5 ms·

The youth will live with this, and only 36% of them voted. Sad day for democracy. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-did-different-demo

The youth will live with this, and only 36% of them voted. Sad day for democracy. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-did-different-demographic-groups-vote-eu-referendum http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-di...

andrewchambers 10y ago
If they cared they would have voted. Not voting is a choice too.
- Mz 10y ago
  Sometimes, it is more complicated than that.
  - ryan-allen 10y ago
    Personal responsibility starts with the individual. The sheer arrogance of those who didn't vote and were upset with the result is astounding. Maybe they'll learn and act appropriately next time.
    - mkaziz 10y ago
      What interests me is that, despite that example, folks across the pond made exactly that mistake in November! Maybe we truly can't learn from others' mistakes.
    - Mz 10y ago
      I am currently homeless and chronically ill. I looked into trying to register to vote locally for U.S. elections last fall. I am registered to vote elsewhere, but failed to get registered locally (gave up when it became clear it would be too late). The assumption that you can manage to fit voting into your life comes from a place of privilege that some people lack. Punishing them harder until they behave more responsibly fixes nothing.
      - ryan-allen 10y ago
        I'm sorry you're homeless and chronically ill. I was talking about people in the UK though, I'm aware it's difficult in the US but to my knowledge the UK is much different. EDIT: It appears the UK has some problems too [1], and being Australian where voting is a legal requirement, easy to enroll and difficult to drop off the register, my perspective is perhaps a bit harsh. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/05/missing-voters-individual-electoral-registration-disaster https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/...
      - refurb 10y ago
        So is the argument that Remain would have won had it not been for the physical state of the voters? I'm sorry to hear of your situation, but I hardly think it's relevant to the discussion.
- __realtime 10y ago
  they might have voted in favor...
- DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
  I'd wager many did and do care - but complacency was rife on the Remain side during the Brexit referendum - I suspect that's why Leave (and Trump) won.
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    I frequently wonder why our processes of casting a vote is as simple as it is. The entire complacency issue would be resolved if the voting booths stayed open several days and we had daily counts published. I'm sure we could come up with some clever way when the vote would end. Instead we are for some reason afraid to even count more than once. I really don't get it.
    - refurb 10y ago
      I really don't get it. Really? In Canada they often had a ban on televising election results until after polls closed. Why? You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win.
      - ajmurmann 10y ago
        Well, I might not bother voting because there is no way the Nazi party will win the election. I believe we have seen this kind of effect more than once in recent elections. What's bad if I only vote once I realize"my candidate" might actually lose?
      - DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
        "You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win." That idea makes sense in true proportional representation system, but in a first-past-the-post system then strategic-voting becomes important (as voting-for-beliefs is an immediately suboptimal strategy), and therefore if voters know who is currently in the lead and alter their voting behaviour then surely that's a good thing for democracy?
beaconstudios 10y ago
how is that a sad day for democracy? Young people had plenty of opportunity to vote but didn't bother. Non-participation in the democratic process is turning down your chance to back your stance. I think what you actually mean is "sad day for my political viewpoint".
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  That the majority of young people don't participate can be sad for democracy.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    that anything less than a considerably majority participate in the vote could be considered a bad thing. Young people don't have a unique hold on political insight over older groups.
    - ajmurmann 10y ago
      No, but they are the ones who have to live with the decision the longest and on whose lives it will have the most impact.
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        Weighting votes based on lifespan you can reasonably be expected to live with the outcome would lead to a different world.
        omegaworks 10y ago
        A better world :) Maybe our societies will shift to seeking longer-term gains.
      - ajmurmann 10y ago
        Older people also have more life experience and maybe even some wisdom. We need a diverse mix of views for democracy to be strong. Instead of penalizing one group we should try to get people more excited about voting. Things like your vote only mattering in a handful of states and there really being only two viable parties because the system suffers from the spoiler effect are obvious obstacles that most be resolved.
jdietrich 10y ago
The 36% turnout figure is completely wrong. It was extrapolated from turnout at the last general election. Post-referendum research showed that turnout in the 18-24 age group was 64%, against an overall turnout of 72%. Increased turnout among young voters would not have been sufficient to change the result, due to the top-heavy age demographics in the UK - young people are simply outnumbered. In my opinion, the Brexit vote reflects a fundamental political division in the UK and much of the developed world. Older Britons have, in a profound an systematic way, pulled the ladder up behind them. A multitude of factors have skewed society in favour of the old, from housing costs to student fees to ironclad pensions. Pensioners have the lowest rate of poverty of any age group and are nearly half as likely to be poor than children. Pensions continue to grow above inflation, while wages have barely recovered since the financial crisis. Rampant growth in house prices coupled with a chronic shortage of social housing have effected an unprecedented transfer of wealth from young to old. On the balance of evidence, the term "kleptogerontocracy" does not seem entirely unjustified. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-turnout-young-voters-youth-vote-double-a7129181.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-... https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/mar2017 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati... http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml http://www.if.org.uk/archives/category/research http://www.if.org.uk/archives/category/research
- uncle_d 10y ago
  ZIRP and NIRP have been very damaging to many retired and retiring, when buying annuities and attempting to live off savings interest.
nodejscloud 10y ago
This sort of mentality and pretending to stand on the podium of social righteousness is the problem. Things didn't go how you wanted, so therefore it must be wrong, hateful, xenophobist, and racist right?
- peteretep 10y ago
  > Things didn't go how you wanted They certainly didn't > so therefore it must be wrong, hateful, > xenophobist, and racist I'm just yet to hear any arguments that, when dug into, aren't. The least bad argument seems to devolve down to the conceit that "British experts are better than pan-European experts at making decisions", and the nicest thing you can say about that particular argument is "it's a misguided view of British primacy".
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    I'm just yet to hear any arguments that, when dug into, aren't. Playing devil's advocate for a minute, here are just a few of the big claims often made before the referendum that would point in favour of leaving if you accept them: - The EU economy is still fragile, particularly within the Eurozone. Another financial crisis is possible, or even likely, within the next few years, and the recovery could be even harder if it does happen. - The EU takes billions of pounds in funding from the UK every year, and yet has a track record of not producing any properly audited accounts to show where the money actually goes. - The power structures of the EU are cryptic and there are legitimate concerns about democratic deficit. - The EU has a tendency to regulate excessively, perhaps with good intentions, but with poor execution. This is harmful, particularly to small businesses whose needs are frequently overlooked. The regulations apply to goods and services for domestic consumption or trade outside the EU as well as to trade within the EU, even though the latter represents only a relatively small part of our economy as a whole. - Being a member of the EU limits our ability to make independent trade deals with the rest of the world. The EU's track record on making good trade deals with non-EU partners on our behalf is questionable. Our international trading was already shifting slowly but surely towards more trade with non-EU partners, and this is only likely to accelerate given global economic development patterns, even if the EU doesn't suffer another major financial problem. - A vote to remain would de facto be a vote for ever closer union, increasing our exposure to all of the above and reducing the influence of our national government. In the strongest negotiating position a British leader would ever likely be in, Cameron still won only minor concessions, which may or may not have been binding. In any case, with 26/28 member states already in or expected to join the Eurozone, it is unrealistic to expect a "two-speed Europe" to remain a relevant concept, and arguments about keeping a seat at the table by remaining in are significantly weakened. As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here and making the case for a single side of the debate, but I don't see anything particularly wrong, hateful, xenophobic or racist about any of those points, and none of them seems particularly esoteric or out of character with what many who came down on the Leave side were saying before the vote.

andrewchambers 10y ago

If they cared they would have voted. Not voting is a choice too.

Mz 10y ago
Sometimes, it is more complicated than that.
- ryan-allen 10y ago
  Personal responsibility starts with the individual. The sheer arrogance of those who didn't vote and were upset with the result is astounding. Maybe they'll learn and act appropriately next time.
  - mkaziz 10y ago
    What interests me is that, despite that example, folks across the pond made exactly that mistake in November! Maybe we truly can't learn from others' mistakes.
  - Mz 10y ago
    I am currently homeless and chronically ill. I looked into trying to register to vote locally for U.S. elections last fall. I am registered to vote elsewhere, but failed to get registered locally (gave up when it became clear it would be too late). The assumption that you can manage to fit voting into your life comes from a place of privilege that some people lack. Punishing them harder until they behave more responsibly fixes nothing.
    - ryan-allen 10y ago
      I'm sorry you're homeless and chronically ill. I was talking about people in the UK though, I'm aware it's difficult in the US but to my knowledge the UK is much different. EDIT: It appears the UK has some problems too [1], and being Australian where voting is a legal requirement, easy to enroll and difficult to drop off the register, my perspective is perhaps a bit harsh. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/05/missing-voters-individual-electoral-registration-disaster https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/...
    - refurb 10y ago
      So is the argument that Remain would have won had it not been for the physical state of the voters? I'm sorry to hear of your situation, but I hardly think it's relevant to the discussion.
__realtime 10y ago
they might have voted in favor...
DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
I'd wager many did and do care - but complacency was rife on the Remain side during the Brexit referendum - I suspect that's why Leave (and Trump) won.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  I frequently wonder why our processes of casting a vote is as simple as it is. The entire complacency issue would be resolved if the voting booths stayed open several days and we had daily counts published. I'm sure we could come up with some clever way when the vote would end. Instead we are for some reason afraid to even count more than once. I really don't get it.
  - refurb 10y ago
    I really don't get it. Really? In Canada they often had a ban on televising election results until after polls closed. Why? You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win.
    - ajmurmann 10y ago
      Well, I might not bother voting because there is no way the Nazi party will win the election. I believe we have seen this kind of effect more than once in recent elections. What's bad if I only vote once I realize"my candidate" might actually lose?
    - DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
      "You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win." That idea makes sense in true proportional representation system, but in a first-past-the-post system then strategic-voting becomes important (as voting-for-beliefs is an immediately suboptimal strategy), and therefore if voters know who is currently in the lead and alter their voting behaviour then surely that's a good thing for democracy?

beaconstudios 10y ago

how is that a sad day for democracy? Young people had plenty of opportunity to vote but didn't bother. Non-participation in the democratic process is turning down your chance to back your stance. I think what you actually mean is "sad day for my political viewpoint".

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
That the majority of young people don't participate can be sad for democracy.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  that anything less than a considerably majority participate in the vote could be considered a bad thing. Young people don't have a unique hold on political insight over older groups.
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    No, but they are the ones who have to live with the decision the longest and on whose lives it will have the most impact.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      Weighting votes based on lifespan you can reasonably be expected to live with the outcome would lead to a different world.
      - omegaworks 10y ago
        A better world :) Maybe our societies will shift to seeking longer-term gains.
    - ajmurmann 10y ago
      Older people also have more life experience and maybe even some wisdom. We need a diverse mix of views for democracy to be strong. Instead of penalizing one group we should try to get people more excited about voting. Things like your vote only mattering in a handful of states and there really being only two viable parties because the system suffers from the spoiler effect are obvious obstacles that most be resolved.

jdietrich 10y ago

The 36% turnout figure is completely wrong. It was extrapolated from turnout at the last general election. Post-referendum research showed that turnout in the 18-24 age group was 64%, against an overall turnout of 72%. Increased turnout among young voters would not have been sufficient to change the result, due to the top-heavy age demographics in the UK - young people are simply outnumbered. In my opinion, the Brexit vote reflects a fundamental political division in the UK and much of the developed world. Older Britons have, in a profound an systematic way, pulled the ladder up behind them. A multitude of factors have skewed society in favour of the old, from housing costs to student fees to ironclad pensions. Pensioners have the lowest rate of poverty of any age group and are nearly half as likely to be poor than children. Pensions continue to grow above inflation, while wages have barely recovered since the financial crisis. Rampant growth in house prices coupled with a chronic shortage of social housing have effected an unprecedented transfer of wealth from young to old. On the balance of evidence, the term "kleptogerontocracy" does not seem entirely unjustified. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-turnout-young-voters-youth-vote-double-a7129181.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-... https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/mar2017 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati... http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml http://www.if.org.uk/archives/category/research http://www.if.org.uk/archives/category/research

uncle_d 10y ago
ZIRP and NIRP have been very damaging to many retired and retiring, when buying annuities and attempting to live off savings interest.

nodejscloud 10y ago

This sort of mentality and pretending to stand on the podium of social righteousness is the problem. Things didn't go how you wanted, so therefore it must be wrong, hateful, xenophobist, and racist right?

peteretep 10y ago
> Things didn't go how you wanted They certainly didn't > so therefore it must be wrong, hateful, > xenophobist, and racist I'm just yet to hear any arguments that, when dug into, aren't. The least bad argument seems to devolve down to the conceit that "British experts are better than pan-European experts at making decisions", and the nicest thing you can say about that particular argument is "it's a misguided view of British primacy".
- Silhouette 10y ago
  I'm just yet to hear any arguments that, when dug into, aren't. Playing devil's advocate for a minute, here are just a few of the big claims often made before the referendum that would point in favour of leaving if you accept them: - The EU economy is still fragile, particularly within the Eurozone. Another financial crisis is possible, or even likely, within the next few years, and the recovery could be even harder if it does happen. - The EU takes billions of pounds in funding from the UK every year, and yet has a track record of not producing any properly audited accounts to show where the money actually goes. - The power structures of the EU are cryptic and there are legitimate concerns about democratic deficit. - The EU has a tendency to regulate excessively, perhaps with good intentions, but with poor execution. This is harmful, particularly to small businesses whose needs are frequently overlooked. The regulations apply to goods and services for domestic consumption or trade outside the EU as well as to trade within the EU, even though the latter represents only a relatively small part of our economy as a whole. - Being a member of the EU limits our ability to make independent trade deals with the rest of the world. The EU's track record on making good trade deals with non-EU partners on our behalf is questionable. Our international trading was already shifting slowly but surely towards more trade with non-EU partners, and this is only likely to accelerate given global economic development patterns, even if the EU doesn't suffer another major financial problem. - A vote to remain would de facto be a vote for ever closer union, increasing our exposure to all of the above and reducing the influence of our national government. In the strongest negotiating position a British leader would ever likely be in, Cameron still won only minor concessions, which may or may not have been binding. In any case, with 26/28 member states already in or expected to join the Eurozone, it is unrealistic to expect a "two-speed Europe" to remain a relevant concept, and arguments about keeping a seat at the table by remaining in are significantly weakened. As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here and making the case for a single side of the debate, but I don't see anything particularly wrong, hateful, xenophobic or racist about any of those points, and none of them seems particularly esoteric or out of character with what many who came down on the Leave side were saying before the vote.