-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
Geminosity
Member
So would you be in favour of removing voting rights from people diagnosed with terminal cancer or other diseases/conditions that mean they're likely to die in a few years or less? Genuine question, because that's the thing I see popping up in my mind when I see people taking this line of logic.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Combining this with the population numbers from the Home Office and the percentages from that 'bloody old people' table I get these numbers:
18-24: 64% of 5.878.472 = 3.762.222, 2.407.822 voting Remain
25-39: 65% of 12.901.695 = 8.386.101, 3.773.745 voting Remain
40-54: 66% of 13.495.446 = 8.906.994, 3.117.447 voting Remain
55-64: 74% of 7.452.381 = 5.514.761, 1.930.166 voting Remain
65+: 90% of 11.611.167 = 10.450.050, 3.448.516 voting Remain
This adds up to 14.677.696 Remain votes which is 1.5 million below the actual result.
It kinda seems the ones born EU citizens are the ones most likely to have voted remain.
It's frustrating, but in many cases they will also be voting on issues that will be of a much shorter-term nature. Just because this particular referendum is about something with long lasting ramifications doesn't make it OK to discriminate against the elderly in other cases. Can't have it both ways (even if they do repeatedly seem to vote in ways that place all the burden on the younger).
What we really need to be focusing on is the circumstances surrounding voting which discriminates against the young and working/in education, as opposed to those with free time.
no, hardly
the problem is with aging, fear social change and progress. Romancing about the old days.
Can't learn an old dog new tricks as the saying goes
Huw_Dawson
Member
That is because what the Guardian neglected to mention in its reporting is that the LDs - Farron, Ashdown - are running around behind the scenes too trying to agree on what a new centrist alliance would look like.
Core points so far is that the name of this new party would just be 'Democrats'. Five core pledges (including remaining in the EU) would be at the core of the new grouping, which could well start off as an informal thing.
Farron apparently believes the LD brand has been so badly tarnished by Clegg that the entire party needs a total makeover.
Apparently the Sunday Times is reporting this today.
It'd be a very heavily LD-influenced party if it did happen. I couldn't see Democrats not campaigning for devolution and PR, for example.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
One thing I've noticed is that older more conservative folk seem to be against the idea of giving 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote, despite the fact that they're the ones more likely to tell them to get a job (and start paying tax).
It is interesting how they're against certain things as long as it helps them. The other thing being telling remainers to shut up despite the fact that an opposition is a healthy part of democratic nations and a necessary part of parliamentary debate.
It is interesting how they're against certain things as long as it helps them. The other thing being telling remainers to shut up despite the fact that an opposition is a healthy part of democratic nations and a necessary part of parliamentary debate.
That's literally where Tak3n lives.
Unfortunately that can't happen even if it hurts the young people's future.
The young people could campaign to cuts to elderly services, cut pensions or increase the retirement age and receive a state pension at 70 as a first step when the economy suffers.
If the young are going to suffer long term might as well share the pain and the elderly suffer on what time they have left.
Geminosity
Member
None of which were in your original post nor really implicit in your "Why should a group that will die in a few years get to fuck over the future of younger people?" line of reasoning I'm afraid. Not that I expected you to stand by that logic when I brought an example forward that showed how truly morally abhorrent it was.
I find it ironic that there's a general condemnation of racism in this thread yet the same kind of collectivism that lies at the root of it is allowed to slide when it comes in the guise of ageism.
I'm sure the older folk who voted remain appreciate you lumping them in with the leave voters and treating them like some kind of boogieman hivemind instead of the actual arbitrarily grouped bunch of individual they are.
I struggle to think of many groups that don't fall into that trap, the people saying people above a certain age or who belong to certain 'classes' or whatever shouldn't be allowed to vote being a good example.
I do agree that people shouldn't be told to 'shut up' about their policitcal views however: freedom of speech and all that are important to a healthy, working society.
anonymous_abc
Member
Sickening... Truly sickening.
I dunno man this sounds good. Are we allowed to have good news in this thread?
Since this is right-of-Labour, would this being successful signal the death of the Left as we know it? (Or maybe it's already happened and this just acknowledges it...)
anonymous_abc
Member
Geminosity
Member
Theonik
Member
Well they had a referendum for AV in 2011. Blame voters being stupid.
So I was in a black cab last night and the driver was quite chatty (shocking). He was as east-end as you like, proper old boy. As we drove down a high street with several Eastern European shops he brought up the Brexit. Here we go, I thought. But he starts ranting about the fact prior to the immigrants the shops here were mostly shuttered and the high street completely dead - and wondering where the Leave voters were all those years when the street was rotting.
Anyway, the complete 180 on my expectations made me laugh. Thought I'd share.
Anyway, the complete 180 on my expectations made me laugh. Thought I'd share.
The Alternative Vote is not a proportional voting system. To call it a half step would be massively generous. Just why Clegg bothered with it is anyone's guess.
Huw_Dawson
Member
It was the best he and Danny Alexander could get out of the Tories in the coalition agreement. Same as the allowance to abstain on tuition fee rises.
A lot of the coalition years stuff which hurt the LDs badly was down to the coalition agreement not giving enough ground to the LDs, who had the ability to walk away, even if that meant a second general election.
anonymous_abc
Member
AV was a waste of everyones time.
Huw_Dawson
Member
AV is part of STV, and is a better voting method in general. It isn't anywhere near as good as STV, but it was a step in the right direction.
The right used the AV referendum as a vote against the government - exactly the same core reason why people voted Brexit.
Yeah, it doesn't count Commonweath citizens who were allowed to vote either.
Theonik
Member
No, but pure proportional voting systems are Terrible AV and STV are good voting systems to adopt a more fair constituency based model which would be pretty good. STV is the better of the two but AV was a much better system than the mess that is FPTP.
electroshockwave
Member
I think enough people would realise that eventually they're going to be old too and anything too harsh on the elderly would affect them down the line. Increasing pension age especially is something that would harm them in the present as it keep older people working and free up less positions down the chain for young people. You can vote selfishly and still be forward thinking.
On the other hand pensioners can vote for a party that that increases tuition fees and cuts benefits for the young and families etc without being directly impacted.
Anecdotally speaking, this doesn't really affect their voting patterns.
My dad voted Leave full well knowing my industry (film/television/media) would without a doubt in some way be impeded by Brexit, both organisationally and financially.
He voted for Brexit fully knowing his own share options that act as part of his pension, from working in a bank (the industry likely hit hardest by Brexit), would absolutely tank and may not even recover in his lifetime.
That leaves me qualified in an industry hobbled and shrunk by Brexit, and potentially having to financially care for a parent who has made their own pension inadequate.
Fucking shameful post
GeordieMark
Member
See how you feel about this when you are in your 60s.
Holy shit. I can't believe how people of age (like your dad) have suddenly acted in such a selfish way. Yeah, he will have his pension and all, but what does that all matter if goods become more expensive to buy and jobs become more scarce? Jesus, such short-sightedness is just hard to process.
And did your dad tell what issue he cared so much about that he's willing to damage his son's career and his own retirement?
Visualante2
Member
Leadsom is not going to win the leadership with May's lead so I'm going to go ahead and say this is another feeble plot by the PLP to unseat Corbyn.
edit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDlT1OMGD28 for those who want more people voting against their own interest
edit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDlT1OMGD28 for those who want more people voting against their own interest
"Much better" is definitely overstating it. AV+ (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/alternative-vote-plus) has always been my favoured system - constituencies are retained (a much bigger issue for some people than it is for me) and yet the makeup of the commons would accurately represent how people voted.
May's lead is among Conservative MPs, I wouldn't count Leadsom out among the membership. These are the people who voted for Howard and IDS.
It's Tory members voting in the final round, not Tory MPs. The base don't always follow their MPs' lead (see: Labour).
If Leadsom wins and becomes our new PM, it'll be a disaster for our country. Yet most the population gets no say in the matter...
Visualante2
Member
Oh that changes everything.
Additional Member System, or Mixed-Member Proportional, is already used in Scotland, Wales and the Greater London Assembly. Just adopting that would seem smartest to me.
The contrast between the seats in the UK general election in 2015 and the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016, with relatively minor changes in the political landscape in between, shows that the Additional Member system is broadly a good one.
It isn't perfect, but it's a sensible move from FPTP.
AV+ might produce neater results, but the process is a mess, hence:
anonymous_abc
Member
AV would have meant no other meaningful changes for decades.... Now if it there will be significant change now remains to be seen...
GoldenEye 007
Member
Ah thank you for the clarification, then. Hopefully more is done to advertise it better in the future.
Don't want to fixate too much on the ageism part. But I am thinking that maybe there should be scaling of the voting results to fit the demographics. This would make it more representative of the population as a whole. I would adjust for age, income and region.
Coriolanus
Banned
scaling of the votes usually ends with smaller cities, which (generally) lean conservative, have lower income and are packed with older people, getting even more power, fwiw.
Hang on, so you could have the situation where the PM doesn't command the confidence of the House? That sounds so peculiar to me.
So what, people with a >£30K income would get 1.5 votes? People who live in Sunderland would have their votes count half as much as those in London?
i don't agree with this at-all everyones vote should be equal no matter what. its a fundamental right. What actually needs to happen is politics needs to engage more with the young. Its not the young fault that they are disenfranchised, it is a problem with modern day politics.
Id suggest we lower the voting age to 16, modernize the voting procedure (online voting) or atleast make vote days a national holiday so that people have the time to go vote. Basic education at school about politics works, how parliament works what each party of that time represents so that people can make an informed decision easier.
I think all these things would help engage the young vote.
PdotMichael
Banned
Lol, changing the voting system until you get the result you want is some high level bullshit.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
I think allowing people who can work full time and pay taxes to get a say in how their money is spent is a fine idea.
I don't agree. AV was seen as a stepping stone to PR, everyone including the Lib Dems were pushing at such.
If anyone voted against AV in the hope it would lead to PR they seriously played themselves.
No, but if twice as many high-income people voted over those with lower incomes, you would scale the votes up to match their demographic spread.
ie:
group a: 35 voted yes, 20 voted no, number of eligible voters 100
group b: 20 voted yes, 40 voted no, number of eligible voters 70
without scaling no wins 60-55.
With scaling:
35*100 + 20*70 = 4900 scaled yes
20*100 + 40*70 = 4800 scaled no
With scaling, yes wins 49-48
Theonik
Member
Well technically that's the whole point of having constituencies and is quite valuable. Ceredigion has an electorate of 57,556 voters for instance and has their own MP. Larger London constituencies can have anywhere between 80-90k voters in them and an even larger population. They too get their own MP. Hence a vote in Ceredigion is worth more than a vote in London with regards to its impact. Though FPTP wastes a ton of votes which makes actual value more dependant on swing rather than actual voting.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked