Thomas Coughlan recommends lowering the voting age to 16:
One of his principal arguments is that we needn’t panic about possible upheaval:
History tells us that mass enfranchisement would be unlikely to change the make-up of Parliament.
The enfranchisement of women saw more than twice as many people vote in the 1893 election as in the 1890 election, yet the margin between the main two parties shifted by less than 2 per cent
True, but that was because women (and their opinions) vary. Even if some voted with (or against) their husbands, their votes varied because their husbands varied.
By contrast, 16- to 18-year olds are a cohort that has been indoctrinated in “progressive” ideology at school: they are a voting-block in waiting.
Addressing the issue of competence to vote, Coughlan gets a little nasty, saying:
The strongest argument for keeping the voting age at 18 is that it is an age at which young people reach an arbitrary level of mental competence required for voting.
It’s a fair argument – no-one would suggest giving toddlers the vote – but at the same time, we also don’t look at stripping the vote from the elderly.
This is an occasion when one makes an argument by saying one isn’t making it. It still gets mentioned and does its work. Like when a judge directs a jury to “ignore what counsel just said”. Crafty, effective, hardly admirable.
This kind of insinuated insult to elderly folk is intrinsic to the “progressive” revolution: out with the old, in with the new. The elderly used to be considered by social justice advocates, but the phenomenon we used to call “political correctness” is not about justice: justice is for everyone, but this movement is highly selective.
Being young is one of the characteristics you need to be gathered up in the new limited “inclusiveness”: I guess you have to look good in a Diversity Pride March.