I semi-seriously believe that you should get more votes if you’re younger, or a more heavily weighted vote, based on the average expected number of decades you have left to live. Like, e.g., an eighteen year-old ought to live for roughly another six decades, so their vote should be weighted to take that into account. And I say this as a thirty-[mumble] year-old! Eighteen year-olds should have more of a say than I do, because they’re going to be affected by the decisions made now for much longer than I am.
As it is young people do not turn up to vote, so giving an under experienced and fickle group additional voting power is wrong.
One person, one vote. Should people who contribute more taxes get more votes, after all they give more to the state. Should the unemployed not get a vote?
I wasn’t making an argument based on contribution. Ironically, you are making an argument based on contribution by citing experience as a criterion for valuing voters. My argument was virtually the opposite, in fact: consequences, rather than contribution.
I’m not sure if young people are more fickle with their votes or not, but either way this is not a criterion we can use to judge the relative value of voters. Being allowed to change your vote at different elections - being fickle - is a foundation of representative democracy.
I dont have a problem with being fickle I have a problem with valuing someone’s vote over another. My argument was that consequences or contribution it should not matter, everyone gets one vote and that is it.
That’s fair enough. As I said at the start, I was only semi-serious in my argument. I just didn’t think the reasons you gave against it were particularly good!
I semi-seriously believe that you should get more votes if you’re younger, or a more heavily weighted vote, based on the average expected number of decades you have left to live. Like, e.g., an eighteen year-old ought to live for roughly another six decades, so their vote should be weighted to take that into account. And I say this as a thirty-[mumble] year-old! Eighteen year-olds should have more of a say than I do, because they’re going to be affected by the decisions made now for much longer than I am.
As it is young people do not turn up to vote, so giving an under experienced and fickle group additional voting power is wrong.
One person, one vote. Should people who contribute more taxes get more votes, after all they give more to the state. Should the unemployed not get a vote?
I wasn’t making an argument based on contribution. Ironically, you are making an argument based on contribution by citing experience as a criterion for valuing voters. My argument was virtually the opposite, in fact: consequences, rather than contribution.
I’m not sure if young people are more fickle with their votes or not, but either way this is not a criterion we can use to judge the relative value of voters. Being allowed to change your vote at different elections - being fickle - is a foundation of representative democracy.
I dont have a problem with being fickle I have a problem with valuing someone’s vote over another. My argument was that consequences or contribution it should not matter, everyone gets one vote and that is it.
That’s fair enough. As I said at the start, I was only semi-serious in my argument. I just didn’t think the reasons you gave against it were particularly good!