And the answer is we don't know. Because at least in part, that is not what democracy is about. Democracy is about participation. Any idiot can vote, and the idiot's vote is as valuable as the brightest and most well researched.
So, on that basis, why would you not let kids vote? Because your argument is they don't have a clue. They don't know what's going on. They don't know who they're voting for, what the parties and politicians stand for. Well maybe not, but then nor do a lot of people over 18, and we don't stop them.
Becroft's plea comes in part because he argues kids don't have a voice, and he's right.
But that's not actually a reason to give them the vote. And this is why ultimately I have concluded that, although his idea isn't mad, it's just a little optimistic.
What we really want is a well-educated, thoughtful voter base. And the wider you spread access, the less likely you are to achieve it. Because the simple reality is most kids don't care, not at 16, and the fact they don't care isn't a bad thing.
Kids need to be kids and kids have other things on their minds. The world will still be there when they're old enough to vote, because ultimately a line has to be drawn. If 18 can be 16, then why can't it be 14, then 12. And at what point does it just get absurd?