PDA

View Full Version : Should a value of a vote differ depending on how old you are?


Endeavour
September 4th, 2016, 05:21 PM
We've briefly discussed this twice in two different threads, so I think it's time it's worthy of its own thread (thanks Paraxiom for the suggestion)

So, should a value of a vote differ depending on how old you are? Let's take Brexit for example. It's going to affect young people more, and many young people wanted to remain. So why should we have to leave based on the views of many older people who won't experience the true effects of what they have voted for? In this case the younger people's vote should be considered more valuable and considered more favourably than the older people.

This isn't meant to be purely based on Brexit. I was just giving an example.

mattsmith48
September 4th, 2016, 08:13 PM
We've briefly discussed this twice in two different threads, so I think it's time it's worthy of its own thread (thanks Paraxiom for the suggestion)

So, should a value of a vote differ depending on how old you are? Let's take Brexit for example. It's going to affect young people more, and many young people wanted to remain. So why should we have to leave based on the views of many older people who won't experience the true effects of what they have voted for? In this case the younger people's vote should be considered more valuable and considered more favourably than the older people.

This isn't meant to be purely based on Brexit. I was just giving an example.

The value of the vote should differ depending on how educated on the issues you are but then it wouldn't be fair for conservatives.

Canadian Dream
September 4th, 2016, 08:26 PM
The problem is that unless everyone who voted to opt out of Brexit is like 90 years old people are going to experience at least some of the effects, and that would basically break basic democracy rules. No, it doesn't matter who is affected on the long-term, it matters who is affected NOW and who lives in the country NOW. It's unfortunate because I understand how devastating the effects of something like Brexit could be on the long-run, but it would be even more unfair if the value of your opinion got weaker as you got older. I think this is a very biased opinion from the perspective of a young person and that most people older than 30 would completely disagree with you. It's basically giving the younger generation an unfair advantage in a world where everyone is considered equal, no matter how old they are.

phuckphace
September 5th, 2016, 10:19 AM
votes in the UK should be restricted to the oldest generations since they're literally the only actual Brits left

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 12:28 PM
The problem is that unless everyone who voted to opt out of Brexit is like 90 years old people are going to experience at least some of the effects, and that would basically break basic democracy rules.

Democracy doesn't have to mean 'the best election system possible'.


No, it doesn't matter who is affected on the long-term, it matters who is affected NOW and who lives in the country NOW.

Flapjack

Discuss. :D


The value of the vote should differ depending on how educated on the issues you are but then it wouldn't be fair for conservatives.

Would this amount of relevant education be determined by school/uni grades, or something else, for you?

- - - - - - - -

I am not for the current democracy premise that simplistically sees (in theory) the political situation of a state be determined by the majority of the population within that state. I haven't found an alternative yet, but I am certainly not happy with staying with this.


If we're going to discuss whether votes cast by a person have their value determined by the age of that person, then I see there to be six big sub-topics:


1. Should the value of someone's vote be determined by how long they have lived, and/or by how long they are expected to live?

- -

2. The mathematical relationship of the voter's age with the value of the voter's vote. If the vote is determined (for example) by the current age of the person, should it be directly proportional?

For example, if a person of 50 years of age casts a vote, and another person of 25 years of age casts a vote, is the latter person's vote to be seen as twice as valuable as the former's, or something else?

For either the current age or expected age of an eligible voter determining the value of their vote, what should such an equation look like?


Either A: [value of vote] = [age of voter] multiplied by *insert a mathematical expression here*

Or B: [value of vote] = [expected age at future death of voter] multiplied by *insert a mathematical expression here*

Or C: some intermediate between / a combination of A and B, for the case of both current age and expected age of a voter being that which determines the value of their vote.

----

3. If the latter case of point 1 is taken, that the value of one's vote is determined by their expected age to die, how is this going to be worked out? It has to be a system that works on probabilities, which necessarily will have faults here and there. The voting system is being done on expectations of the future.

Are the votes of terminally ill people negligible?

----

4. The argument being offered in favour for age-affected vote values is that younger people are expected to live in a state longer than older people, that younger people will interact more with the state. They will be affected more by it.

Is it significant enough how much people interact with the state they are participating in voting in? Suddenly this thread may intersect with Vlerchan 's Give me Liberty or...? thread (arguably, by me).

If someone is going to interact less with a state and consequently get less out of it, then should their vote be worth less than others who interact more? The backing reasoning is the same as the reasoning for the argument for age-affected vote values, least I see it as such, by the amount of dependency the voter has on the state.

----

5. The argument is that younger people are expected to live in this certain state longer then older people, but what happens when there are younger people who want to emigrate? They cease to be within the state and so are not living within it, so any age-affected votes case by them should perhaps in fact be stay duration - affected votes instead.

Rather than it being the age of a person that determines their vote, it should be amount of time the person is expected to stay within this state (and/or how long they have spent in this state). It's hardly then a topic on age; age is only the trend that is mistaken with the core topic at hand.

----

6. If a state is holding elections for a fixed term, and referendums that change the constitution currently indefinitely, then the votes cast in a referendum have the strong trend of affecting the future of the state longer than the votes cast in an election.

If we're hypothesising a different voting system that takes into account the future/past of the state and its population, then is this point also relevant or not?

----

If you're seeing my points to be horrendous examples of overthinking or complicating things, then be careful what you wish for when being open to the topic of this thread.

There is lots of potential in what is implied to change, or not change.

mattsmith48
September 7th, 2016, 01:15 PM
Would this amount of relevant education be determined by school/uni grades, or something else, for you?

You could have been one of the best at school and had the best education possible in the best university and still not know anything of the issues and what action should be taken to face those issues. You can be one of the smartest doctors in the UK you were the best in high school and went to the best university and still don't know anything about brexit and what option is the right one, or can be a 19 year old who barely pasted high school and know everything about it and knows what is the right option. So it would be very hard to figure out what is the value of someone's vote.

Changing the value of a vote depending on whatever reason expacially on something as arbitrary as education on the issues but also on something like age, education ect. could lead to some descrimination on race or religion to give a candidate or a party an unfair advantage they shouldn't have. The fairest way to elect our leader is still to have every vote are worth the same.

Porpoise101
September 7th, 2016, 06:57 PM
I think all votes should be equal. For more long term and sweeping reforms, I think there should be a referendum where the youths should also get a say. Maybe temporarily lower the voting age for that decision.

PlasmaHam
September 7th, 2016, 07:55 PM
The value of the vote should differ depending on how educated on the issues you are but then it wouldn't be fair for conservatives.
I know Paraxiom already destroyed this argument, but I have a question for you. Who would choose who is informed about the issues or not? Politics isn't just about solid facts on an issue. Take man-made global warming. Despite how much liberals like to push it as fact, there is very little solid evidence that it is happening. I don't want to pursue this specfic issue here, but that does show the issue with determining who is most informed and who isn't. The only way this could be fairly implemented is if someone who knew everything and didn't have any political agendas was running it.

mattsmith48
September 7th, 2016, 09:56 PM
I know Paraxiom already destroyed this argument, but I have a question for you. Who would choose who is informed about the issues or not? Politics isn't just about solid facts on an issue. Take man-made global warming. Despite how much liberals like to push it as fact, there is very little solid evidence that it is happening. I don't want to pursue this specfic issue here, but that does show the issue with determining who is most informed and who isn't. The only way this could be fairly implemented is if someone who knew everything and didn't have any political agendas was running it.

If you had read my answer to Paraxiom you would already have an answer to your question. It would be hard to decide how much everyone's vote is worth and some people could abuse of it to their own profit like descriminate against a certain group or assure that one candidate or party will win. Thats why every vote is worth the samething is the fairest way to elect our leaders.

Politics should only be about facts, but its not, one side is selling fear, one side is selling hope and a few are trying to sell facts but no one believes them because the other two inventing shit and trying to sell an invisible product.

If you want to debate climate change fine but this isn't the place you can start another thread if you want but I guarantee you will lose that debate. While your at it maybe you could start a debate on whether the earth is flat.

SethfromMI
September 7th, 2016, 10:06 PM
The value of the vote should differ depending on how educated on the issues you are but then it wouldn't be fair for conservatives.

this is where it becomes dangerous to start determining whose voice is important. Matt thinks the only voices which matter are people who agree with him. I am surprised he is not more of a Trump supporter if he was here in America. then again, Clinton is just as dangerous on that front, just like most liberals. liberals want people to have a voice, as long as that voice supports their own.

I will say more people should become educated on the issues if they are going to vote. While I feel strongly on particular issues, I do believe even if someone completely agrees with me, their voice should be as equal as mine is. people should carefully consider whoever it is they are voting for and know the issues and be able to support their decision. it is not so much of a justification, merely knowing why one is voting the way they are and more than just because someone is a republican, democrat, etc.

someone of a younger age could be more informed than someone of an older age. then again, when it comes to being informed, what of people who may not be as smart for reasons which may be beyond their control. should their voice be heard? absolutely.

when you start going down a road saying one voice matters more than the other or someone's voice does not matter at all, your getting into a very dangerous territory.

at the end of the day, everyone should do what they can to become educated on the issues and candidates so they can vote with a firm conviction the person they are voting is the person they think is truly best for the country. sadly, most people, regardless of age, never even make the effort. even then though, to say their voice doesn't matter is going in a bad direction. they might not be the most responsible with their rights and should take a lot more care, but because they are human and as such have value, then their voice should have value as well.

mattsmith48
September 7th, 2016, 10:20 PM
this is where it becomes dangerous to start determining whose voice is important. Matt thinks the only voices which matter are people who agree with him. I am surprised he is not more of a Trump supporter if he was here in America. then again, Clinton is just as dangerous on that front, just like most liberals. liberals want people to have a voice, as long as that voice supports their own.

I will say more people should become educated on the issues if they are going to vote. While I feel strongly on particular issues, I do believe even if someone completely agrees with me, their voice should be as equal as mine is. people should carefully consider whoever it is they are voting for and know the issues and be able to support their decision. it is not so much of a justification, merely knowing why one is voting the way they are and more than just because someone is a republican, democrat, etc.

someone of a younger age could be more informed than someone of an older age. then again, when it comes to being informed, what of people who may not be as smart for reasons which may be beyond their control. should their voice be heard? absolutely.

when you start going down a road saying one voice matters more than the other or someone's voice does not matter at all, your getting into a very dangerous territory.

at the end of the day, everyone should do what they can to become educated on the issues and candidates so they can vote with a firm conviction the person they are voting is the person they think is truly best for the country. sadly, most people, regardless of age, never even make the effort. even then though, to say their voice doesn't matter is going in a bad direction. they might not be the most responsible with their rights and should take a lot more care, but because they are human and as such have value, then their voice should have value as well.

You guys should really read everything I say before criticizing the one sentence you don't agree with.


You could have been one of the best at school and had the best education possible in the best university and still not know anything of the issues and what action should be taken to face those issues. You can be one of the smartest doctors in the UK you were the best in high school and went to the best university and still don't know anything about brexit and what option is the right one, or can be a 19 year old who barely pasted high school and know everything about it and knows what is the right option. So it would be very hard to figure out what is the value of someone's vote.

Changing the value of a vote depending on whatever reason expacially on something as arbitrary as education on the issues but also on something like age, education ect. could lead to some descrimination on race or religion to give a candidate or a party an unfair advantage they shouldn't have. The fairest way to elect our leader is still to have every vote are worth the same.


The only reason I tell people they should vote for Clinton is because a maniac should have access to nuclear weapons and someone who believes climate change is a hoax should get political power, if those two things weren't issues I wouldn't give a shit who wins, if Trump wins we have enough room here to welcome all the american refugees and if Clinton wins everything stay the same.

SethfromMI
September 7th, 2016, 10:25 PM
The value of the vote should differ depending on how educated on the issues you are but then it wouldn't be fair for conservatives.

how is this not an implication all conservatives are stupid? you're nothing more than another liberal who wants "freedom" for everyone so as long as they agree with you.

to what you were saying though in your response, I am not saying Trump is not some type of maniac, I agree with you there. but I am not going to sing the praises of Hilary when I distrust her as much, maybe even more so than Trump.

I still have a lot of consideration of who to vote for. It sucks in my first election to get to vote, my choices are Trump and Clinton. that says something is screwed up with the system in general, but that is a totally different debate topic.

PlasmaHam
September 7th, 2016, 10:36 PM
If you had read my answer to Paraxiom you would already have an answer to your question. It would be hard to decide how much everyone's vote is worth and some people could abuse of it to their own profit like descriminate against a certain group or assure that one candidate or party will win. Thats why every vote is worth the samething is the fairest way to elect our leaders.

I was intending my post to be more rhetorical than actually wanting of an answer of your own. And you clearly missed the meaning behind it. But if you want to argue about nothing, go ahead.

Politics should only be about facts, but its not, one side is selling fear, one side is selling hope and a few are trying to sell facts but no one believes them because the other two inventing shit and trying to sell an invisible product.
I totally agree with you. America needs to be restored to it's former respect and power. It needs to become GREAT again. Fear mongering about Trump ending the world with nukes, when the likelihood of that is extremely low, is foolish. Selling global warming as 100% man-made fact, when most scientists in the field don't even agree about it is foolish. Yep, the choice is clear.

The value of the vote should differ depending on how educated on the issues you are but then it wouldn't be fair for conservatives.
Wow, imagine if I said that about black people, or gays. I would probably get banned flat within an hour of posting.


This is going no where, I'm going back to my self-imposed ROTW exile now.

mattsmith48
September 7th, 2016, 10:43 PM
how is this not an implication all conservatives are stupid? you're nothing more than another liberal who wants "freedom" for everyone so as long as they agree with you.

Seriously I justed answer that in my last post. I said its not about how smart someone is but its about how educated on the issues. Some conservatives are smart, for you guys in the US Ben Carson comes to mind he's a very successful doctor but on the issues and political knowledge is an idiot.

to what you were saying though in your response, I am not saying Trump is not some type of maniac, I agree with you there. but I am not going to sing the praises of Hilary when I distrust her as much, maybe even more so than Trump.

I still have a lot of consideration of who to vote for. It sucks in my first election to get to vote, my choices are Trump and Clinton. that says something is screwed up with the system in general, but that is a totally different debate topic.

Just vote for the person who will not make the planet unhabitable either by starting a nuclear war or starting war against the enviroment because ''Climate change is a hoax started by the chinese''

mattsmith48
September 7th, 2016, 10:54 PM
I was intending my post to be more rhetorical than actually wanting of an answer of your own. And you clearly missed the meaning behind it. But if you want to argue about nothing, go ahead.

Argue about what we are saying the same thing.

I totally agree with you. America needs to be restored to it's former respect and power. It needs to become GREAT again. Fear mongering about Trump ending the world with nukes, when the likelihood of that is extremely low, is foolish. Selling global warming as 100% man-made fact, when most scientists in the field don't even agree about it is foolish. Yep, the choice is clear.

''Fear mongering'' about Trump not understanding the consiquences of using nuclear weapons which is most likely true thats not right and it as to stop, but Trump fear mongering on Clinton taking away everyones right and ISIS and illegal immigrants murdering and raping everyone thats totally fine.

This is going no where, I'm going back to my self-imposed ROTW exile now.

Alright we'll see you again when I start my ''daily religion rant''

lliam
September 7th, 2016, 10:57 PM
This isn't meant to be purely based on Brexit. I was just giving an example.

As far as I understood it, the referendum is legally not binding on the British government to make a apply for a withdrawal from the EU.

In this case I would say that 14-year olds should have been allowed to vote.

Overall I think the age limit in elections is a most comfortable thing to handle that prob who should be allowed to vote or not.

On the other hand, would it be handled the way I would favor it, it would be a very time consuming and complicated process.

In fact I believe that only those should be allowed to vote, who can prove that they are mature enough to understand what they are doing when they vote.

So a voter would have to prove,that he has understood the whole complexity of political processes at least at a inkling-level.

Because I think, every voter, should be aware that voting is a great responsibility.

I already can name some 13 yos, who are mature enough to deal with this responsibility for sure.

On the other hand, I also know enough adults, who imo are such completely irresponsible as they could handle this responsibilty.

Paraxiom
September 8th, 2016, 08:29 AM
You could have been one of the best at school and had the best education possible in the best university and still not know anything of the issues and what action should be taken to face those issues. You can be one of the smartest doctors in the UK you were the best in high school and went to the best university and still don't know anything about brexit and what option is the right one, or can be a 19 year old who barely pasted high school and know everything about it and knows what is the right option. So it would be very hard to figure out what is the value of someone's vote.

That's what I was thinking, you cut to the chase there so to speak.


Changing the value of a vote depending on whatever reason expacially on something as arbitrary as education on the issues but also on something like age, education ect. could lead to some descrimination on race or religion to give a candidate or a party an unfair advantage they shouldn't have. The fairest way to elect our leader is still to have every vote are worth the same.

lliam

My view is that if vote values were to be different for specific reasons in a state's voting system, then much more than the voting system would need to change in that state thereafter for stability. Changing the voting system properly in a consistent manner in the backing reasoning across the system, would then make other aspects of economics/politics appear inconsistent in being too simplistic and/or of differing views, and then they'd need a change to keep with the general views behind the voting system, and so on.

I cannot see such a voting system happening in any country today unless major transitions happen with the premises behind the processes of the political, economic and social realms. The ideas behind the differing vote values are arguably demanding a more complex or alternative way of doing things than other systems in the same state. It couldn't be a 'local' state system change.

Keeping the votes all of the same value is the far easier option here. I don't mean 'ease' as with 'best' necessarily though.


I know Paraxiom already destroyed this argument [...]

I wasn't intending to destroy the 'education-based voter wisdom' idea, least not yet.


Take man-made global warming. Despite how much liberals like to push it as fact, there is very little solid evidence that it is happening.

I won't go fully off-topic on the view of no human-caused climate change, but I will go partially off-topic. Rather than seeing it as liberals who like to push it as a fact etc etc, it's more that conservatives have the trend of rejecting the view; liberals happen to be the majority of those who go with the view as a result (taking left-right politics ofc).


The only way this could be fairly implemented is if someone who knew everything and didn't have any political agendas was running it.

Which isn't possible, least not as a human.


This is going no where, I'm going back to my self-imposed ROTW exile now.

It's going rapidly off-topic from you, so by all means see you later. :P

Taryn98
September 8th, 2016, 10:47 AM
Either people are equal or they're not. If some people's vote is worth more, you're saying they're more valuable than others.
All votes should be equal.