay motivated. But every vote is important, especially for the small, local details that make up our lives.
Voting for your Police & Crime Commissioner can affect how much funding gets directed towards ending domestic violence. Voting in local elections can affect how crucial services like education, social care, housing and support for families are prioritised and managed. Subscribing to a local newspaper, going to a community meeting, or knocking on doors for the party of your choice can have a greater impact than you think. This is where the energy of our youngest voters could make a real difference.
To the people who are horrified by the thought of 16-year-old voters, I’d say: You should see what the other age groups are like. Younger voters may be unpredictable, but they could also bring a much-needed dose of passion and optimism into our politics.
