Why our younger citizens deserve to have the vote

Given the dreadful legacy of debt resulting from our economic collapse, surely the Government should not deny a voice to those who are going to be most affected

Last week it was confirmed that the Government has abandoned its previous commitment – made by then Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan to the Dáil on July 18th, 2013 – to hold a referendum to reduce the voting age to 16. The use of the term “abandoned” rather than ‘deferred’ would tend to suggest that this proposal is now truly a dead duck: it has not been put off for another day, for a future government to consider; as far as this Government is concerned this question is not to be put to the Irish people.

This episode serves as yet another illustration of just how much the Government has backtracked on the brave new world of political reform we were promised on its election in 2011 – particularly so for Fine Gael. At least in the case of Labour it is possible to draw attention to Brendan Howlin’s moves to progress an “open government” agenda (notably the legislation on freedom of information and registering lobbyists), a promise that was prominent in Labour’s 2011 election manifesto and which does have the potential of being system transforming.

Reducing the voting age was Fine Gael’s baby, first announced in its 2010 New Politics document when it called for it to be reduced to 17. At the time this document was lauded as the most ambitious manifesto for political reform in the history of the state, though curiously it is now no longer available on Fine Gael’s website (scéal eile). The promise to reduce the voting age was repeated in Fine Gael’s 2011 election manifesto and ultimately was given to the Irish Constitutional Convention to consider at its first session in January 2013. After deliberating on this matter and in the light of expert advice the Convention recommended that the voting age be reduced to 16 – the age that other countries adopting this measure have opted for. This is the recommendation that the Government has now abandoned, having first accepted it.

We’re told that the two reasons for the Government’s change of mind was a belief that it would further drive down voter turnout and that this age cohort is likely to vote for Sinn Féin. Such arguments are little more than assertions or, at the very least, are based on flimsy evidence.

READ MORE

It’s pretty pointless trying to predict likely vote trends from hypothetical scenarios. The best place to look for hard evidence is from real world cases. Voting rights have been extended to 16-year-olds in a growing number of cases including for national level elections in Austria, Brazil and the British Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. It has also been trialed in some German states, in a number of municipalities in Norway and Israel, and in last autumn’s Scottish independence referendum. Political parties in Britain – most especially the Labour opposition – are calling for its introduction there.

This (admittedly quite gradual) accumulation of cases suggests that the issue is starting to gain some traction. More to the point these cases provide the hard evidence we need to test the veracity of some of the arguments made by critics of this move, notably relating to voter turnout and over whether 16-year-olds have sufficient political maturity.

The first argument is based on the well-known fact that younger people are less likely to vote. Extending voting rights to 18-year-olds in the 1960s-70s depressed voter turnout. This is the age at which most people leave home to start a career or go to university; voting is very far down the list of priorities. Since voting is habit forming, if someone doesn’t vote in their first election there is a strong likelihood that they will never vote.

The view therefore is that adding 16- and 17-year-olds will only make matters worse. Evidence from studies in Austria and Norway beg to differ. In both cases, turnout among 16- to 17-year- olds, while lower than the average vote, was actually higher than among 18 to 21-year-olds.

There are various reasons why: this age cohort is still at home, and still go to school (there is an important role for civics in education here); in addition there were local initiatives seeking to drive out the vote. It is too soon to know the longer term impact- turnout drives may not continue after the first flush of excitement — but the point is that the immediate impact was not a further reduction in voter turnout, on the contrary.

The second argument commonly made against reducing the voting age is that 16- and 17-year-olds are too young, lacking the political maturity to make a meaningful vote. Again the evidence doesn’t stack up. Detailed research by the Austrian election study team finds that, in fact, this youngest cohort has the same levels of political sophistication as their older peers: they are perfectly able to make a mature and informed decision on who to vote for.

As a result of the Government U-turn, Ireland now looks very unlikely to join the small band of countries extending the franchise to their younger citizens. This is unfortunate, and not just because the Austrian and Norwegian research provides evidence that it is a worthwhile move.

Given the dreadful legacy of debt resulting from our economic collapse surely the Government should not be denying a voice to our younger citizens who are going to be most affected by this? They deserve the vote.

David Farrell holds the Chair of Politics at UCD (Twitter: @dfarrell_UCD)