Implications of Edinburgh: The Taxing Issue of Votes at 16

David Cameron and Alex Salmond this week agreed a decision of monumental magnitude.  Undoubtedly, the “Edinburgh Agreement” – which could ultimately see the dissolution of the Union – has the potential to shape the future of the nation.  However, the stakes are far higher than arguments of economy and mineral wealth: with 16- and 17-year-olds to be granted the franchise by the Scottish Parliament, the very design of British democracy could be refashioned.

The case is often made that, at age 16, one can fight for Queen and country, running the risk of paying the ultimate sacrifice in the line of patriotic duty.  Similarly, in certain parts of the UK at least, 16-year-olds can marry and have children.  Logically, so such reasoning runs, the minimum voting age should thus be lowered to 16.

As persuasive as these arguments are, however, they do not irrefutably validate the proposition for broadening the franchise.  Indeed, such claims need to be variously qualified and treated with a degree of caution: as with marriage in England, 16-year-olds can join the armed forces only with parental consent, and even then are not eligible for frontline combat.  With other significant decisions not being taken until the age of 18, such as whether to continue into tertiary education or whether to get a mortgage, a strong defence can be mounted for maintaining current regulations.

Nonetheless, despite such rhetoric, one argument trumps all others.  Dating back to the American Revolution and forming a cornerstone of democratic society, the notion that there should be no taxation without representation is difficult, if not impossible, to disregard.  At the age of 16, individuals become liable for National Insurance contributions and income tax: to reason against suffrage being extended to the age of 16, therefore, is to devalue the concept of representative democracy and runs against the spirit of the social contract.

To be clear, expanding the franchise to include those aged 16 and 17 is a move that would not only realise this fundamental relationship between taxation and representation, but one that would, if correctly managed, strengthen the democratic fabric by maximising participation in the political process.  With this goal in mind, it is important to recognise that 16- and 17-year-olds are increasingly intelligent, informed and opinionated; when coupled with the prospective obligation to contribute to the national tax take, the case for retaining 18 as the minimum age of entitlement appears increasingly untenable. 

It is also important to recognise that 16- and 17-year-olds, just like those aged 18 and above, are direct consumers of those public services funded by the state purse.  Indeed, in areas such as education, it is under-18s that are the primary consumers of such public services.  Similarly, young people are subject to legislation passed by Parliament, as well as Government policies in areas including tuition fees, working regulations, and military engagement.

Nonetheless, young people are currently disengaged from, and many disillusioned with, the political system, not being afforded any meaningful level of input into policies or control over services in terms of design or delivery.  Broadening the franchise would represent a significant step towards facilitating a solution to this anomaly, granting young people the opportunity to participate and create a desirable societal milieu while instilling a level of civic responsibility that could begin to address long-term issues surrounding falling turnout and voter apathy.

To be certain, assertions that young people are ill-informed and lack the sophistication and sensibility required to vote responsibly are feasible, if not stereotypical and outdated.  Without doubt, there are many young people for whom the world of politics holds no allure.  However, universalising such contentions is severely flawed on two counts. First, to assume that an instantaneous moment of maturity is reached on one’s eighteenth birthday is an absurdity; the process of developing political awareness begins at an early age and continues throughout an individual’s lifetime.  Second, presenting such problems without proposing solutions is akin to declaring that young people are second-class citizens, worthy of paying taxes but not of determining how such revenue is best spent.

An obvious solution to the dilemma would entail making better use of the time allocated in secondary education timetables to Pastoral/Citizenship/PSHE lessons.  These valuable hours could be better utilised to provide lessons in civic responsibilities such as voting, providing an opportunity to promote an understanding of the political systems that shape the world we live in, as well as for debate and discussion on topical issues.  By engaging young people and educating in a politically neutral manner, the potential exists for current trends of voter apathy to be overcome and for arguments pertaining the ignorance of the under-18s to be negated.

Importantly, the ability to participate in free elections is a human right, safeguarded by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in the UK’s Human Rights Act.  As such, the rationale for denying the franchise to groups of individuals is required to be fair and balanced.  Allegations that these criteria are not being met carry increasing weight, with young people ever more focussed on salient issues and ambitious to have their voices heard through various alternative channels to the ballot box.

Undoubtedly, the Section 30 mechanism is not the ideal way to introduce the under-18s to the world of political voting; a renewed debate, both in Westminster and throughout society, on lowering the voting age would clarify the issues and add greater legitimacy.  Nonetheless, Scotland’s enfranchising of 16- and 17-year-olds is a democratic step in the right direction.  Perhaps Britain could be the next to join the ranks of Austria and Brazil (and Cuba) in recognising the rights of the under-18s.

The AV Referendum: A Wasted Opportunity?

Today the nation goes to the polls in the first nationwide referendum since 1975.  In the past six weeks, both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have returned to their roles as respective party leaders, rather than coalition partners.  The promised maturity was delivered while the campaigns were in their infancy; speeches announcing both “Yes” and “No” campaigns were timed so as not to coincide, partisan mudslinging was absent, and both even agreed that the referendum should select a voting system that promotes democratic fairness.  However, the arguments set out on both sides of the divide, despite aiming to promote a vibrant democracy, have consistently been at odds with one another.  This, unfortunately, resulted in the build-up to polling day being dominated by deceptive factional disparagement, rather than informed discourse concerning the benefits, or otherwise, to be had from each of the systems in question.  Paradoxically, the course of campaigning could itself be a blow for the very democracy that the referendum initially sought to promote.

Take two examples.  Firstly, Chris Huhne, the LibDem energy secretary, recently vented frustration over campaign literature focusing on Clegg’s broken election pledges, opining that Cameron personally ‘had the power to stop these’ by virtue of the Conservatives’ role in financing the “No” lobby.  (Previously, Huhne went so far as to suggest that the “Yes” camp would take legal action amidst allegations of untruths being promulgated by George Osborne.  While the Electoral Commission ruled itself not to have the necessary powers to investigate the contentions, Huhne did not rule out resignation over the issue.)  Secondly, Lord Mandelson suggested that many within the Labour Party were displaying misplaced priorities prior to the ballot, namely ‘a short-term desire to kick Nick Clegg, rather than see the long-term benefit of defeating Cameron’.  It is detestable that support for, or hatred of, an individual representative or partisan grouping should play a central role in determining the conduct of future elections; personality politics should not be allowed to intrude on matter of such constitutional significance.

Hidden within the name-calling, backbiting, and claims of attempting to defend the indefensible, a significant political issue is at stake.  The serious debate surrounding the referendum should not be ignored.  The “Yes” campaign has variously argued that the AV system makes (would-be) representatives work harder, minimising so-called “safe” seats while ensuring that every vote counts.  Equally, weight has been assigned to the assertion that AV is a relatively simple upgrade to the current FPTP system, potentially providing a steppingstone towards fully proportional representation.  In contrast, the “No” camp has countered that AV would place more power in the hands of politicians, arguing change to be expensive not only financially, but also ideologically; adopting AV, the argument runs, would lead to the democratic principle of “one man, one vote” being abandoned in the long grass.  Who, then, is right?

Clearly, arguments exist on both sides.  Some, however, are more rational than others, while still more are founded upon flawed logic.  A study by the New Economics Foundation has, for instance, estimated that AV would only marginally reduce, rather than abolish, safe seats – 16% rather than 13% of seats would typically change hands at elections under the alternative vote.  (Interestingly, the notion of the safe seat is often misconstrued; there is nothing inherently undemocratic about a candidate or party being able to hold a constituency for sustained periods as a result of voter satisfaction.)  Similarly, claims that AV would require all representatives to gain majority support are wide of the mark: the potential for ‘plumping’ under AV would ensure this.  Declarations that voting “yes” will cost in the region of £250 million and, by association, detract from spending on health and defence, are farfetched – expensive vote-counting machinery, while widely used in mayoral elections, is not a requisite of AV, while some £120 million has already been set aside for the next general election (let us not forget that all elections cost money, not just those employing AV; this is a cost of democracy).  Suggestions that a “yes” outcome would result in some voters effectively being able to vote more than once are likewise confused; while secondary preferences would be granted equal weight to first preference votes, detracting from the notion of equality, no voter would be entitled to cast more than one ballot.  This mistake, as made recently by John Humphrys when interviewing Cameron on voting reform, casts an ironic shadow over claims that AV is ‘terribly simple’.  The list goes on.

Whether the electorate will have been able, or, indeed, willing, to see beyond partisan tussling remains to be seen.  What has become obvious, however, is that the suspicions of politicians held by voters are reciprocal; elected representatives forwent the opportunity to engage electors in serious dialogue on the future of British democracy (sustained debate on future proportional representation, for instance, was conspicuously absent) as well as to reverse some of the damage caused to their collective reputation as a result of the expenses scandal.

A Sunday Times/YouGov poll indicated on Sunday a 10-point lead for the “No” camp.  While this is down from 18 points, the lead remains considerable and represents a turnaround from earlier in the campaign.  However, when polling stations opened, the contest was still considered to be wide open.  Indeed, results will not be known for another twenty-four hours.  With national turnout likely to be low despite over 9,000 local council seats also being up for grabs, coupled with the immature campaigning tactics all round, the outcome will be more politicised than political.

AV or not AV: Some Myths Debunked

In the past week, campaigning for the 5 May constitutional referendum on changing the parliamentary voting system gained momentum, once again bringing tensions within the governing coalition to the fore.  Amidst fears of apathy and low turnout which would call into question the legitimacy of the ballot – likely the result of conflicting and often misleading messages being peddled by both “Yes” and “No” campaigns – the Electoral Commission weighed in, delivering booklets offering official, neutral advice concerning the technical aspects of the systems in question.  However, several of the finer aspects have been largely overlooked thus far.

A primary contention of the “Yes” campaign has been that candidates will, under the AV system, have to work much harder in attracting support from beyond their core clients to secure a majority of the votes and avoid the anomalous scenario whereby a candidate can win a seat with a minority (217 of the 650 MPs elected in 2010 did not achieve a majority).  As far as representative democracy goes, the returning of majorities is to be applauded.  However, unlike the variant of AV employed in Australia, British voters will retain the option of voting for one candidate only in a practice Vernon Bogdanor refers to as ‘plumping’.  Thus, the potential for seats to be secured with a minority of votes would continue unabashed even if AV is enacted.  By the same token, one must question the accuracy of terming an outcome a “majority” when the result consists of non-first preference ballots.  Campaigners from the “Yes” lobby are making promises beyond that which the system can deliver.   While the Alternative Vote is not as complex as some in the “No” camp would like us to believe, and would not require the use of expensive equipment to tally votes, this is scant consolation.

Indeed, Bogdanor notes that in Queensland and New South Wales, where plumping is permitted in elections to state legislatures, the practice is rather common – some 63% of voters in Queensland plumped in 2009 after a Labour Party campaign to “Just Vote 1”, while the Green Party similarly advised that second preferences be given to Labour.  This raises another issue concerning AV: tactical voting.  Given the opportunity to rank candidates, it is likely that many will vote with their heart for the first preference and their head for any secondary allocations, thereby giving rise to greater strategic ballot-casting and opening the door for negative campaigning.  Equally, while the plight of AV to allow every voter a meaningful ballot is admirable, such an outcome is not realistic against a backdrop of competitive multi-party politics; as long as a majoritarian system of vote counting is in operation, some electors will inevitably be disappointed – this is the nature of electoral politics.  In this regard, all that the Alternative Vote succeeds in doing is assigning greater weight to the ballots of those electing for nominees from unpopular parties in the first instance, thereby disregarding Aristotelian notions of democratic equality.  Clearly, this challenges the principle of One Man One Vote, justifying the description of AV as ‘unacceptably unfair’ by the Jenkins Report on voting reform.

Also in the headlines recently, Baroness Warsi claimed that the AV system would benefit extremist organisations, suggesting that its implementation would strengthen parties such as the BNP.  This is very much a falsehood, no doubt an effort to play to popular sentiment and pull voters onside; with only 1.9% of the vote nationally in 2010 on first preferences and with many candidates failing to reclaim their deposits, it is unlikely that many BNP candidates would make it beyond the first series of vote redistributions, let alone surpass the 50% hurdle.  Indeed, given their current standings in the popularity stakes, it is unlikely that AV would much benefit even the LibDems at this moment.  However, the outrage that has been expressed at this misguided possibility reveals a fascinating contradiction: in a referendum that seeks to refine the democratic credentials of parliamentary elections, is there (or, indeed, should there exist) room to object with who can and cannot succeed?

Voting on Voting: The Politics of Fairness

In the week that the The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill finally succeeded in navigating its route onto the statute books in time for a 5 May 2011 referendum on electoral reform, more questions have seemingly been asked than answered. Indeed, rather than the merits, or otherwise, of the alternative vote (AV) system, the difficulties encountered by a coalition government divided on the issue of electoral reform are perhaps the very reason for the most significant change to the electoral system since reducing the minimum voting age only now becoming compellingly political, rather than a constitutional obiter dictum or academic fixation.

Both Cameron and Clegg, in the first instance of the prime minister and his deputy speaking from opposing standpoints, have insisted that neither the campaign nor the outcome will impede the ability of the coalition to govern, with Cameron remarking that ‘on this one, I don’t agree with Nick’. However, the existence of this divide – itself a microcosm of the coalition’s stance, broadly speaking – is representative of fundamental underlying incompatibilities within the ideological beliefs of the governing parties: will the coalition survive the campaign, let alone the result?

With both returning to their roles as respective party leaders, rather than coalition partners, the promised campaign maturity was delivered; the speeches were timed so as not to coincide, partisan mudslinging was absent, and both even agreed that the referendum should select a voting system that promotes democratic fairness. So far, so good. However, the arguments laid down on either side of the divide, despite aiming at the same ends, differ significantly.

Cameron, in affirming his support of the “No” campaign, suggested that AV can produce illogical and unrepresentative outcomes, allowing some votes to count multiple times and empowering bland second-choice candidates to limp to victory. Similarly, he argued, AV will produce more hung parliaments – the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, more often than not, produces strong governments in Britain – and result in more bargaining behind closed doors with manifesto pledges being sacrificed. This puts Cameron in an awkward position; given the circumstances under which the current government was formed, such a statement could easily be read as an acceptance that the coalition is both unsatisfactory and unfair.

For Clegg, FPTP dictates that millions of votes are wasted; AV will halt the notion of ‘jobs for life in safe seats’ and will bring an end to elections decided by a few thousand voters in swing seats, giving smaller parties a greater input and fostering a truly multiparty system. Furthermore, Clegg suggests that AV will force MPs to work harder for each ballot, moving away from their core vote in order to maximise appeal and thereby providing representative outcomes while maintaining the all-important constituency link (with constituency sizes being standardised to ensure the equal worth of each vote).

How we conceive fairness, therefore, is clearly a central issue: do we prefer to allow the voices of those voting for smaller parties to count more than once, defying the central democratic principle of “one man, one vote”; or do we favour effectively disenfranchising those voters in “safe” seat constituencies wishing to elect someone other than the dominate candidate. Such a choice is not straightforward. Complicating matters is the knowledge that not only would implementing AV not have changed the outcome of any national election since 1983, but also that the safe seats that hamper FPTP are also prevalent under AV; in Australia the only large country to employ AV, nearly 50% of seats are considered to be “safe”. Incidentally, an October 2010 Newspoll survey suggested that 57% of Australians would scrap AV in favour of FPTP, while only 37% would retain AV.

Further confusing the matter of fairness is the issue of cost: supporters of the “No” campaign have suggested that the focus of the coalition, at a time of austerity and substantial cutbacks, should be cementing economic recovery, not spending £90m on a referendum, £130m on changing the voting system should the outcome be positive, and a further £26m on educating the electorate. The “Yes” camp have openly questioned the figures, pointing out that the £130m expenditure is a drastic overestimate as electronic vote-counting machines are not necessary, and countering that, following the expenses scandal, we can’t afford not to press for change. Indeed, Clegg professed the necessity of change ‘when a system makes corruption more likely’, albeit utilising flawed logic given the probable persistence of safe seats under AV (and, indeed, the dubious correlation between safe seats and a propensity for corruption). Thus, for Norman Smith, BBC Radio 4’s Chief Political Correspondent, the referendum will hinge not on the merits of the respective voting systems, but on the perceived contest between “the people’s choice” and “the politician’s choice”; anything that might result in the happiness of politicians is sure to be ‘a huge vote loser’.

An interesting repercussion of the fairness rhetoric that underpins the power politics at play in the story of electoral reform so far is evident in the actions of the House of Lords. The unelected upper chamber was able to severely hamper progression of the bill. While concerns regarding turnout, insufficient debate, and the potential for gerrymandering were all cited as justifications for repeated filibustering, there is little doubt that the underlying motive was, in fact, opposition to the notion of electoral reform. In an act of self-preservation, Lord Strathclyde recommended that the Lords ‘respect the will of the elected Chamber’ when it became evident that MPs would not accept Lord Rooker’s 40% turnout amendment, seeking to deflect attention away from the inequitable power held by a chamber that is appointed rather than elected. Inevitably, however, this opens the debate for further constitutional reform regarding an elected House of Lords – an issue conveniently already featuring on Clegg’s reform agenda. Nonetheless, filibustering over AV indicated the difficulties that would be faced in asking the Lords to vote themselves out of existence.

Irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, claims of inequality, unfairness and partisan bias will persist from one bloc or another. Seemingly, then, when it comes to the issue of electoral politics, Voltaire’s observation continues to hold true: while the citizens of the state may be equally free, they cannot be equally powerful.