It took a long time for the majority of the adult population to receive a vote in British elections. Women were excluded from the electorate for over a century by a controversial definition of voters as “male persons,” and former soldiers were not allowed a say at one point. It was only after World War I, in which two million women filled roles previously occupied by men, that the Representation of the People Act 1918 was passed. The act gave women over 30-years-old, who met a property qualification, the right to vote. In 1969, another Representation of the People Act gave all men and women over the age of 18 the right to vote regardless of their financial status. Nonetheless, the debate rages on about whether it is right to exclude nearly two million people based on their age, carceral status, citizenship, and other factors.
To vote in British general elections, a person must not be subject to any "legal incapacity". The restrictions apply to those who are 17-years-old or younger on polling day, those serving a prison sentence, those convicted of certain electoral crimes, and members of the House of Lords (this last part was unsuccessfully challenged in 2011 by the Chair of the Human Rights Committee). It is considered unconstitutional for the Royal Family to vote in elections, but it is not forbidden by law. Voters must also be either a British, Irish, or qualifying Commonwealth citizen.
VOTES FOR 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLDS
The exclusion of young people has received much opposition from democracy campaigners, including the Votes at 16 Coalition, a national group of youth organisations and political parties. The group argues that as the law allows a person aged 16 to leave school, join the armed forces, and pay income tax, these 1.5 million potential voters should not be denied voting rights. Opposition parties in the United Kingdom, including the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party, support the reduction of the voting age to 16-years-old. The Liberal Democrats have included the lowering of the voting age in their general election manifestos since 2001, but no such commitment appeared in their coalition agreement with the Conservative Party, which has throughout history been opposed to any lowering of the voting age. In 2008, Labour MP Julie Morgan launched her Voting Age (Reduction) Bill in Parliament, but the Bill was talked down by Conservative MP Stewart Jackson who prevented it from progressing any further.
Advocates of lowering the voting age say that because a 16-year-old can marry, pay taxes, and leave home, as well as have sexual relationships and become a parent, that same person should be allowed to decide who they want to write the policies that affect their everyday lives. A 16-year-old can be sent into war but cannot decide how their taxes are spent. Others in favour of lowering the voting age say that lack of interest in British politics is a huge issue, and engaging young people in decision-making is a positive thing and gives them an investment in current affairs. It would encourage political parties to address and cater to young people’s needs in their manifestos. “Moving away from the status quo is difficult," said Sarah Champion, former Shadow Equalities Minister, back in 2014. “The time is right to open the democratic system even further, in a bold and pioneering move that would show how far we have come as a country,” she added.
Opponents of lowering the voting age argue that to have the right to vote, a person should have experience of the world to make an informed decision. A person under 18-years-old may lack this lived experience. Further, opponents say that the voting age is fine as it is because 18 is the age of adulthood, unrestricted activity, and legal independence. Other arguments relate to whether young people would even use their vote, with less than half of those aged between 18- and 24-years-old actually voting, either in person or by postal vote, in the 2019 general election. It is not worth spending money on the naive objective of giving the ability to vote to an electorally indifferent and apathetic group, many critics of the proposal insist.
VOTES FOR PRISONERS
It may have made David Cameron feel "physically ill" to think about giving prisoners the vote but the European Court of Human Rights expressed a different view in 2005, ruling that a blanket ban on prisoners voting contradicted the European Convention on Human Rights. Members of Parliament were generally displeased by the ruling, including the former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis who said that "every citizen knows the same level of crime which costs them their liberty, costs them their vote". However, a minority of MPs took a different view, saying that as prisoners were allowed access to healthcare and to practice their religion, there should not be a blanket ban on their right to vote. The most recent developments have not occurred in Westminster but rather in Cardiff where prisoner voting proposals have received support from the devolved administration. Similarly, the Scottish parliament at Holyrood decided last year that Scottish prisoners serving sentences less than a year would be allowed to vote.
Advocates of prisoner voting are clear on their position. The human rights of prisoners should be respected and their liberties should only be infringed upon to protect the public. Denying prisoners the right to vote has nothing to do with public protection and is a hindrance to any efforts they might have been making to control their criminal behaviour. Further, there is little representation of the views of prisoners in parliament, which is why issues like prison overcrowding are not debated frequently in Parliament. Given that prisoners still pay taxes, such as VAT, inheritance tax, and savings tax, it could be argued that there should be no taxation without representation. “Depriving all prisoners of the vote is petty,” said Shami Chakrabarti, the Labour peer and former Director of Liberty, back in 2011.
Opponents of prisoner voting—and this surprisingly includes many ex-prisoners—will say that by breaking the law, a prisoner has forfeited the right to vote. In some American states this is taken even further, with ex-prisoners being unable to vote as well. While there are no figures on the cost of implementing the vote, another concern relates to the burden on the taxpayer. The 2017 general election cost a whopping £140 million to hold, and adding prisoners to an electoral roll would add to that already-high figure. Additionally, opponents say, it might play havoc with the First Past The Post constituency system. The amount of voters in some constituencies would increase massively in the event of prisoners being allowed to vote, which is potentially a problem—some constituencies, such as the Isle of Wight, are due to be split. Another option would be to give the entire prison estate its own constituency.
If a decision is made to give the right to vote to young people, prisoners, and perhaps Members of the House of Lords and Royals (though the latter seems unrealistic), it will not be because the government wants to do something nice. It will be because it believes its vote share will increase as a result, ensuring its party’s re-election in years to come. For the Conservatives, it is understandable why they oppose the lowering of the voting age, given that students will usually lean to the left when it comes to politics. Labour’s student societies are thriving at almost every higher education establishment. This is backed up by YouGov research from 2019, which found that more than half of participants between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for the Labour Party.
But who might prisoners vote for? A former inmate of Pentonville prison interviewed by this author said many “older, white, working-class Leave voters from Essex, who would probably vote Tory”. Despite the fact that the same party banned books for prisoners, slashed legal aid, and privatised rehabilitation services.Then again, they might not be inclined to vote for the Labour Party, which also chipped away at civil liberties and upended the criminal justice system through a barrage of legislation.
Elliot Tyler is a Portsmouth University undergraduate and a regular contributor to The Justice Gap, The Longford Blog, and Inside Time, a newspaper distributed across the Ministry of Justice estate.