Is it time for a voting age cap?
“The vote should not be a privilege in perpetuity, guaranteed by minimal physical survival, but a share in the continuing fate of the political community, both in its benefits and risks.”[1]
The recent rise in support for lowering the voting age has propelled me to look into the issue from the other side.
Should we introduce a maximum voting age cap instead of giving economically dependent and naive 16-year-olds the right to vote?
Let me begin by laying out my base facts.
- Young people don’t vote.
- Older people vote (most actively)
[In the 2014 European Parliament elections, only 28% of voters aged 18–24 voted, compared to 51% of those over 55.]
Now, why is the elderly actively voting a concern?
- Psychological state
It should be recognized that “25 percent of those aged 80 to 84 have mild cognitive impairment” and that “the risk of dementia doubles every five years after an individual turns 70, with almost one-third of adults experiencing some form of dementia by age 85.
When the most active voting age bracket is affected by dementia, you must ask if they are rational enough to make decisions with repercussions that can span over multiple generations simply by exercising their right to vote.
With society on a ticking clock, every election now matters significantly more. There is a dire need for politicians who understand the complexity of the issues at hand and provide solutions to battle them effectively. To achieve this, you must be able to rationally filter out and vote for those who prioritize a model of sustainable growth. This involves mental capacity that is affected by dementia, which begs me to ask, can we as a society afford their misjudgments when reports predict an end to civilization by 2050?
2. Elderly voters are swing voters.
Swing voters are defined as somebody who is not a firm supporter of any political party or ideology.
As electoral theory suggests, swing voters have the largest influence on election results. With the core voter base intact, lobbies and political parties target swing voters to spread their ideology. The elderly are ideal prey for populists and radicals, who can stir the emotions of the elderly to side with a plan that promises benefits and short-term growth while deceiving them of long-term sacrifices.
The Brexit Referendum stands to be the perfect case in point.
As the picture represents below, the trend of voting for those aged 65 and above was in complete reverse to those aged 18–44 (most evident in the ages 18–24)- the ones likely to bear the consequences of the referendum.
Sir Vince Cable, the leader of the Lib Dems, highlighted that the elderly voted for Brexit as they were “driven by nostalgia” and the possibility of a world “where faces were white.”
Considering the statements and the fact that perceptions of being English increase with age, we can see that the message of nationality and independence swayed the elderly to vote for Brexit. They chose to vote based on their emotions instead of contemplating and analyzing the potential fallouts.
Since Brexit, a drop can be witnessed in nearly every economic indicator: the value of the pound, trade, business investment, etc. The ONS estimates that Brexit has taken 1.5% of Britain’s GDP thus far and estimates another 2.5% drop in the future years.
The ‘youth’ are left to bear the economic burden of a decision they were against.
Granted, it remains to be seen how the UK and the EU manage to maneuver out of this situation, but as it stands, this example further strengthens my argument.
3. The disparity of opinion on problems
“While older people are concerned about climate change, they do not feel they will be directly affected. Nor do they feel they can personally take action to stop it.” (Gary Haq, Dave Brown, and Sarah Hards)
Climate change is not the only factor where the ‘youth’ and the elderly diverge. Other issues such as pro-life/abortion rights, pro-gun rights, and LGBT+ rights are a few topics where we can see a fundamental disagreement between the two sides with no hope in sight.
Then there is the issue of urgency. The elderly wear a myopic lens regarding the issues plaguing our society, which is in dire contrast to the ‘young.’ The young who will bear the consequences of these issues see the need to take immediate and concrete action to resolve these issues. This fundamental disparity means a collective front to find solutions for these matters is not a possibility.
As the elderly grow in numbers, their electoral power will only get stronger. Soon, elections will focus on topics such as retirement benefits rather than measures to tackle unemployment, inflation, and maternal welfare. Hence, I am vociferous in my suggestion to introduce a voting age cap: people above the age of 65 should lose their right to vote.
What do I hope to achieve by curbing the electoral power of the elderly?
- As a measure of future-proofing elections:
The introduction of a maximum voting age cap will ensure elections are future-proofed. Future-proofing involves anticipating the future and developing methods that minimize unanticipated shocks. With an increased concentration of young voters, we can effectively filter policies and ideologies that only have a short-term benefit. Parties will now have to adopt long-term thinking in their campaigns, forcing a concentration on issues that are affecting and will affect society as a whole.
2. Introducing an age cap on politicians.
Can modern society be led by someone who was born during World War II?
The progression of society through the years has been exponential rather than linear, leaving the elderly to catch up with current trends. When the elderly are in positions of power, this disparity is glaringly evident. For instance, when the US Senate summoned the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai to question them on their respective company’s privacy and data policy, the hearing instead turned into social media 101. With the introduction of a voting age cap, there will be a natural filtration of politicians who are simply not fit enough, mentally and physically, to handle the magnitude of the office they are being elected to.
Younger lawmakers with modern perspectives and innovative solutions will now have a greater chance against established elderly politicians.
3. Achieving the desired ‘young’ voter engagement
With each vote from the ‘younger’ generations now bearing more significance, we might see a greater political engagement from the youth, which would be a step away from their gloomy and pessimistic “my vote does not matter” mindset. Having a much bigger say in elections and control over their future might ensure the desired engagement we seek by lowering the voting age to 16.
I am completely aware of the extensive use of the word “might” in my article due to the lack of research on this topic. With only 10% of the billionaires under 50, I cannot imagine a scenario where large-scale funding for this research on this topic will be provided.
Nevertheless, it mustn’t stop us from looking at it.
