7 ms·

Young voters wanted Brexit the least – and will have to live with it the longest

56 points by tilt 10y ago

executesorder66 10y ago
Interesting idea : weigting votes based on the age of the voter. (on decisions that have long term consequences) Obviously this is not a solution. People will say it's unfair. Others will try to influence the younger voters like never before. etc. Anyone else have any other intersting ideas for this problem?
- cmenge 10y ago
  Don't do plebiscites.
- Theizestooke 10y ago
  re-integrate old voters into society, so they don't become bitter and isolated.
- jliptzin 10y ago
  You could also make the counterargument that older voters are wiser and have more experience and can make more sound decisions about the future of their country and should therefore have a heavier influence. I personally think you should be able to vote on an issue in proportion to how much you care about it, but I'm not sure about the best way to go about that. One idea I've read about is to sell votes starting at $1 and the price of your next vote (you can vote as many times as you want) increases by the square of the total votes purchased (i.e. $1, $4, $9...) so that by the 100th vote you'd have to spend $10,000. But that wouldn't be a popular idea as it allows the mega rich to buy lots of votes.
  - chki 10y ago
    I think the idea that you should be able to vote on an issue according to how much you care about it tries to fend off one problem (uninformed people vote carelessly) but creates many more. For example: How should I know in advance how important an issue will be to me in comparison to votes that nobody even thinks about right now? And is somebody who is really angry about immigration into their country really going to investigate the problem thoroughly (because they "care so much") or simply voting based on their gut? From my perspective there are so many problems with referendums that it might not be possible to find a solution at all. They have become a way to destabilize the current government although those are the elected officials. And still, in a general election there would probably be a support for the established parties in Britain. This shows to me an unsolvable discrepancy between referendums and elections.
  - pauljohncleary 10y ago
    You can do something similar with voting "credits" instead of cash, everyone gets 100 and they can use them to vote on the things they want I've done this to help elicit requirements from stakeholders and it works really well
    - IkmoIkmo 10y ago
      This is really interesting. I do fear it'll cause exhaustion techniques. This may not happen in isolated experiments, but if you build a political system on that concept, let it run for decades, in a world where a political decision can shift tens of billions of dollars (e.g. a fiscal change for banks, an environmental law for the dairy industry, etc), you'll see the system get gamed. e.g. say I propose 100 bs bills to repeal gay marriage and abortion rights. I expect to lose, but opponents expend all their credits. Then I propose a law banning muslims and mexicans and put all my credits behind it. The end result is they get to keep what they had, status quo, and I get to pass something ridiculous. Of course it works both ways, but my point is that you're creating a system where volume of bills is a strategy. And strategic, efficient use of credits, starts to matter. Such that I may choose NOT to vote for something I care about, because that credit has a premium on an even more important bill I fear might be proposed, which I absolutely have to put my weight behind. And an incentive not to vote doesn't sound like a system we should work towards. At the end of the day, making something scarce like you propose does two things; 1) it makes things more efficient and meaningful, you don't play around with scarce things. That's great. But 2) It puts a cap on it, it's limited in amount, and in the context of exercising your vote, voicing your opinion, that's probably not something we should cap for people. We already have this with financing campaigns (credits being money, which is both scarce and to some extent capped for campaign contributions), but I don't think it's ultimately (although super interesting) the right thing to do for the actual act of voting.
      - colanderman 10y ago
        Or 50 bills to repeal health care regulations.
      - mac01021 10y ago
  - Fuxy 10y ago
    That would just give more influence to people with more money. We have enough of that as it is and I don't think it's a good thing. And as a counterargument to older people being wiser older people tend to get very nostalgic about the old day and selectively remembering only the good things so I wouldn't trust the judgement of a random older person more.
  - IkmoIkmo 10y ago
    > You could also make the counterargument that older voters are wiser and have more experience and can make more sound decisions about the future of their country and should therefore have a heavier influence. Yes, but it's a different argument for a different system or principle. i.e., the democratic principle is that one can influence the governance of oneself, whether directly or indirectly, you vote on the governance of the society you live in. Rule of the people. In line with that principle is his suggestion to weight vote by age. i.e., as a proxy for the duration or degree to which you'll live in said society under any given proposed policy, is heavier for young people than old people, simply because young people live longer in these societies under these policies, on average. Such that these people who live 'more' under this policy, could be argued to deserve a bigger influence. In the same way that I as a European can't and shouldn't be able to vote on US domestic policy because I don't live there, and in the same way there've been (pipedream) ideas for the world to receive a minor vote in US (foreign) policy, because they're subjected to it so much. It's all in line with democratic principles. Your argument is a valid one, too, but it's linked on another principle, a more technocratic one i.e. those who are educated ought to govern. That's not a very democratic principle (although I'm not ruling it out on that basis, democracy is imo the least worst system, not a system to be blindly put on a permanent pedestal). By and large I think people tend to favour the former (democratic) over the latter (technocratic) principle. And within that context, a minor degree of age-weighing makes some sense, on paper. In practice it's hard to execute, easy to abuse, and merely captures a democratic proxy. i.e. you don't get to weigh in young people who die early, who migrate, and if you do weigh things, how much would young people get a bonus for, 5%? 10%? It becomes an impossible political game that I don't think makes sense in the real world, but it's interesting nonetheless. Paying for votes I think is a terrible idea by the way. About making the proportion of caring matter, I think you may realise there's already something basic like that, which is deciding whether to vote or not in the first place. We've seen time and time again, votes going differently from the polls, because people who got approached on the phone had an opinion but couldn't care enough to exercise it with effort by voting.
  - bjourne 10y ago
    > I personally think you should be able to vote on an issue in proportion to how much you care about it You already are. Care enough and you can join grass roots movements who are trying to influence the population to vote a certain way. Afaik, the Brexiters were a grass root campaign and they managed to multiply their votes by convincing the public to vote to leave.
  - collyw 10y ago
    "You could also make the counterargument that older voters are wiser and have more experience and can make more sound decisions about the future of their country and should therefore have a heavier influence." Proven to be false with the result of this vote.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  Well the issue is the younger voters tend to be the most idealistic while at the same time being the most unrealistic. As in, they haven't been around long enough to understand the different between what politicians say and what they are saying. I am going to go with the older generations simply remembering how much the United Kingdom worked to free the continent during two major wars. That is a lot of emotional background that only the most current generation doesn't really have. The real truth is no one knows exactly what is going to happen. Oh sure there are predictions of doom and gloom, but a lot of this is related to big financial players not liking the public to have a voice. Never underestimate the vested interest in those profiting off the current setup. We must also remember to not lambast the other side, neither side can claim to be a bastion of clear thinking and undisputed intelligence.
  - rangibaby 10y ago
    > I am going to go with the older generations simply remembering how much the United Kingdom worked to free the continent during two major wars. That is a lot of emotional background that only the most current generation doesn't really have. Anyone old enough to remember the war (at all) would be in their 70s-80s now. It's sad but I think there won't be any WWII veterans left soon.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    It's surprising how far some idealism can get us, though. Let's not forget that it's exactly that older generation that build the EU on the ruins of the wars they fought. I'm wondering if the EU isn't suffering from its own success. It modeled the free trade/free movement/peaceful cooperation at a time at which none of these things were common. That style of negotiation and cooperation then became common internationally, so that nowadays, it appears to make little difference if, say, Croatia is part of the EU or not.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > As in, they haven't been around long enough to understand the different between what politicians say and what they are saying. Unlike older people, who appear to believe the £350million a week lie?
- comboy 10y ago
  Weight votes based on amount of taxes paid (e.g. in the last few years). Haven't thought this through, just a random idea.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Maybe you should think it through...
    - comboy 10y ago
      That's not a very constructive criticism. In theory those who provide most money can decide the most how is it going to be spent. In practice I'm assuming taxes provide funds only for a very small part of a country spendings.
      - matt4077 10y ago
        I can see a case in which they have some sort of moral claim to control spending, but that is limited, as one example, by the fact that a government decides a lot more than spending. It's also a bad idea when you want to make good (as in maximize individual happiness) decisions, since the "10%" who'd end up with 90% of the political power have neither the knowledge nor (in some cases) the interest to help a majority of society. Even they would actually not have to gain much from controlling spending (except by lowering taxes) as the super-richs' happiness is more or less independent of gov spending: private schools, private jets, private healthcare. Oh, it's also a completely stupid & undemocratic idea, which led to my glib initial criticism.
  - Shengbo 10y ago
    That would heavily favor the high-income voters though.
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      Only if they are not tax dodgers...
- laumars 10y ago
  I did ponder over this myself in recent weeks. I wondered whether there should be a age limit on votes, whether votes should be weighted, and even wondered whether there should be a quick multiple choice test that you have to pass before voting. Unfortunately the first two points go against the point of democracy - even if it might feel unfair to those are the greatest impacted by large demographics of people who are least affected but have strong opinions. The entrance exam idea is a little more complex though. The idea came about because I was frustrated by the number of people I'd spoken to who voted for a particular campaign while admitting they didn't really follow the campaign but just wanted "change". I saw it with a lot of UKIP supporters who hadn't read their manifesto. I also saw it with the EU referendum with friends that were unaware of any of the "Brexit" arguments but voted out anyway. I think it's weird - in fact borderline dangerous - to use ones vote to decide on a topic which one has intentionally chosen not to educate one's self on. However how do you test that one is informed without biasing the ballot? I think that could be an impossible challenge - and even if it was possible, it would be too easy to abuse at some point further down the line. So that eliminates that possibility as well. Giving everyone an equal vote is the fundamental principle of democracy. And as much as we might complain about biases from specific demographics skewing the outcome, be that the older generation, younger generation, politically literate, racist, socialist, or whatever; we just have to live with the results. After all, as much as I might disagree with some agendas, there's others I agree with which I'm sure other demographics detest on principles that are as reasoned as the arguments I consider to be true. Such is the nature of individuals.
  - executesorder66 10y ago
    I like your idea of a test before hand. Every voter is required to write a test on the matter being voted on. And then their vote is weighted on the marks they got for the test. That way people who have no idea what they are voting for have little say in the matter. And the people who really care about the issues will make sure they know how their vote will affect things, and they get a greater say in the matter.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      And how do you grade the test? Certainly if there was objective criteria for what would happen in this case (In/Out), there'd be no need for a vote at all! On top of that, why shouldn't someone be able to vote on the basis of purely not wanting to be in the EU? Or voting with someone based on their perceived moral value? Or any other criteria? I'm hardly pro-democracy, but this doesn't seem like a democratic solution.
- epx 10y ago
  People forsake democratic values way too easily when voters don't go the "right" way...
  - jf271 10y ago
    It is amazing to hear people that would find "3/5 a person" to be revolting talk this way when a vote doesn't go their way.
- epx 10y ago
  People forsake democratic values way too easily when voters don't go the "right" way...
- whack 10y ago
  Adopting a policy of formal age-discrimination in the voting process, doesn't seem like a good idea for many reasons. That said, I like the idea of rethinking the way voting is done, in order to counter uninformed/populist trends. Such suggestions have been discussed in more detail here: https://outlookzen.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/reinventing-democracy-the-google-way/ https://outlookzen.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/reinventing-demo...
realharo 10y ago
The next generation can try to rejoin if the situation in the future changes significantly. Just not anytime soon.
- gambiting 10y ago
  So if you are 20, then this decision is going to affect you for the most of your working life, and you can't change it for at least a couple decades? What sort of solution is this?
  - realharo 10y ago
    It's not a solution, just an observation.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Prediction: two years of negotiations, followed by another referendum resulting in a 55:45 REMAIN, rendering the same day's Scottish independence referendum moot, slightly embarrassing everyone who spent hours debating that referendum's wording.
supergirl 10y ago
that's how rule of majority is. slightly more than half wanted it and now everybody has to take it.
- egil 10y ago
  Yes, for binary decisions. Otherwise, negotiating a larger majority is a possibility.
- _delirium 10y ago
  That point was debated a bit around the Quebec independence referendum as well. Is a 51% vote enough of a mandate to leave? If so, would a 51% vote in the other direction a few years later be enough of a mandate to rejoin? You have a weird unstable situation if support really is close to exactly evenly divided, and stays that way. The pure majoritarian outcome would be that you oscillate between trying to leave and trying to join every few years, vaguely like what happened in Greece 100 years ago when they voted in a referendum to abolish, then reinstate, then abolish, then reinstate the monarchy, the pro- and anti-monarchist forces holding a new referendum every time it looked like public opinion was trending back in their direction. In practice it seems then the really big power comes in choosing when/whether to hold a referendum, e.g. if the Quebec referendum had come out 51-49% in favor of leave, independent Quebec would probably avoid as much as possible allowing a "rejoin Canada" referendum to ever be held, lest it come out 51-49% in the other direction. Probably some mathematical voting theory person has formalized this kind of question in terms of something like sampling and stable outcomes, but I'm not quite sure what keywords to look for there.
DonaldFisk 10y ago
The last time there was a referendum on EU membership was in 1975, and the result was overwhelmingly in favour of staying in, so many of those older voters who voted for Brexit must have changed their minds.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Well, it wasn't the EU right? It was the European Communities (EC), aka "Common market". This was a pretty different and more modest institution back in '75, I think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Communities
herbst 10y ago
There was a huge propaganda machine going on targeted to the youth to tell how awesome the EU is. I dont think taking this numbers now says actually that much.
dnautics 10y ago
The assumption here is that the Brexit will be bad for the UK. What if it winds up being good for the UK? The EU has had some serious near-meltdowns. In particular the issue with Greek bailouts and the conflict with germany comes to mind. Why would you want to be part of an organization where you could wind up being the next germany - let alone an organization where there's a structure where 1) such an irresponsible mismanagement of funds is not firewalled and 2) a tax compliant region (like the UK or Germany) has to pay for the sins of a country where paying taxes is a joke?
- DanBC 10y ago
  How's the pound doing? How's the FTSE 100? How's the FTSE 250? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/24/ftse-100-and-sterling-plunge-on-brexit-panic https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/24/ftse-100-an... https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=ftse+250 https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=ftse+250
  - dnautics 10y ago
    Markets are not generally logical, but definitely not in the short term. Currently they're running high on emotion. We shall see.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    >How's the FTSE 100? It's up 9% from where it was in February of this year. Surely the immediate market reaction to a huge political change is not a good indicator of anything.
  - dnautics 10y ago
    The FTSE is now trading above its pre-brexit levels.
- dharma1 10y ago
  Southern european bailouts - Euro and EU are two separate things, although interconnected. The UK is not a part of the euro. I don't see how trade tariffs (which the UK will now have to negotiate) will be a good thing for the UK.
digi_owl 10y ago
Do wonder if it is because they have not settled in, with a family, a house, and enough debt to last a lifetime and a half.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Or they aren't old enough to be cynical yet? I'm 34 now and very pleased to see this change. Yet 10 years ago I was opposite. And on immigration -- the big topic -- as I see more an more things happen, I grow more and more skeptical that countries can sustain huge influxes while maintaining standards. I find this is true, even though I've been directly hurt by immigration law (my wife was denied US status and overstayed a bit; my daughter was indirectly killed by us having to go back to a bad country with poor healthcare). So I'd benefit personally from lax immigration laws, yet I can see it not working out overall. Younger people seem more optimistic and more likely to find these views to be "bigoted" or terrible. I made the same accusations at that age. Edit: If we want to help people in countries that are not doing well (many of them), importing people wholesale isn't the approach. Otherwise we'd just move everyone to the US and immediately solve world war, hunger, etc. If they're not running their own countries well, then better countries should step in and run it for them. If your neighbor comes over claiming his house is too dirty to live in, you should go over and help him clean, not give him your room. National pride aside, I'd bet a lot of countries would welcome becoming a UK, Canada, US, or EU colony. It's not like it's a rule that colonies have to be exploitative.
  - alblue 10y ago
    The only problem is that a de-facto condition of being part of the EEA (free access to the single market) is the acceptance of unlimited immigration from/to the EU.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      Everything is negotiable. Maybe it won't be complete free access, but I find it unlikely they can't work out something.
pmorici 10y ago
People seem to think this vote is the final word but my understanding is that it isn't legally binding and the final decision is up to elected politicians. That's why you saw the prime minister say he would resign. He supported staying and by him resigning new elections will be held.
- anon1385 10y ago
  The PM resigning does not result in new elections. The Conservative party will vote on a new leader and that person will become the new PM until 2020. (As things stand).
- chatwinra 10y ago
  Yes that's right. It's not legally binding and the whole exit process only starts when the government invokes article 50 of the EU treaty, which is the exit process and lasts 2 years. Cameron (the PM) talked about not invoking article 50 straight away, so maybe there's a glimmer of hope for us that voted to stay in that we still have time for further discussions.
  - insickness 10y ago
    'A glimmer of hope?' That what, democracy won't be carried out?
  - ghughes 10y ago
    The discussions happened. Democracy played out. We lost.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Isn't this totally anti-democracy? Despite it not being legally binding, it seems totally in contrary to the people's will. I don't understand positively talking about going opposite of what people voted for. It seems especially odd since it's usually the Leave side that's accused of being fascist. Or is the idea to do more polling until a favourable outcome is received?
    - 10y ago
circuiter 10y ago
Did this link get so many upvotes because we want the same ageism that's in tech to be in politics and government?
ben_jones 10y ago
“Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”
pacala 10y ago
Nice spin in the title, under the huge assumption that voting preferences stay fixed over a lifetime. Or we could simply read the results as a confirmation to the old adage: "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain." Young voters will grow old, get wiser, and possibly want Brexit more than they did in their youth. Now get off my lawn.

56 points by tilt 10y ago

Interesting idea : weigting votes based on the age of the voter. (on decisions that have long term consequences) Obviously this is not a solution. People will say it's unfair. Others will try to influence the younger voters like never before. etc. Anyone else have any other intersting ideas for this problem?

cmenge 10y ago
Don't do plebiscites.
Theizestooke 10y ago
re-integrate old voters into society, so they don't become bitter and isolated.
jliptzin 10y ago
You could also make the counterargument that older voters are wiser and have more experience and can make more sound decisions about the future of their country and should therefore have a heavier influence. I personally think you should be able to vote on an issue in proportion to how much you care about it, but I'm not sure about the best way to go about that. One idea I've read about is to sell votes starting at $1 and the price of your next vote (you can vote as many times as you want) increases by the square of the total votes purchased (i.e. $1, $4, $9...) so that by the 100th vote you'd have to spend $10,000. But that wouldn't be a popular idea as it allows the mega rich to buy lots of votes.
- chki 10y ago
  I think the idea that you should be able to vote on an issue according to how much you care about it tries to fend off one problem (uninformed people vote carelessly) but creates many more. For example: How should I know in advance how important an issue will be to me in comparison to votes that nobody even thinks about right now? And is somebody who is really angry about immigration into their country really going to investigate the problem thoroughly (because they "care so much") or simply voting based on their gut? From my perspective there are so many problems with referendums that it might not be possible to find a solution at all. They have become a way to destabilize the current government although those are the elected officials. And still, in a general election there would probably be a support for the established parties in Britain. This shows to me an unsolvable discrepancy between referendums and elections.
- pauljohncleary 10y ago
  You can do something similar with voting "credits" instead of cash, everyone gets 100 and they can use them to vote on the things they want I've done this to help elicit requirements from stakeholders and it works really well
  - IkmoIkmo 10y ago
    This is really interesting. I do fear it'll cause exhaustion techniques. This may not happen in isolated experiments, but if you build a political system on that concept, let it run for decades, in a world where a political decision can shift tens of billions of dollars (e.g. a fiscal change for banks, an environmental law for the dairy industry, etc), you'll see the system get gamed. e.g. say I propose 100 bs bills to repeal gay marriage and abortion rights. I expect to lose, but opponents expend all their credits. Then I propose a law banning muslims and mexicans and put all my credits behind it. The end result is they get to keep what they had, status quo, and I get to pass something ridiculous. Of course it works both ways, but my point is that you're creating a system where volume of bills is a strategy. And strategic, efficient use of credits, starts to matter. Such that I may choose NOT to vote for something I care about, because that credit has a premium on an even more important bill I fear might be proposed, which I absolutely have to put my weight behind. And an incentive not to vote doesn't sound like a system we should work towards. At the end of the day, making something scarce like you propose does two things; 1) it makes things more efficient and meaningful, you don't play around with scarce things. That's great. But 2) It puts a cap on it, it's limited in amount, and in the context of exercising your vote, voicing your opinion, that's probably not something we should cap for people. We already have this with financing campaigns (credits being money, which is both scarce and to some extent capped for campaign contributions), but I don't think it's ultimately (although super interesting) the right thing to do for the actual act of voting.
    - colanderman 10y ago
      Or 50 bills to repeal health care regulations.
    - mac01021 10y ago
- Fuxy 10y ago
  That would just give more influence to people with more money. We have enough of that as it is and I don't think it's a good thing. And as a counterargument to older people being wiser older people tend to get very nostalgic about the old day and selectively remembering only the good things so I wouldn't trust the judgement of a random older person more.
- IkmoIkmo 10y ago
  > You could also make the counterargument that older voters are wiser and have more experience and can make more sound decisions about the future of their country and should therefore have a heavier influence. Yes, but it's a different argument for a different system or principle. i.e., the democratic principle is that one can influence the governance of oneself, whether directly or indirectly, you vote on the governance of the society you live in. Rule of the people. In line with that principle is his suggestion to weight vote by age. i.e., as a proxy for the duration or degree to which you'll live in said society under any given proposed policy, is heavier for young people than old people, simply because young people live longer in these societies under these policies, on average. Such that these people who live 'more' under this policy, could be argued to deserve a bigger influence. In the same way that I as a European can't and shouldn't be able to vote on US domestic policy because I don't live there, and in the same way there've been (pipedream) ideas for the world to receive a minor vote in US (foreign) policy, because they're subjected to it so much. It's all in line with democratic principles. Your argument is a valid one, too, but it's linked on another principle, a more technocratic one i.e. those who are educated ought to govern. That's not a very democratic principle (although I'm not ruling it out on that basis, democracy is imo the least worst system, not a system to be blindly put on a permanent pedestal). By and large I think people tend to favour the former (democratic) over the latter (technocratic) principle. And within that context, a minor degree of age-weighing makes some sense, on paper. In practice it's hard to execute, easy to abuse, and merely captures a democratic proxy. i.e. you don't get to weigh in young people who die early, who migrate, and if you do weigh things, how much would young people get a bonus for, 5%? 10%? It becomes an impossible political game that I don't think makes sense in the real world, but it's interesting nonetheless. Paying for votes I think is a terrible idea by the way. About making the proportion of caring matter, I think you may realise there's already something basic like that, which is deciding whether to vote or not in the first place. We've seen time and time again, votes going differently from the polls, because people who got approached on the phone had an opinion but couldn't care enough to exercise it with effort by voting.
- bjourne 10y ago
  > I personally think you should be able to vote on an issue in proportion to how much you care about it You already are. Care enough and you can join grass roots movements who are trying to influence the population to vote a certain way. Afaik, the Brexiters were a grass root campaign and they managed to multiply their votes by convincing the public to vote to leave.
- collyw 10y ago
  "You could also make the counterargument that older voters are wiser and have more experience and can make more sound decisions about the future of their country and should therefore have a heavier influence." Proven to be false with the result of this vote.
Shivetya 10y ago
Well the issue is the younger voters tend to be the most idealistic while at the same time being the most unrealistic. As in, they haven't been around long enough to understand the different between what politicians say and what they are saying. I am going to go with the older generations simply remembering how much the United Kingdom worked to free the continent during two major wars. That is a lot of emotional background that only the most current generation doesn't really have. The real truth is no one knows exactly what is going to happen. Oh sure there are predictions of doom and gloom, but a lot of this is related to big financial players not liking the public to have a voice. Never underestimate the vested interest in those profiting off the current setup. We must also remember to not lambast the other side, neither side can claim to be a bastion of clear thinking and undisputed intelligence.
- rangibaby 10y ago
  > I am going to go with the older generations simply remembering how much the United Kingdom worked to free the continent during two major wars. That is a lot of emotional background that only the most current generation doesn't really have. Anyone old enough to remember the war (at all) would be in their 70s-80s now. It's sad but I think there won't be any WWII veterans left soon.
- matt4077 10y ago
  It's surprising how far some idealism can get us, though. Let's not forget that it's exactly that older generation that build the EU on the ruins of the wars they fought. I'm wondering if the EU isn't suffering from its own success. It modeled the free trade/free movement/peaceful cooperation at a time at which none of these things were common. That style of negotiation and cooperation then became common internationally, so that nowadays, it appears to make little difference if, say, Croatia is part of the EU or not.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > As in, they haven't been around long enough to understand the different between what politicians say and what they are saying. Unlike older people, who appear to believe the £350million a week lie?
comboy 10y ago
Weight votes based on amount of taxes paid (e.g. in the last few years). Haven't thought this through, just a random idea.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Maybe you should think it through...
  - comboy 10y ago
    That's not a very constructive criticism. In theory those who provide most money can decide the most how is it going to be spent. In practice I'm assuming taxes provide funds only for a very small part of a country spendings.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      I can see a case in which they have some sort of moral claim to control spending, but that is limited, as one example, by the fact that a government decides a lot more than spending. It's also a bad idea when you want to make good (as in maximize individual happiness) decisions, since the "10%" who'd end up with 90% of the political power have neither the knowledge nor (in some cases) the interest to help a majority of society. Even they would actually not have to gain much from controlling spending (except by lowering taxes) as the super-richs' happiness is more or less independent of gov spending: private schools, private jets, private healthcare. Oh, it's also a completely stupid & undemocratic idea, which led to my glib initial criticism.
- Shengbo 10y ago
  That would heavily favor the high-income voters though.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Only if they are not tax dodgers...
laumars 10y ago
I did ponder over this myself in recent weeks. I wondered whether there should be a age limit on votes, whether votes should be weighted, and even wondered whether there should be a quick multiple choice test that you have to pass before voting. Unfortunately the first two points go against the point of democracy - even if it might feel unfair to those are the greatest impacted by large demographics of people who are least affected but have strong opinions. The entrance exam idea is a little more complex though. The idea came about because I was frustrated by the number of people I'd spoken to who voted for a particular campaign while admitting they didn't really follow the campaign but just wanted "change". I saw it with a lot of UKIP supporters who hadn't read their manifesto. I also saw it with the EU referendum with friends that were unaware of any of the "Brexit" arguments but voted out anyway. I think it's weird - in fact borderline dangerous - to use ones vote to decide on a topic which one has intentionally chosen not to educate one's self on. However how do you test that one is informed without biasing the ballot? I think that could be an impossible challenge - and even if it was possible, it would be too easy to abuse at some point further down the line. So that eliminates that possibility as well. Giving everyone an equal vote is the fundamental principle of democracy. And as much as we might complain about biases from specific demographics skewing the outcome, be that the older generation, younger generation, politically literate, racist, socialist, or whatever; we just have to live with the results. After all, as much as I might disagree with some agendas, there's others I agree with which I'm sure other demographics detest on principles that are as reasoned as the arguments I consider to be true. Such is the nature of individuals.
- executesorder66 10y ago
  I like your idea of a test before hand. Every voter is required to write a test on the matter being voted on. And then their vote is weighted on the marks they got for the test. That way people who have no idea what they are voting for have little say in the matter. And the people who really care about the issues will make sure they know how their vote will affect things, and they get a greater say in the matter.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    And how do you grade the test? Certainly if there was objective criteria for what would happen in this case (In/Out), there'd be no need for a vote at all! On top of that, why shouldn't someone be able to vote on the basis of purely not wanting to be in the EU? Or voting with someone based on their perceived moral value? Or any other criteria? I'm hardly pro-democracy, but this doesn't seem like a democratic solution.
epx 10y ago
People forsake democratic values way too easily when voters don't go the "right" way...
- jf271 10y ago
  It is amazing to hear people that would find "3/5 a person" to be revolting talk this way when a vote doesn't go their way.
epx 10y ago
People forsake democratic values way too easily when voters don't go the "right" way...
whack 10y ago
Adopting a policy of formal age-discrimination in the voting process, doesn't seem like a good idea for many reasons. That said, I like the idea of rethinking the way voting is done, in order to counter uninformed/populist trends. Such suggestions have been discussed in more detail here: https://outlookzen.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/reinventing-democracy-the-google-way/ https://outlookzen.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/reinventing-demo...

realharo 10y ago

The next generation can try to rejoin if the situation in the future changes significantly. Just not anytime soon.

gambiting 10y ago
So if you are 20, then this decision is going to affect you for the most of your working life, and you can't change it for at least a couple decades? What sort of solution is this?
- realharo 10y ago
  It's not a solution, just an observation.
matt4077 10y ago
Prediction: two years of negotiations, followed by another referendum resulting in a 55:45 REMAIN, rendering the same day's Scottish independence referendum moot, slightly embarrassing everyone who spent hours debating that referendum's wording.

supergirl 10y ago

that's how rule of majority is. slightly more than half wanted it and now everybody has to take it.

egil 10y ago
Yes, for binary decisions. Otherwise, negotiating a larger majority is a possibility.
_delirium 10y ago
That point was debated a bit around the Quebec independence referendum as well. Is a 51% vote enough of a mandate to leave? If so, would a 51% vote in the other direction a few years later be enough of a mandate to rejoin? You have a weird unstable situation if support really is close to exactly evenly divided, and stays that way. The pure majoritarian outcome would be that you oscillate between trying to leave and trying to join every few years, vaguely like what happened in Greece 100 years ago when they voted in a referendum to abolish, then reinstate, then abolish, then reinstate the monarchy, the pro- and anti-monarchist forces holding a new referendum every time it looked like public opinion was trending back in their direction. In practice it seems then the really big power comes in choosing when/whether to hold a referendum, e.g. if the Quebec referendum had come out 51-49% in favor of leave, independent Quebec would probably avoid as much as possible allowing a "rejoin Canada" referendum to ever be held, lest it come out 51-49% in the other direction. Probably some mathematical voting theory person has formalized this kind of question in terms of something like sampling and stable outcomes, but I'm not quite sure what keywords to look for there.

DonaldFisk 10y ago

The last time there was a referendum on EU membership was in 1975, and the result was overwhelmingly in favour of staying in, so many of those older voters who voted for Brexit must have changed their minds.

jessriedel 10y ago
Well, it wasn't the EU right? It was the European Communities (EC), aka "Common market". This was a pretty different and more modest institution back in '75, I think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Communities

herbst 10y ago

There was a huge propaganda machine going on targeted to the youth to tell how awesome the EU is. I dont think taking this numbers now says actually that much.

dnautics 10y ago

The assumption here is that the Brexit will be bad for the UK. What if it winds up being good for the UK? The EU has had some serious near-meltdowns. In particular the issue with Greek bailouts and the conflict with germany comes to mind. Why would you want to be part of an organization where you could wind up being the next germany - let alone an organization where there's a structure where 1) such an irresponsible mismanagement of funds is not firewalled and 2) a tax compliant region (like the UK or Germany) has to pay for the sins of a country where paying taxes is a joke?

DanBC 10y ago
How's the pound doing? How's the FTSE 100? How's the FTSE 250? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/24/ftse-100-and-sterling-plunge-on-brexit-panic https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/24/ftse-100-an... https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=ftse+250 https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=ftse+250
- dnautics 10y ago
  Markets are not generally logical, but definitely not in the short term. Currently they're running high on emotion. We shall see.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  >How's the FTSE 100? It's up 9% from where it was in February of this year. Surely the immediate market reaction to a huge political change is not a good indicator of anything.
- dnautics 10y ago
  The FTSE is now trading above its pre-brexit levels.
dharma1 10y ago
Southern european bailouts - Euro and EU are two separate things, although interconnected. The UK is not a part of the euro. I don't see how trade tariffs (which the UK will now have to negotiate) will be a good thing for the UK.

digi_owl 10y ago

Do wonder if it is because they have not settled in, with a family, a house, and enough debt to last a lifetime and a half.

MichaelGG 10y ago
Or they aren't old enough to be cynical yet? I'm 34 now and very pleased to see this change. Yet 10 years ago I was opposite. And on immigration -- the big topic -- as I see more an more things happen, I grow more and more skeptical that countries can sustain huge influxes while maintaining standards. I find this is true, even though I've been directly hurt by immigration law (my wife was denied US status and overstayed a bit; my daughter was indirectly killed by us having to go back to a bad country with poor healthcare). So I'd benefit personally from lax immigration laws, yet I can see it not working out overall. Younger people seem more optimistic and more likely to find these views to be "bigoted" or terrible. I made the same accusations at that age. Edit: If we want to help people in countries that are not doing well (many of them), importing people wholesale isn't the approach. Otherwise we'd just move everyone to the US and immediately solve world war, hunger, etc. If they're not running their own countries well, then better countries should step in and run it for them. If your neighbor comes over claiming his house is too dirty to live in, you should go over and help him clean, not give him your room. National pride aside, I'd bet a lot of countries would welcome becoming a UK, Canada, US, or EU colony. It's not like it's a rule that colonies have to be exploitative.
- alblue 10y ago
  The only problem is that a de-facto condition of being part of the EEA (free access to the single market) is the acceptance of unlimited immigration from/to the EU.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Everything is negotiable. Maybe it won't be complete free access, but I find it unlikely they can't work out something.

pmorici 10y ago

People seem to think this vote is the final word but my understanding is that it isn't legally binding and the final decision is up to elected politicians. That's why you saw the prime minister say he would resign. He supported staying and by him resigning new elections will be held.

anon1385 10y ago
The PM resigning does not result in new elections. The Conservative party will vote on a new leader and that person will become the new PM until 2020. (As things stand).
chatwinra 10y ago
Yes that's right. It's not legally binding and the whole exit process only starts when the government invokes article 50 of the EU treaty, which is the exit process and lasts 2 years. Cameron (the PM) talked about not invoking article 50 straight away, so maybe there's a glimmer of hope for us that voted to stay in that we still have time for further discussions.
- insickness 10y ago
  'A glimmer of hope?' That what, democracy won't be carried out?
- ghughes 10y ago
  The discussions happened. Democracy played out. We lost.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Isn't this totally anti-democracy? Despite it not being legally binding, it seems totally in contrary to the people's will. I don't understand positively talking about going opposite of what people voted for. It seems especially odd since it's usually the Leave side that's accused of being fascist. Or is the idea to do more polling until a favourable outcome is received?
  - 10y ago

circuiter 10y ago

Did this link get so many upvotes because we want the same ageism that's in tech to be in politics and government?

ben_jones 10y ago

“Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”

pacala 10y ago

Nice spin in the title, under the huge assumption that voting preferences stay fixed over a lifetime. Or we could simply read the results as a confirmation to the old adage: "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain." Young voters will grow old, get wiser, and possibly want Brexit more than they did in their youth. Now get off my lawn.