Extending the Franchise in the UK
Observations on a Critique of Extending the Franchise
On May 15, 2023 the Daily Mail published a commentary
entitled: Labour's sinister plot to rig our elections. The piece was
ascribed to DAILY MAIL COMMENT (henceforth DAILY MAIL).
This commentary is a vigorous attack on the United Kingdom
(UK) Labour Party’s Plan to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds and European
Union (EU) expatriates (expats) to vote in UK elections and referenda.
DAILY MAIL sets out to demonstrate to the reader that the
Labour Party’s sinister Plan is to implement an undemocratic gerrymander that
will cement this party’s grip on the levers of power.
DAILY MAIL bolsters
this case by guiding the reader through a sequence of logical gymnastics based
on a set of unjustified assumptions. In doing so, DAILY MAIL only succeeds in
demonstrating the biases, shallowness and fallacies inherent in this
commentary. The piece fails to convince. What follows is an explanation as to
why I believe this to be the case.
DAILY MAIL begins by quoting the opinion of Sir Winston Churchill:
“Winston Churchill once commented: 'If a man is not a
socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by
the time he is 40, he has no brain.'”
DAILY MAIL interprets this quote as follows:
“His remark reflects the belief that the young –
idealistic and hopelessly naive – are innately Left-wing.”
This view is biased and condescending. Apart from this one
does not have to agree with the sentiment expressed in the quote. After all it
is just a belief. As a belief we should reserve the right to challenge it by
determining whether there is any factual basis to it. Unfortunately, DAILY MAIL
asks us to accept the sentiment at face value.
The first thing to say about the above quotation is that
there is doubt as to whether Mr. Churchill made this remark at all. The Quote
Investigator analyses the various versions in a post entitled: If You Are
Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You
Have No Brain
By using this quotation attributed to Churchill, the
assumptions DAILY MAIL makes are that Churchill was a great statesman, a war
leader and peace time politician. DAILY MAIL makes the case that Churchill,
given his undoubted political and literary achievements is an authority on
politics and government. From this DAILY MAIL wants the reader to draw the
conclusion that whatever Mr. Churchill says is authoritative.
There is no consideration of the possibility that Churchill,
conservative tory that he was had a natural bias against the left-wing to begin
with.
Besides, this quote is a trope or cliché used by the right
wing in politics to subvert the legitimacy of left-wing movements and views.
This trope has been around since the 18th Century to depict the left
of politics as dreamers. See the above Quote Investigator analysis to get a
detailed analysis of the historical evolution of this quote over the last
couple of centuries where the word ‘socialist’ has been interchangeable with
‘republican’ and ‘liberal’ depending on whether the conservative uttering it lived
in the 18th or 19th or 20th centuries.
DAILY MAIL does not challenge the credibility of the opinion
assumed in this quote. DAILY MAIL does not provide any supporting research
concerning the left-leaning naivety and idealism of 16-year-olds.
Mr. Churchill may have been an expert politician he was not
a sociologist or a psychologist who had surveyed and studied the views of the
young 20-year-olds and the mature 40-year-olds of his time.
We cannot simply accept the claim that the young are
innately left wing. This is a broad generalisation and does not take into
account that many of these naïve youngsters are idealistic conservatives that
believe in the virtues of the capitalist system and the tenets of the Anglican Church.
By Churchill’s purported reasoning such tory youngsters would be old before
their time.
Based on Churchill’s quote DAILY MAIL makes the dramatic
conclusion:
“It is
blatantly obvious this is why Sir Keir Starmer wants to give voting rights to
16 and 17-year-olds if Labour wins the next general election.”
As I have shown it is not “blatantly obvious”. Thus,
the conclusion arrived at in the quote is not proven and is logically unsound
even if it was supposedly uttered by Mr. Churchill.
DAILY MAIL continues as follows:
“Superficially, Labour's argument may seem compelling.”
I assume that DAILY MAIL is referring to an implied argument
based on a hunch that Labour wants to extend the vote to young people because
Labour believes that young people will vote, as a block for Labour. DAILY MAIL
goes on to challenge the premises that Sir Kier Starmer may be basing his plan
on as follows:
“With their adult lives ahead of them, youngsters will
be most affected by the decisions of those in power.”
We can all agree that this observation is a truism. DAILY
MAIL confirms this truism and poses a question:
True, but by that logic, why shouldn't 14-year-olds
get the vote? Or those aged 12?
In this line of argument DAILY MAIL is trying to convey an
absurdity. Yes, it is true, these even younger age brackets will be even more
affected by the decision of those in power simply because they are younger.
This line of reasoning is inherently misleading. Labour is
not advocating that 14-year-olds and 12-year-olds be given the vote. Having
grabbed the reader’s attention by using this rhetorical device DAILY MAIL
cleverly continues with another clincher question:
Surely if people are deemed too immature at 16 to
decide whether or not they should drink alcohol, smoke or drive, they shouldn't
be entrusted with voting – a decision that will affect the future of millions
of their fellow citizens?
Here DAILY MAIL is asking us to assume a point that is not
proven. It is true that votes cast by 16-year-olds will affect the lives of
millions of fellow citizens. So will the vote of a 40-year-olds.
However, assuming that 16-year-olds are too immature to make
decisions concerning drinking, smoking and driving does not necessarily
demonstrate that they are too immature to vote. DAILY MAIL neatly side steps such
a possibility for the sake of the argument.
DAILY MAIL does not give us any factual direct evidence to
suggest that 16-year-olds are not mature enough. Instead, DAILY MAIL instils confusion
by presenting the hypothetical and extreme case of giving 14-year-olds and 12-year-old
the vote. Indeed, extending the vote may be beneficial for this cohort.
Jan Eichhorn in an article written under the British
Politics and Policy LSE web site entitled: Beyond anecdotes on lowering
the voting age: new evidence from Scotland points out that:
“…. controlling for socio-demographic differences,
confirmed that the newly enfranchised young people in Scotland indeed show
substantially higher levels of engagement with representative democracy
(through voting) as well as other forms of political participation (such as
signing petitions and taking part in demonstrations); and they engage with a
greater range of information sources about politics and reflect greater levels
of political efficacy.”
Mr. Eichhorn concludes:
The findings indeed suggest that earlier enfranchisement,
together with other factors (such as the referendum, civic education, and
parental socialisation) had a positive impact on young people in Scotland.
Further research will be required to examine whether these positive effects are
long-lasting. Evidence from Austria – where the voting age was lowered in 2007
and where similar first-time boosts could be observed – is encouraging, as
later observations still confirmed the initial patterns.
DAILY MAIL continues the critique by asking us to make
another assumption, specifically we are asked to assume the truth of the gerrymander
charge:
“If extra proof were needed of its attempts to
gerrymander the electoral process… “
By writing “If extra proof were needed….” DAILY MAIL tells
us that the case for a gerrymander has been proven. I have shown that DAILY
MAIL’s critique at this point has employed flawed reasoning based on
unsubstantiated claims and faulty assumptions.
DAILY MAIL misleadingly does not attempt to define the term
“gerrymander”. Strictly, a gerrymander
is an attempt to manipulate electoral district boundaries to the advantage a
political party.
By way of providing the extra proof DAILY MAIL invites us
to:
“…consider Labour's grubby plan to let millions of EU
citizens living here vote in general elections….”
Note the emotive use of the word “grubby”. DAILY MAIL is
playing on the readers emotions to get the reader to draw the conclusion that
somehow Labour is playing dirty tricks. DAILY MAIL does not provide any
evidence that demonstrates this grubbiness. The plan is grubby simply because DAILY
MAIL says it is.
DAILY MAIL moves on to another line of attack by making this
statement:
“This is not a privilege Brussels offers to UK expats.
And rightly so.”
This is true foreigners cannot vote in general elections in
the EU. However, this is not the complete picture. The above assertion in
itself it does not justify the UK not extending the vote to EU expats settled
in the UK. DAILY MAIL does not explain why this is the right course of action
for the UK. It is not enough to declare “And rightly so”
DAILY MAIL does not refer to the role Brexit had in
disenfranchising EU expats in the UK and UK expats in the EU. The Guardian published, on May 16, 2023 an
article written by Lisa O’Carroll entitled: What are Labour’s plans for giving
foreign nationals the right to vote?
Ms. O’Carroll reports that prior to Brexit, all European
citizens could vote in local and European elections. Brexit has disenfranchised
EU citizens who have settled in the UK after January 1, 2021 which is when Brexit
came into effect. EU expats cannot now vote in UK local elections. Brexit also disenfranchised UK citizens in the
EU.
Ms. O’Carroll also reports exceptions to this rule such that
the citizen of Ireland and Commonwealth countries have local election voting
rights. So, according to Ms. O’Carroll do Spanish, Portuguese, Polish and Luxembourger
citizens. This arises from the bi-lateral agreements the UK has with these
countries to allow UK citizens that have settled in these countries to vote in
town and city local elections.
DAILY MAIL continues the critique by stating the following
truism:
“Voting is a basic democratic right.”
DAILY
MAIL then goes onto to assert that:
“Granting it to those without a permanent stake in our
country devalues the very notions of citizenship.”
DAILY MAIL makes another misleading assumption about EU
expats living in the UK. DAILY MAIL is careful to not say EU citizens living,
working and paying taxes in the UK. DAILY MAIL does not articulate the reality
that EU Citizens marry UK citizens and have children that are UK Citizens and
that these types of relationships make EU Citizen’s permanent stakeholders as
well.
The assumption that EU Citizens living in the UK “…are
without a permanent stake in the country” is wrong. We are asked to conclude from this that giving these people
the vote debases the notion of citizenship.
DAILY MAIL does not satisfactorily explain how giving the
vote to EU expats debases citizenship. Democracy is a concept that goes beyond
the notion of citizenship. Democracy encourages engagement in the political
process thereby strengthening society. As Democracy means rule by the people
there is a case for arguing that non-citizens that live, work, pay taxes, have
families and use facilities and services in the community are entitled to a say
in government decisions that affect them.
Indeed, it can be argued that excluding them makes them
second class citizens as politicians may ignore their interests because they do
not have a vote. Allowing non-citizens, a vote can also be viewed as a pathway
to citizenship because a vote would promote participation in the political
system.
Also extending the vote to non-citizens, that have a stake
in society forces politicians to more accurately reflect the will that exists
in their electorates or constituencies. Extending the vote in this way enhances
democracy.
DAILY MAIL’s concern is that adding potentially millions of
new voters to electoral roles would change the UK’s political landscape. It can
be argued that that’s the point of democracy.
DAILY MAIL does not acknowledge that there is a case for
extending the vote to UK expats, and 16-year-olds providing a mechanism for
their opinions to be heard and engineered into governmental policy. Anyway, even
if the vote is extended to non-citizens this does not necessarily guarantee
Labour the gerrymander it is accused of trying to engineer.
This takes us to DAILY MAIL’s point:
Sir Keir, though, is concerned only with creating new
blocs of reliable Labour voters: Enough to swing an election – or another EU
referendum.
In the above assertion DAILY MAIL makes the assumption that
EU expat citizens and 16-year-old constitute “…new blocks of reliable Labour
voters….” There is no evidence provided to support this assertion.
From Sir Keir’s perspective it is not guaranteed that the
majority of voters in these new blocks will vote Labour. It is possible that
these blocks in a future election or referendum may vote conservatively or
caste protest votes as a result of future labour policies and governmental
decisions.
The difficulty in predicting the behaviour of these blocks
lies in the fact that the blocks are not examples of gerrymandering. Once again
DAILY MAIL is misleadingly conflating these blocks with the gerrymandering of
precise electoral boundaries to take advantage of the distribution of classes
of voters. There is no certainty that Labour can guarantee that this age cohort
will behave as a block.
DAILY MAIL does not desist however by launching an ad
hominem attack on UK Labour as follows:
Labour says these measures will 'strengthen
democracy'. Hogwash. Radically extending the franchise would be a cynical and
sinister ploy to rig future elections – making it harder to ever prise the
party away from the levers of power.
I have outlined some arguments that suggest how extending
the vote can strengthen democracy. DAILY MAIL simply writes that Labour is
somehow disingenuous by saying that its measures will strengthen democracy.
However, DAILY MAIL does not explore the arguments that Labour and others have
put forward to suggest that the proposed measures can strengthen democracy.
Instead, DAILY MAIL uses the emotive labels of “hogwash”,
“cynical” and “sinister” to describe Labour’s plan to “rig” future elections to
keep it in power. He paints the labour party as wanting to cement autocratic
rule which we know is the opposite of democracy.
DAILY MAIL invites us to follow a line of reasoning based on
a series of assumptions. In assuming this narrative, we arrive at the dissonant
conclusion: In order to strengthen democracy, we must oppose the extension of
the franchise to certain groups living in society. We do this even as we acknowledge
that voting as a basic democratic right is essential for the fulfillment of democracy.
References
DAILY
MAIL COMMENT: Labour's sinister plot to rig our elections | Daily Mail
Online
Labour
considers plans to let EU nationals and 16-year-olds vote | Labour | The
Guardian
Comments
Post a Comment