this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
61 points (95.5% liked)

UK Politics

3107 readers
149 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Great! /s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GuStJaR 31 points 5 months ago (13 children)

The article focuses on 70+ year olds who have lived in another country for over 50% of their lives. If you have not lived in the UK for 40 or 50 years, and you intend to continue not living in the UK, then please get back in your box. 🙏

[–] herescunty 20 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Tbh, if you’re over 70 you should probably lose your right to have a say about things that will only come to pass after you’re dead. Just one opinion, ymmv.

[–] copd 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Some people live to 90-100, you should be allowed to vote when you're going to live for that much longer.

[–] Squizzy 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Cut voting eligibility when you reach the age of life expectancy for your country.

It is less arbitrary than voting at 18.

[–] copd 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fun fact, the current USA president is far older than the average life expectancy of people in the USA.

If only your idea actually had any legs

[–] Squizzy 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah like everything in American politics, it is best to actively do the opposite

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Squizzy 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Squizzy 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

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!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I've been saying that each country should disenfranchise the elderly by the national average life expectancy minus the same number of years you have to be to register to vote. We accept that young people aren't fully developed and shouldn't be allowed to participate until they reach a minimum age. Time to do the same with people who are at higher risk of dementia and who won't have to live with the consequences of long-term changes.

I realize that this will unfairly disenfranchise able-minded people. They still shouldn't get a say in our long-term future.

[–] HauntedCupcake 1 points 5 months ago

Just average life expectancy minus half the minimum age imo, seems more fair considering it's an average.

Minimum voting age also disenfranchises able-minded people so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

load more comments (9 replies)