In introducing
the proposal of the Welsh Government for to allow
16 and 17 years olds to vote in local elections, the minister, Alun Davies, said
“I think everybody who pays taxes should
be able to vote”. It’s a nice line,
with echoes of the ‘no taxation without representation’ slogan used by American
colonists in the 18th century as part of their demand for
independence. In the context in which
the minister used it, however, it’s utter nonsense. Few, if any, 16 or 17 year olds pay council
tax to the only bodies for which he proposes that they will be allowed to vote;
it’s not so much abolishing taxation without representation, more a case of
introducing representation without taxation.
They are, of course,
also ‘consulting’ on a separate proposal to allow the same group to vote in
Assembly elections, as part of a wider consultation on changes to the Assembly;
but any government which really believed in the principle being propounded by
Alun Davies would have taken that element out and included it in the proposal
to extend the franchise.
In a move which
I thought curious, in its timing at least, the same government subsequently
announced that it is to ban intimate piercings for those under 18, thereby
declaring them old enough to have a vote on who should represent them, but
still requiring protection from themselves on an age-related basis. It highlights the strange mish-mash of
different ages at which people are considered to be ‘adults’; there is surely a
case for aligning them all at one age. Part
of the problem is that people mature at different rates; some people are more
mature at 15 than others are at 25. Short
of introducing a test of some sort to determine maturity, the legislation can
only work by setting an arbitrary age, but that doesn’t really reflect the
reality.
How could we
determine, or judge, maturity? I’m
pretty certain that, had 16 and 17 year olds been allowed to vote in June 2016,
the result of the referendum on EU membership would have been a lot
closer. Whether that demonstrates
maturity or immaturity is entirely a matter of perspective. One UK government minister rejected the idea of votes at 16 on the basis
that young people are not sufficiently mature, but what does he mean by that? There is no maturity test for voters; indeed,
it’s hard to see how there could ever be, because such a test would be
necessarily highly subjective. And him telling
an opposition spokesperson to “grow up”
doesn’t exactly suggest that maturity is either a requirement for, nor a common
attribute among, elected politicians, even of quite an advanced age.
At whatever age
the right to vote is given to people, it’s hard then to argue that people who
can vote for or against proposals, politicians, and the future of the country
are not old enough to make all other decisions for themselves. On balance, I
still believe that giving people the vote at 16 is the right thing to do, but proposals
such as that on piercings make me wonder whether the proponents have really
thought through all the logical consequences.
Posts
