4 ms·

You could flip that argument. The bar set to remain was too low. As for 16 years old voting, I'd argue the age to vote should be raised to 21. > Some particu

by DrBazza 1mo ago

You could flip that argument. The bar set to remain was too low. As for 16 years old voting, I'd argue the age to vote should be raised to 21. > Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing Both sides lied, both sides exaggerated. The referendum to simply leave or remain would never have happened if UK Parliament went to the public more often with referendums about various treaties such as Maastricht, Amsterdam and Rome. Giving people the illusion of choice would have been enough. The UK seems to be an outlier for an arrogant Parliament that thinks it knows best, in spite of public sentiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_Eur...

ktallett 1mo ago
I would say if the age of voting increased then there should also be an upper limit as over a certain age, it's not your future. Prisoners should be allowed the vote for everything also
- 1718627440 1mo ago
  Voting right is not determined whether you are affected, otherwise toddlers should vote too. It's dependent on average brain development. Also two years of growing into the political system is not very long compared to the decades of being able to vote.
basisword 1mo ago
>> As for 16 years old voting, I'd argue the age to vote should be raised to 21. Why? Brexit will impact 16 year olds for decades. A large number of the old farts who voted for it are dead now and won't have to suffer the consequences. If you're going to adjust voting ages but don't want to lower it, it makes sense that those over 75 don't get a say in something like Brexit. And if your thought is that 16 year olds don't have the education yet to understand the implications of something so big, I'd say they're much better informed than most people over 60 who are consuming Facebook AI slop and believing it wholesale.
- ipaddr 1mo ago
  60 year old people are better informed compared to 20-30 year olds and more involved and vote more often. Your ageism lacks logic.
  - TFNA 1mo ago
    As a middle-aged person, I can't agree with that. Declining social interaction as one settles into a narrower world of job and family, and less free time for activism and engagement, means that my peers and myself have less clue than we used to about how to vote; the general feeling about politics when it comes up at get-togethers with friends, is aporia. Also, part of getting older and wiser, and becoming more aware of history, is knowing the damage that old people like us have done at times. It was people our age who caused the failure of May '68, for example.
    - ipaddr 1mo ago
      That case can be made for anyone over 35+ and rebounds for the 60+ group who have time for activism and political conversations. Take the vote away from 35-60 year olds?
- 1718627440 1mo ago
  > A large number of the old farts who voted for it are dead now You must meet extremely weird old people. Most old people care a lot about the future of their "offspring". Also they have already seen a lot and are able to see through influence much better.
- dudul 1mo ago
  Brexit also impacts 12 year olds. >And if your thought is that 16 year olds don't have the education yet to understand the implications of something so big, I'd say they're much better informed than most people over 60 who are consuming Facebook AI slop and believing it wholesale. Care to back this claim?
- DrBazza 1mo ago
  Well if you're dismissive of an entire generation by calling them 'old farts', I'm not sure I can take you 'better informed 16 years old' argument seriously.
gjm11 1mo ago
You can flip any argument, but there isn't real symmetry here. If a change would be large and far-reaching and painful to undo, then it should be more difficult to make. Not impossible, of course: sometimes you need to make large far-reaching hard-to-undo changes. But imagine the following situation: about half the population likes X and about half hates it, and every year we hold a referendum on whether to have X or not. Then about once every two years you flip between X and not-X and all the upheaval costs you more than the gain from whichever is the better choice would get you. So before making a big upheaval-inducing change on the grounds that The People want it, you should have good evidence that The People really do, which means one referendum with a result much more decisive than 51:49, or maybe a series of 51:49 referenda all going the same way. If I were setting up something like this and could choose the rules, they would be something like: we run a referendum every couple of years until we get a decisive result; a side that won the last N referenda needs a 20%/(N+1) margin to get its way. So, first time round you need to be 60-40 ahead to settle the question; if you won the first time then you only need 55-45 the second time; if you win again but still more narrowly than that then you only need about 53-47 next time; etc. If one position really does consistently have majority support it'll win eventually even if its advantage is narrow. If public opinion is very changeable then too bad, a decision will have to wait until The People have a strong enough opinion to measure with confidence. (Obviously nothing like that will ever happen. Too geeky and complicated.) Of course, that wasn't the only major problem with the Brexit referendum. The other catastrophic problem was that it was a choice between "stay in the EU", a well defined outcome with known good and bad points, and "leave the EU somehow", something that could mean dozens of different things. It should have been between "stay in" and "attempt to negotiate terms for leaving, and then hold another referendum on whether to go ahead". Or between "stay in" and "leave on such-and-such terms if we can get them, and otherwise ask again". Or the government should have held extensive negotiations first on what terms it could leave on, and then held a referendum on whether to leave on those terms. Or the referendum could have offered options "stay regardless of terms", "leave regardless of terms", and "leave if such-and-such terms can be achieved". Those possibilities are all pretty unsatisfactory, but they're all better than choosing between the status quo and An Undertaking Of Great Advantage But Nobody To Know What It Is.
- DrBazza 1mo ago

by DrBazza 1mo ago

ktallett 1mo ago

I would say if the age of voting increased then there should also be an upper limit as over a certain age, it's not your future. Prisoners should be allowed the vote for everything also

1718627440 1mo ago
Voting right is not determined whether you are affected, otherwise toddlers should vote too. It's dependent on average brain development. Also two years of growing into the political system is not very long compared to the decades of being able to vote.

basisword 1mo ago

>> As for 16 years old voting, I'd argue the age to vote should be raised to 21. Why? Brexit will impact 16 year olds for decades. A large number of the old farts who voted for it are dead now and won't have to suffer the consequences. If you're going to adjust voting ages but don't want to lower it, it makes sense that those over 75 don't get a say in something like Brexit. And if your thought is that 16 year olds don't have the education yet to understand the implications of something so big, I'd say they're much better informed than most people over 60 who are consuming Facebook AI slop and believing it wholesale.

ipaddr 1mo ago
60 year old people are better informed compared to 20-30 year olds and more involved and vote more often. Your ageism lacks logic.
- TFNA 1mo ago
  As a middle-aged person, I can't agree with that. Declining social interaction as one settles into a narrower world of job and family, and less free time for activism and engagement, means that my peers and myself have less clue than we used to about how to vote; the general feeling about politics when it comes up at get-togethers with friends, is aporia. Also, part of getting older and wiser, and becoming more aware of history, is knowing the damage that old people like us have done at times. It was people our age who caused the failure of May '68, for example.
  - ipaddr 1mo ago
    That case can be made for anyone over 35+ and rebounds for the 60+ group who have time for activism and political conversations. Take the vote away from 35-60 year olds?
1718627440 1mo ago
> A large number of the old farts who voted for it are dead now You must meet extremely weird old people. Most old people care a lot about the future of their "offspring". Also they have already seen a lot and are able to see through influence much better.
dudul 1mo ago
Brexit also impacts 12 year olds. >And if your thought is that 16 year olds don't have the education yet to understand the implications of something so big, I'd say they're much better informed than most people over 60 who are consuming Facebook AI slop and believing it wholesale. Care to back this claim?
DrBazza 1mo ago
Well if you're dismissive of an entire generation by calling them 'old farts', I'm not sure I can take you 'better informed 16 years old' argument seriously.

gjm11 1mo ago

You can flip any argument, but there isn't real symmetry here. If a change would be large and far-reaching and painful to undo, then it should be more difficult to make. Not impossible, of course: sometimes you need to make large far-reaching hard-to-undo changes. But imagine the following situation: about half the population likes X and about half hates it, and every year we hold a referendum on whether to have X or not. Then about once every two years you flip between X and not-X and all the upheaval costs you more than the gain from whichever is the better choice would get you. So before making a big upheaval-inducing change on the grounds that The People want it, you should have good evidence that The People really do, which means one referendum with a result much more decisive than 51:49, or maybe a series of 51:49 referenda all going the same way. If I were setting up something like this and could choose the rules, they would be something like: we run a referendum every couple of years until we get a decisive result; a side that won the last N referenda needs a 20%/(N+1) margin to get its way. So, first time round you need to be 60-40 ahead to settle the question; if you won the first time then you only need 55-45 the second time; if you win again but still more narrowly than that then you only need about 53-47 next time; etc. If one position really does consistently have majority support it'll win eventually even if its advantage is narrow. If public opinion is very changeable then too bad, a decision will have to wait until The People have a strong enough opinion to measure with confidence. (Obviously nothing like that will ever happen. Too geeky and complicated.) Of course, that wasn't the only major problem with the Brexit referendum. The other catastrophic problem was that it was a choice between "stay in the EU", a well defined outcome with known good and bad points, and "leave the EU somehow", something that could mean dozens of different things. It should have been between "stay in" and "attempt to negotiate terms for leaving, and then hold another referendum on whether to go ahead". Or between "stay in" and "leave on such-and-such terms if we can get them, and otherwise ask again". Or the government should have held extensive negotiations first on what terms it could leave on, and then held a referendum on whether to leave on those terms. Or the referendum could have offered options "stay regardless of terms", "leave regardless of terms", and "leave if such-and-such terms can be achieved". Those possibilities are all pretty unsatisfactory, but they're all better than choosing between the status quo and An Undertaking Of Great Advantage But Nobody To Know What It Is.

DrBazza 1mo ago