Age-Weighted Voting Proposition

Joel Inglis Follow Me

Posted this 2015-06-24 2:06 PM ADT (updated 2015-06-24 2:09 PM ADT)

Young people don't vote as often as old people. This is a very basic truth. It's supported by facts and stats.

“Official turnout for the ...general election (in) 2011 was 61.1% ...Turnout steadily increased with age from 38.8% for ages 18–24 to 75.1% for ages 65–74 and then declined to 60.3% for those 75 and older.”

This pisses me off. Young people don't vote and our government is being pushed into policies that don't benefit a significant proportion of our population.

Here is a chart that gives a little bit of a breakdown of our population that ISN'T as dominated by the elderly as we are lead to believe.

There are approximately eight million Canadians under the age of forty and, simply put, they have more to lose. They have more years left in their lives and the policies and legislation that is put into place by the government today will effect somebody in their twenties for another fifty years whereas it will only effect somebody in their fifties for another twenty years. We simply have more to lose with a reckless government when we're young.

With that in mind, I am proposing that we create a new democratic system that involves rest-of-life expectancy weighted voting. Basically, I think it would be an interesting experiment to have votes weighted by the expected number of years that you have left to live. The current life expectancy in Canada is 81. So, as a 27 year old man I would have 54 votes (81 – 27 = 54). All of a sudden, our 38% voter turnout means a hell of a lot more.

Of course I know the flaws built into this system. I know this won't work and very few people would every support something like this. But it does certainly help frame the issue of low youth voter turnout and what we, as young people, have to lose if we don't engage in the current electoral practice and the current democratic system.

Posted by Joel Inglis
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW

Like 3 Dislike 0

FOLLOW 7

856 16

I am proposing that we create a new democratic system that involves rest-of-life expectancy weighted voting.

Gov Election Issues

16

Depth
Richard Lorway Follow Me 2015-06-24 2:46 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Interesting idea. Bound to be controversial (which may be the point). As an official Olde Fart, let me argue the opposite weighting based upon a simple concept: "Those who pay the piper call the tune." Meaning, older people have paid more of their hard-earned money into the system and should have proportionally more say in how the system allocates it. So for every year that you have filed a tax return you get one vote. If you've paid taxes for 40 years, you get 40 votes, 10 years 10 votes. Etc. Mind you, I am not advocating this. I think it's also deeply flawed. I am merely pointing out that there are arguments on both sides. The fairest system (I believe) is one person one vote. FYI I'm not drinking any kool-aid here. Our electoral system isn't perfect, but I think it beats the alternative. So I hope everyone gets out and votes. Rory Andrews Follow Me 2015-06-24 3:16 PM ADT Reply 0 0 It could also be who has paid the most in taxes gets the most votes.... Wait a minute. I have found several glaring flaws in my plan. Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-06-25 11:16 AM ADT Reply 0 0 That's how it works post-election. :) Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2015-06-24 8:23 PM ADT Reply 1 0 NEW FORMULA: Attractiveness - 5 votes Height - 3 votes Free-Throw Percentage - 6 votes Ethnicity - 7 votes (2 vote bonus for Greeks) Shoe Size - 2 votes Occupation - 6 votes Cat Quantity - 3 votes Pet Snakes - Lose 2 votes etc.
James MacKinnon Follow Me 2015-06-25 9:58 AM ADT Reply 1 0 I believe part of the problem is that youth not only face a different set of issues for politicians to address, but that life is typically more 'in flux' at a younger age, so the spectrum of possible issues can be much wider. Lazy politics focuses on a narrow set of topics and still appeals to a majority of older voters. Combine this with the first-past-the-post (FPTP) for elections, and you have a recipe for youth apathy. I'd like to see this addressed in 3 progressive steps, to help restore a more active voting population. You begin by planting a seed, in this case, the civic education of youth. Expanding current social studies curriculum to help young Canadians realize the importance of actively maintaining the democracy. At an age where many life choices are still not entirely their own, making youth aware of their potential influence in the system gives them power. The realization of this power is the key to engagement, as it's a reason to fight (vote) to help preserve their own value in society. Next, show that democracy is for the inclusion of all, consider looking at the minimum voting age. We allow teens to control large, fast moving steel containers on public roads with the potential for injury or death, but not the right to formally have their issues heard at the political level. Many will moan about 'kids being stupid', easily suckered into endorsing the 'popular' or 'cool' candidate. My pessimistic response is that the majority of adults do this already, at least youth are more prone to adapt their world view. Finally, as I alluded to earlier, first past the post has to go. I'd be in favour of a runoff voting system, where the ballots act as a ranked preference for the order in which you'd like candidates to be elected. Return power to the masses and away from the vocal minority lobby/supporters. A perfect plan? No. But of course "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time". Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-06-25 11:14 AM ADT Reply 2 0 Great idea James. Would be cool to see a digital vote every year, for every level from P-12. CBRM council members provide a annual mock election: > They are asked 1 question and are given 2 minutes to answer on video. > Videos are displayed in a mock election platform. > Teachers at all levels dedicate one full day of discussion, age appropriate topics and play the videos. > All children get to login and submit a vote. > Following day, teacher follows up telling them the results with a 30 minute to 60 minute discussion. If this is done every year from P-12, we'll be creating young voters who are told the process is about picking a candidate with the best understanding of issues and best solutions offered.
Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-06-25 11:09 AM ADT Reply 0 0 Great thought experiment, Joel! Actually - with that sort of system, biased only upon age, I would go with the middle of the bell curve having the greatest voting power with youngest and oldest extremes having reduced voting weight. Reason: Young voters are too inexperienced/volatile and much older voters may be too fixed and risk averse. Those closer to the middle have an intermediary viewpoint. Other alternatives: 1. Voting power inversely proportionate to years of education. Start with 10 votes. Subtract 1 for high school, 1 for each year of post secondary education. Minus 2 for masters. Minus 3 for Phd. Min. 1 vote each. Why? Let those more disadvantaged amongst us have disproportionate influence (greater). 2. Voting eliminated for households with more than a combined $200k per year income. Why? Same principle as above, using income instead of education as the correlation/correction to advantage. 3. Issues voting. Instead of candidate names, voters are given a series of position statements on key areas, randomly displayed, and asked to indicate their agreement from 1-10. Candidate with the highest overall combined score for all platform statement agreements wins. Why? Obamacare case study. Major disapproval of Obamacare; yet strong agreement with many of the individual components when polled separately. And: partisanship sucks. 4. Candidate votes dampened by total amount of audited funds spent on campaign. Why? Candidate A spends $100k. Candidate B spends $50k. Candidate A's final vote total reduced by 50% to account for their disproportionate marketing expenditure. 5. Vote by tax rate increase. Each voter indicates which candidate they prefer only, but votes with the percentage additional income tax they are willing to pay to elect the candidate. Outcome: The candidate with the highest average willing income tax increase is elected, and the tax increase is imposed upon all. Mod: Impose tax jump only on non-voters. Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-06-25 11:09 AM ADT Reply 0 0 That was fun. :P
Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-06-25 4:38 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Considering elections are more of popularity contest than a capabilities review, perhaps we should structure elections in the same way you might get your shot on America's Got Talent? Text 9999 and get billed $0.99 cents a vote! Or we could set up some qualifications that must take place before they are permitted to run, think job interview: 1) Random Drug Testing - I so miss Rob Ford! 2) Criminal Background Check - This could help weed out some repeat political offenders. 3) Psych Evaluation - Read up on successful psychopaths! 4) Work Experience - If it states they've served on x number of boards, held executive positions in financial institutions, energy or a union and have never had a real job, we have a few red flags, 5) Education - It's ok to have your PHd, but you have to be smart too. 6) References - Each reference must post a $100,000 bond just in case we all get duped. We can ask the Senate to review the credentials and each candidate that obtains a majority vote can run. Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-06-25 4:48 PM ADT Reply 0 0 One of the interesting aspects with public opinion polls is that even if many of the folks who are asked the questions (phone polls, etc) don't show up to vote, they may have already influenced policy. Some good poll data comes in and political spin doctors on all sides of the table can use that advantageously. Check out this neat mini-infographic from Vox. It shows GOP candidate positions on whether the Confederate flag should be taken down in South Carolina (post Dylan Roof racially motivated domestic terrorism): http://www.vox.com/2015/6/24/8839223/republicans-confederate-flag Public response to an event like that suddenly is very compelling to political candidates. Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-06-25 5:07 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Ironic that they make it about a flag versus the fact that people died at the hands of an obviously mentally disturbed individual with a GUN! Yes racially motivated, but the flag isn't the issue. IMHO. Polls are as much about opinion as they are about managing our pack mentality. 80% of people say this therefore I should probably feel the same way. I also agree with the statement regarding spin doctors, I would hope more people would see through it. Lies, damn lies and statistics - that statement has been credited to a number of historical figures. Rory Andrews Follow Me 2015-06-25 5:12 PM ADT Reply 1 0 It's true that it's not JUST about the flag, but the tragedy highlighted the underground and violent racism that still exists in the South. That made the public take a look at the flag and think "Well yeah, that is pretty messed up." I lived in Georgia for 20 years, and they got rid of the Stars and Bars 10 years ago, because even if it's part of Georgia's history, it's an aspect that shouldn't be celebrated to the extent that it winds up on the flag. Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-06-25 5:51 PM ADT Reply 0 0 I spent some time travelling through the Carolina's and I will say I had the privilege to meet some of the nicest people, Black, White and Mexican.....I loved it! Sorry but I wasn't exposed to the racism portrayed in movies of the South. Sorry to say I didn't make it to Georgia! Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-06-25 7:24 PM ADT Reply 0 0 I lived in Florida from 2009 to 2014. You don't have to be there very long before you see indications of racism. There were some interesting experiments done using both Google and Twitter search data, based on racial terms used in these respective platforms. The results are fairly closely aligned with what one might expect. A community sets a tone. Just because shooters are not that common, doesn't mean the ideology that influenced his decision didn't come from those around him. Thought I only skimmed through the articles, there is some discussion of how one of the racist organizations that may have inspired his manifesto made donations to several GOP political candidates. This was a disturbed individual who took an action that was influenced by his racism, which was in turn transferred to him by others, including those in his community to the extent that he was exposed to it. Pervasive undertones count too. Joel Inglis My Post Follow Me 2015-06-25 5:15 PM ADT Reply 1 0 It takes a village to raise a racist hate-mongering mass murderer. When that village flies the same flag that inspired soldiers to fight tooth and nail for the right to own slaves, it's not a huge surprise when somebody acts on hundreds of years of repressed bigotry in such an atrocious manner. Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-06-25 5:46 PM ADT Reply 0 0 In this instance I disagree that it was the community that raised a racist hate-mongering mass murder. Call me naive, but this is not how the majority of white people in the south feel. There are always those who hate for hates sake and there will always be a psycho who acts on their perverse obsessions. Thankfully they are an extreme minority. This was one person not a community!