He doesn’t know it, but Keir Starmer is channeling LBJ

In 1948, in the dust-blown counties of South Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson won his second attempt to gain a US Senate seat, not with ideas, but with a box of ballots – Box 13 to be precise. Stuffed with 202 votes, written remarkably in alphabetical order and with what appeared to be the same pen and handwriting, the totals produced were 200 votes for Johnson and just two for his opponent, Coke Stevenson.

Box 13 miraculously appeared just in time to tip the Democratic nomination race in Johnson’s favour by 87 votes. The Patróns of Jim Wells County – influential figures within the community – often flanked by armed pistoleros – the heavies – delivered the votes they were paid to deliver. George Berham Parr, ‘The Duke of Duval’, controlled the Democratic political machine that dominated Duval County and Jim Wells County. He turned democracy into a numbers game managed by men in wide-brimmed hats with narrow moral codes, all for the benefit of LBJ.

Creative electoral maths springs to mind when reading about Labour’s earnest push to lower the voting age to 16. At first glance, it’s hard to draw a straight line from the parched Texan borderlands to the shadowy corridors of Labour HQ. No pistoleros here, just political actors with soft hands and spreadsheets. But the intent is familiar: shape an electorate before it shapes you.

No one is suggesting Keir Starmer is planning to forge ballots or lean on teenage voters with revolvers at the ready. There’s considerable doubt he’d hand a shot of tequila to voters who can’t legally buy a pint either. But history offers a valuable reminder of how political actors can manipulate systems for gain. When political movements advocate ‘expanding democracy’, it’s worth asking who benefits, why now and what happens next? 

Labour’s strategy seems simple enough. Extend the franchise to 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds, a cohort that polling consistently shows leans heavily to the Left. Data from Ipsos show that in the 2024 general election, 60% of 18-24s voted for left-wing parties (Labour and the Greens). Even allowing for a little variation in voter turnout, enfranchising this younger group amounts to an electoral boost for a party eager to shore up its support. 

Proponents argue that young people work, pay tax and have skin in the game regarding climate change, Europe and identity politics. But let’s not pretend this move is born of high principle alone. If this same age group skewed heavily towards the Conservatives or Reform UK, we’d be hearing far more about their addiction to TikTok, their low tax contributions and their tenuous grasp of history.

This isn’t new. Franchise reforms are rarely acts of disinterested virtue. Women didn’t get the vote in 1918 purely out of enlightenment. It took war, activism and political calculation. Every expansion of the vote has winners and losers. 

What makes Labour’s proposal feel particularly cynical is its speed and its conspicuous electoral benefit. But this isn’t an isolated case of partisan opportunism. The Conservatives’ push for voter ID laws is a mirror image. This policy was framed as an opportunity to safeguard electoral integrity, but it also disproportionately affects groups less likely to vote Conservative.

And this isn’t isolated to mainstream political parties. Labour’s proposal sits within a broader trend in attempting to expand the franchise to build dependable voting blocs strategically.

In the wake of Brexit, an organisation, the3million, was soon formed, which is now the largest grassroots organisation for EU citizens in the UK. Its mission is to protect the rights of EU nationals who have made the UK their home. This group has been lobbying for the right to vote in local elections in England and Northern Ireland, a right already granted in Scotland and Wales. 

Another group, the Migrant Democracy Project, has highlighted that 4m individuals, referred to as ‘residents,’ do not have the right to vote in general elections and is campaigning for the right to vote to be extended to all. 

There are decent arguments in favour of giving long-term residents a say in the decisions that affect their lives. These groups would disproportionately benefit ‘progressive’ parties. Similar to 16- and 17-year-olds, they represent a promising reservoir of future votes. The moral case in these instances conveniently overlaps with the electoral calculus.

A majority in the UK would still argue that voting should be reserved for British citizens. Elections are about deciding the future of a nation and important policy areas, such as immigration and foreign policy.

Let’s be generous. Perhaps Starmer aims to foster democratic participation from a young age, rather than simply targeting a ‘voter bloc’. However, wouldn’t it be more sensible to begin with comprehensive civic education? Lowering the voting age without first providing young people with the skills to think critically about politics risks creating a new class of voters who social media trends, peer pressure or institutional nudges can easily influence. In a political environment where misinformation spreads faster than facts, that’s not democratic empowerment; it’s a vulnerability.

Or why not trial participation in local elections first? Or with strict ID requirements to ensure every vote cast is as legitimate?

Instead, we’re offered a sweeping change with suspiciously little scrutiny – one that happens to benefit the party proposing it, just in time for the next political cycle where every vote could matter.

‘Scratch any cynic’, George Carlin said, ‘and you will find a disappointed idealist’. Perhaps that’s what makes Labour’s proposal so irritating. Not its ambition, but its transparent self-interest. It cloaks itself in democratic virtue, while quietly stuffing its pockets with potential votes. If there’s idealism here, it’s travelling light with just enough space left in the bag for a few marginal seats and a clearer path to power.

 – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.