Or if you prefer, longitudinal proportional representation.

An idea to play with, and I’m sure some with say it’s unfair, but so is being forced to live with the consequences of someone else’s vote when they aren’t.

Given the young (generally speaking) have to live with the daft decisions of populist politicians for longer than the old, should their votes carry more weight?

As a case in point, the only age group now with a majority who think Brexit is a good idea are the age group least likely to see it enacted (no it hasn’t seen “done” yet, not while we’re still trying to renegotiate the fantastic deal we negotiated a year or so ago).

Perhaps a 20 year old’s vote counts 70 tapering to 10 at 80 years ;no tapering beyond that).

Now they’d still have to go and use the vote, but it might move some politicians away from their ageist, anti-young stance.

(I’m 50 so I’d get a vote weighted at 40)

I’d sooner have compulsory voting, PR, and proper education about how our version of democracy works.

Perhaps the younger people should get out and vote then?
Personally I do like the idea of a quick test on your chosen parties manifesto to show you have had a look at it.

“kids don’t have the life experience to really understand what they’re voting for and so should have less of a say”  Discuss.

A large part of domestic politics is about the economy and taxation. My daughter doesn’t understand this in anything like the detail that someone who’s been in the world of work, families, home ownership, pensions…….etc., so for her vote to carry say 50% more weight is just silly.

What happens when the people who voted at 20 have changed their minds once they turn 40? As the majority of them will have.

A better change would be a system of pr so that you will have representation even if your chosen party were not elected.
The system where in Brexit you get about a 50 50 split and the policy is carried is plain daft as a very small majority can lead to the current completely damaging state of affairs.
Is there any evidence that the young have greater wisdom?
There are idiots in any age group.

The question was consequence not wisdom.  There are old idiots and young, and wisdom frequently does not accrue with age.

If the young were wise they’d get out and vote out any party proposing a pensions triple lock while simultaneously raising the pension age.

The present system enshrines short-termism in our politics, because not only are they having to get results in a parliamentary cycle but voting patterns means they are putting more weight on policies for the old that in either the short or long term the young will pay for.

A large part of domestic politics is about the economy and taxation. My daughter doesn’t understand this in anything like the detail that someone who’s been in the world of work, families, home ownership, pensions…….etc., so for her vote to carry say 50% more weight is just silly.

The idea that people who have “been in the world of work, families, home ownership, pensions” therefore understand taxation and the economy is nonsense.
Some do, most do not. Let’s be honest, many believe in Rishi’s magic money tree that just means the next generation will have to pay.

Just switch to a Logan’s Run based system. Job done.

It’s about time we started calling votes ‘Likes’.
Swipe left or right for who you like the look of.

The present system enshrines short-termism in our politics, because not only are they having to get results in a parliamentary cycle but voting patterns means they are putting more weight on policies for the old that in either the short or long term the young will pay for.

So a party should be honest and propose a vision of the country that is fairer and more equitable in the 20 years it will take to achieve that, and put in place the tax and spending plans it would require, to encourage the young or more disadvantaged to put their X where where their mouth is and break that cycle of short termism.

For some naive reason I thought Boris was giving Starmer the opportunity to do that and he’s missed it.

The idea that people who have “been in the world of work, families, home ownership, pensions” therefore understand taxation and the economy is nonsense.

So votes should somehow be intellect tested as well? More votes for those that are more likely to understand what they’re actually voting for?

Well, what actually is the intellectual justification for universal suffrage?

I have another plan.
Remove all party based info from the ballot slips and any info. All they can show is the candidates name and the things they stand for.
It’ll force people to vote on policy and not party.

The problem is, it would send a strong message that a person is of less significance and worth as an individual as they age, that their concerns don’t matter and that they are irrelevant.  Treatment of the elderly is already piss poor in this country, I don’t think that would help!  What about tapering access to health care as people get older whilst we are at it? Over 75 with a serious heart condition?  Take some paracetamol and **** off! They are only going to die anyway.

Introduce proper PR, hell yes! Reduce the voting age to 16? Yes.  These are concrete measures to empower younger voters, and strengthen democracy.  Empowering younger voters not disenfranchising older ones is a better route IMO.

Well, what actually is the intellectual justification for universal suffrage?

It’s because if you select who can vote, then you need a selection process, and someone has to come up with that process. And in doing so you have to judge everyone in society. That tends not to go down very well.

Setting aside the logistics, I would think the problem is that there’s just as many stupid people , proportionately across all age groups. The only reason older voters seem keen backing bad ideas is because a good proportion have had a lifetime to become entrenched, and for the remainder the propaganda channels for those in the older demographic groups are narrower so they’ve been easier to target over the last decade.

Cambridge Analytica only really needed to target stale/pale/male Facebook users over 50 who were technologically litterate enough to podge their fingers at FB ads/groups with pictures of spitfires/union flags/pints of beer, but not familiar enough to realise they were being conducted into an online echo chamber full of propaganda and lies designed to drive them to the political Right.

If you weighted voting towards the younger generations, it would just mean the party with the biggest financial and media backing (whoever that might be) who would simply refocus more resources on messaging the yoofs. The sophistication of their campaigns is only ever a matter of finance and everyone’s susceptible in some way.

It’s basically marketing, not politics at this point. Whoever has the better targeted ad/propaganda campaign in GE year gets to win.

A better way to shore up our electoral systems fairness and veracity would be refining the rules around the funding of advertising and social media use for campaigning including caps on spending, allowable methods of promotion and more rigidly enforced fact checking. These things were tried, but essentially steam rolled in 2016 and haven’t had much meaningful development since (IMO)…

What happens when the people who voted at 20 have changed their minds once they turn 40? As the majority of them will have.

could have had over 5 general elections in that time to change their mind I guess

Treatment of the elderly is already piss poor in this country, I don’t think that would help!

This country is set up for the benefit of the elderly (literally).

The vast majority of the benefits system is spent on the elderly – and they are the only ones with a triple lock on their benefits.
The vast majority of the health care system is (understandably) spent on the elderly – although yo be fair there is already a tapering / rationing system in place if medics don’t think it will bring meaningful benefit.
The housing market benefits the old more than the young.
Pension provision is on a downward trajectory.

The list goes on. It’s amazing the younger generation put up with it really.

I disagree with anyone’s vote being worth less than someone else’s.

I too would rather see Proportional Representation and better education around why you should vote.

I am not sure about forcing folk to vote.

I also would see a higher standard of rules around who can be a candidate in an election – both to stand and to hold office – and that those standards are applied with consequences.

I’d sooner have compulsory voting, PR, and proper education about how our version of democracy works.

Agreed.

I disagree with anyone’s vote being worth less than someone else’s.

Agreed.

I am not sure about forcing folk to vote.

They wouldn’t be “forced” to chose their preferred candidate though, just mandated to cast a vote. They could vote for “none of the above”. But paired with PR, you would hope it was more likely that they could find someone to vote for, without considering it a wasted vote or the second worst option. And there are lots of administrative acts that we are “forced” to do… registering births, deaths etc.

Well, what actually is the intellectual justification for universal suffrage?

Me! Me!

Is it because giving the rabble the meanest form of what they think they want and telling them it is what they want suppresses the mob from acting on the urge to behead rich w*****s (the mob of course fails to realise that having beheaded one elite, a new set of w*****s become the new elite, less beholden to any sense of social decency given the prevailing mood of violence and intimidation and their galvanised sociopathy given their participation in beheading the previous w*****s)?

Or put another way… stability above all else or you get Russia.

A better change would be a system of pr so that you will have representation even if your chosen party were not elected.

This.

Yes, there are all sorts of frustrations with having everyone’s vote count equally but the alternative is much worse. What you’ll end up with is parties working to disenfranchise groups who tend not to vote for them, which is pretty much the Republican Party’s policy in the U.S. Democracy has to be transparent for people to accept it as fair and having every vote count equally is an important part of that. Proportional representation helps with this, weighting people’s votes differently will not.

This country is set up for the benefit of the elderly (literally).

The vast majority of the benefits system is spent on the elderly – and they are the only ones with a triple lock on their benefits.
The vast majority of the health care system is (understandably) spent on the elderly – although yo be fair there is already a tapering / rationing system in place if medics don’t think it will bring meaningful benefit.
The housing market benefits the old more than the young.
Pension provision is on a downward trajectory.

The list goes on. It’s amazing the younger generation put up with it really.

I don’t know if you have any close relatives trying to live on a state pension at the moment?  Or in care?  Or on incapacity benefit?  I have, I’ll pass on your message of how great things are for them and tell them to chin up.  My Dad (87) recently had a bypass and heart valve replacement.  He was told, directly that he would die within the year if he didn’t have it.  In the next sentence he was told the waiting list for the Op on the NHS was 12-18 months.  He spent his life savings and a chunk of ours to have it done privately.  Yep everything is rosey in the old peoples home.

@blokeuptheroad Both my parents died in a care home one of covid, one probable covid, so I’m a bit lacking in elderly relatives these days. Sorry.

For the most part, parliaments make decisions for the here and now, and almost all voters get 5 years of consequences. Sure, a few die in that time, primarily elderly, but not a huge proportion in the overall scheme of things.

Really big longer-term decisions should require a larger and more stable majority, that’s the principle behind supermajorities in referenda (and constitutional changes in other countries etc).

No-one under the age of ~25 voted for Brexit, and we know that the vast majority are against it.

A bigger problem is that governments are elected on 40% of the vote. Sort that out and we’d have a better government.

@igm I am (genuinely) sorry to hear that, but I wasn’t playing grief top trumps.

We’ve got 5 year parliamentary sessions, so no. Most should be able to see out the consequences of their vote. We don’t have particularly long term governments.

I have another plan.
Remove all party based info from the ballot slips

Back to pre-1970?

lunge
Full Member
I have another plan.
Remove all party based info from the ballot slips and any info. All they can show is the candidates name and the things they stand for.
It’ll force people to vote on policy and not party.

A better idea would be to make it illegal for parties to whip MPs to vote a certain way. MPs should vote along the desires of the constituency not the party.

@blokeuptheroad apologies I probably came back a bit hard with that response.

Look, I agree that there are downsides to getting older and definitely specific cases that run absolutely against my view, overall though the resources put into provision for the elderly and the assets and savings they have are greater than the equivalent for the young.

My parents were lucky enough to go to university (first generation in both families) and the tuition was free and the grant enough for them to buy their first flat.
I was amongst the first to be offered a student loan – but no grant. Tuition was still free though.
My children won’t even get free tuition.

My parents pensions were well in excess of what my wife and I get, which is well in excess of what folk start work today might expect – and both I and those new starters will get the state pension years later than my parents.

My parents owned a few houses over the years, generally selling for between 3 and 10 times what they paid.  They sold the family home for 20 times what their largest ever mortgage was.

Yes they were lucky, yes they were exceedingly careful with money, but they really weren’t that unusual.
They would be unusual two generations on.

We’ve got 5 year parliamentary sessions, so no. Most should be able to see out the consequences of their vote. We don’t have particularly long term governments.

I think that’s part of the problem. A lot of worthwhile things on a national basis take longer than 5 years. Infrastructure projects for example, possibly levelling up (take your own view on that).
But politicians end up thinking short term because of those short term parliamentary sessions.
And that is compounded when you’re trying to get a 65 year old to vote for you based on a policy that pays off in 20-25 years.
Not saying a 20 year old would be better, but there’s probably more chance.

I don’t know if you have any close relatives trying to live on a state pension at the moment?

It’s pretty much universally considered by those in the know that state pension, whilst not bountiful, is by some margin easier to live on that it has been. It certainly has seen real world increases way beyond other benefits.

Also, whilst clearly not everyone has benefited from it, this is the last generation with significant numbers benefiting from defined benefit employer pensions.

They may not feel it now, but history will show the current oldies had the golden years of the holy grail of retirement age, life expectancy, equity in property and pension income. It has never been as good as it is now, and won’t return to what is now ‘enjoyed’ in any imaginable time in the future.

I’d sooner have compulsory voting, PR, and proper education about how our version of democracy works.

But returning to the question – this is surely the only way to go.

If 5 year parliaments are the problem then your proposed voting system isn’t the fix. Just think of how great it would be if we had 15 year parliaments and you had to put up with the current rabble. And for every example of how great things used to be there are many of folk who struggled by, died in poverty etc.

Maybe we should adopt the Starship Troopers approach – no voting without National Service.

If you weighted voting towards the younger generations, it would just mean the party with the biggest financial and media backing (whoever that might be) who would simply refocus more resources on messaging the yoofs.

Definitely this, there are a lot of stupid/upset/gullible people in every demographic.

I now really want to see what CA’s pro-Brexit marketing at the u30s would have been.

I mentioned in the last politics thread. Ive lived in 3 constituencies as an adult. My political alleigances have changed too, and I have voted for every major (english) party. Yet I have never successfully elected an MP.
I’m no fan of PR as advertised* but there is certainly a problem where only a few geographic areas are actually in control, and within those, certain demographics are disproportianltely targeted by policy.

*my proposal is that the MPs remain as-is in both election and roles, but the prime minister comes from the party winning the popular vote, rather than most seats in the house.

I am not sure about forcing folk to vote.

Not even Aussie style? We love borrowing ideas from Australia these days…

Mandatory attendance at a polling station/Postal voting, and you’re fined if you don’t. That doesn’t seem terrible to me. People would still have the option of attending and spoiling their polling card as a protest. I have to say I’m sort of in favour of mandatory voting in the UK, Certainly more than building some flavour of ageism into the system…

You’re not “forcing” them you are “incentivising” people to participate in democracy, being fined for not voting could effectively be framed as an “apathy tax” rather than an encroachment on freedoms.
I think the reason such things haven’t been enacted previously is because the established parties really don’t know what would happen with ~100% turn out.

Proportional representation – in some form, would seem to be the way to go to get better presentation at a national level, however it does lead to swivel eyed loons being given a platform.

More importantly compulsory voting ( it is generally roof that don’t vote) – but most importantly is education that informs people that most issues have several aspects to them – it’s not “right” or ‘wrong”. Understanding of the bigger picture and economics ( again, a multi-faceted topic, with many different arguments). would all happen.

However to do that, you will have to take a huge amount of people out of the mono informational world that they have chosen to select on social media.

A better idea would be to make it illegal for parties to whip MPs to vote a certain way. MPs should vote along the desires of the constituency not the party.

But then you run into the issue of what does that person stand for and what alliances are they going to make and why.
Parties and whipping seem to be a emergent property of democratic systems. There are only a handful of democratic countries which dont have them but the common factor is they have tiny populations. Once you hit a certain size and lose the personal factor parties seem to emerge.

ayjaydoubleyou

I now really want to see what CA’s pro-Brexit marketing at the u30s would have been.

That depends who’s paying them…
If you take other elections CA have interfered in it can be as simple as discouraging voting. (You’re vote is worthless, better to protest)