The age of adulthood is by definition arbitrary. If everyone matured at the same, fixed rate, it wouldn't be a human process. Indeed, maturation happens at varying speeds across different categories within the same individual, so I'd say I was easily old enough to vote at 16, but nobody should have given me a credit card until I was 32, and I've got the county court judgment to prove it.
However, we broadly agree that there's a difference between a child and an adult, even if we might argue about the transition point. So the political theorist David Runciman's view that six-year-olds should be allowed to vote goes against any standard argument about the age of civic responsibility. Nobody would say that a six-year-old could be held criminally responsible, could be sent to war, could be capable of consent, could be given responsibility for anything. So allowing them the vote—along with, unavoidably, seven-year-olds who are even sillier, if anything—is quite an amusing proposal.
Runciman's argument is that this is the only way to rebalance political life, which is currently twisted in favor of the old, who don't (he added) ever need to demonstrate mental capacity, even long after they've lost it.
The first part of his case is self-evident: pensions are protected while children's centers are closed, concepts such as sovereignty( 最高权威) are prioritized over the far more urgent business of the future: climate change. Nostalgia(怀念) for a past the young wouldn't even recognize plays a central role, which is completely unfair.
Most of the arguments against giving six-year-old's a vote are that children would end up voting for something damaging and chaotic, if someone made unrealistic promises to them, which could never be realized.
Well, it's not children's fault.
Having said that, children do tend towards the progressive, having a natural sense of justice (which kicks in at the age of six months, psychologists have shown, by creating scenes of great unfairness to babies, and making them cry) and an underdeveloped sense of self-interest. My kid, when he was six, made quite a forceful case against private property, on the basis that, since everybody needed a house, they shouldn't cost money, because nobody would want anyone else not to have one. Also, food should be free. It was a kind of pre-Marx communism, where you limit the coverage of the market to only those things that you wouldn't mind someone else not having.
On that particular day, when we were registered as voters, my kid was quite far to the left of me, but in the normal run of things, we're united, which brings us to the point of the problem: children obey you on almost nothing, but they do seem to believe in your politics until they're adolescent. So giving kids the vote is really just a way of giving parents extra votes. And what can stop us having even more children, once there's so much enfranchisement(选举权) in it for us?
Now, if parents could be trusted to use their influence wisely, and hammer into children the politics it will take to assure a better future, then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, apart from, obviously, that culture is already wildly twisted towards parents, and I can imagine a few non-parents boiling with fierce anger. But that's not worth talking about anyway, because parents can't be trusted, otherwise we'd all already vote Green(绿党).
In short: no, six-year-olds should not get the vote; but while we're here, if any votes come up in the near future, which will have an impact on the next five decades of British political life, alongside EU migrants,16-year-olds certainly should be enfranchised.
