What Impact Would Votes at 16 Have?

Estimates vary, but around 1.5 million 16 and 17 year-olds would become eligible to vote at Westminster elections if the age were lowered. Turnout among first-time young voters would likely be lower than average, as it is in Scotland.

Research from Scotland — the best data we have — shows some interesting findings:

• 16-17 year-olds voted at similar rates to 18-24 year-olds in the 2014 independence referendum (75%), actually higher than expected
• Their political knowledge and engagement was broadly comparable to 18-24 year-olds
• Their voting patterns were modestly more pro-independence than older voters, but the effect was small
• Research found no evidence that 16-17 year-olds were more susceptible to parental influence than 18-year-olds

For Westminster elections, the partisan impact would be relatively small. Adding ~1.5m voters who lean Green and Lib Dem more than average would affect marginal seats but would not fundamentally alter election outcomes. The more significant argument is democratic: if you can join the army, pay tax and start a family at 16, the case for voting exclusion weakens considerably.

Evidence from Scotland and Wales

The Broader Democratic Context

The votes at 16 debate sits within a broader conversation about democratic participation and legitimacy. UK voter turnout has declined over decades. While 2024 saw 60% turnout overall, engagement among 18-24 year-olds consistently trails older voters by 15-20 percentage points.

Proponents argue that establishing voting habits at 16 — while young people are still in education, linked to civic studies and surrounded by engaged peers — produces more durable voters. Research from Austria, where voting at 16 was introduced nationally in 2007, found that 16-year-old first-time voters showed similar or higher turnout than 18-year-old first-time voters in subsequent elections.

Critics counter that lower engagement at 18-24 reflects life circumstances (moving, working, studying) rather than lack of political consciousness — and that lowering the voting age would not address deeper structural causes of disengagement.

If 16-17 year-olds in England were enfranchised and voted at comparable rates to Scottish 16-year-olds (around 44-50%), this would add approximately 650,000-750,000 votes to Westminster elections — less than 2% of the electorate, but potentially decisive in very tight marginal seats.

What Young People Say They Care About

Understanding what issues 16-24 year-olds prioritise is central to the political impact of votes at 16. YouGov tracker data consistently shows young people (18-24) ranking issues differently from older cohorts.

Climate policy represents the starkest generational gap. Enfranchising 16-17 year-olds would add an estimated 1.5 million voters who consistently identify climate as a top-three priority, in a country where only one major party (the Greens) makes it a central programme issue.

Housing affordability is another area where young voters' priorities diverge from older voters. Many 16-17 year-olds will face home-buying in 10-15 years under current projections — an issue they rank very highly, despite having no current vote on the politicians who set planning and housing policy.

Frequently Asked Questions