Metropol

Not much different to many Scottish Nationalists who blamed old people for losing their referendum...

The 60+ generation of today are amongst those that kept us IN in 1975.

Square Eyes wrote:The 60+ generation of today are amongst those that kept us IN in 1975.

With one or two exceptions!

bilky asko wrote:

all new Phil wrote:Because I think the result will be skewed by the over-60 vote. It's pretty fair to say that younger people are more likely to vote to stay in, and older people are more likely to vote out. Older people are also more likely to vote.

In the nicest possible way - older people will face less and shorter repercussions from the result.

I didn't realise it was OK to be ageist. Your attitude disgusts me.

It's an interesting point though. Every single election is ageist because either under-16s or more often under-18s are not permitted to vote.

Somebody who could reasonably expect to die very soon has more say on the future of the country than somebody who might reasonably expect to live for 70 or 80 more years.

That's not to say I have a solution, just exploding one of the idiosyncrasies of democracy as we know it.

WillPS wrote:

bilky asko wrote:

all new Phil wrote:Because I think the result will be skewed by the over-60 vote. It's pretty fair to say that younger people are more likely to vote to stay in, and older people are more likely to vote out. Older people are also more likely to vote.

In the nicest possible way - older people will face less and shorter repercussions from the result.

I didn't realise it was OK to be ageist. Your attitude disgusts me.

It's an interesting point though. Every single election is ageist because either under-16s or more often under-18s are not permitted to vote.

Somebody who could reasonably expect to die very soon has more say on the future of the country than somebody who might reasonably expect to live for 70 or 80 more years.

That's not to say I have a solution, just exploding one of the idiosyncrasies of democracy as we know it.

People who are in someone's charge may be influenced to vote a certain way. The idea of a minimum voting age is a sound one, regardless of how it is executed. Until a person is an independent adult, their vote is liable to corruption.

The rest of this post is aimed at all new Phil and not in reply to WillPS

Denying over-60s is completely stupid. What about the terminally ill, for example? And what about the vast increase in centenarians - a sixty year old has a good chance of living another 40 years?

The age you've selected quite conveniently excludes almost every person who would have had a say the first time round. It is awfully sinister to exclude the people who have experienced the effects of their first vote from doing so this time.

Also, you presume that apathy of young voters should be disregarded, and those more willing to enter the democratic process should be excluded because it "skews" the vote. Those too apathetic to vote deserve whatever they get if they dislike the political situation.

bilky asko wrote:

WillPS wrote:

bilky asko wrote:
I didn't realise it was OK to be ageist. Your attitude disgusts me.

It's an interesting point though. Every single election is ageist because either under-16s or more often under-18s are not permitted to vote.

Somebody who could reasonably expect to die very soon has more say on the future of the country than somebody who might reasonably expect to live for 70 or 80 more years.

That's not to say I have a solution, just exploding one of the idiosyncrasies of democracy as we know it.

People who are in someone's charge may be influenced to vote a certain way. The idea of a minimum voting age is a sound one, regardless of how it is executed. Until a person is an independent adult, their vote is liable to corruption.

Denying over-60s is completely stupid. What about the terminally ill, for example? And what about the vast increase in centenarians - a sixty year old has a good chance of living another 40 years?

The age you've selected quite conveniently excludes almost every person who would have had a say the first time round. It is awfully sinister to exclude the people who have experienced the effects of their first vote from doing so this time.

Also, you presume that apathy of young voters should be disregarded, and those more willing to enter the democratic process should be excluded because it "skews" the vote. Those too apathetic to vote deserve whatever they get if they dislike the political situation.

I didn't choose an age either way, nor do I advocate denying over 60s the vote, nor do I advocate changing the voting age below 16. Like I said, I don't have a solution, just pointing out an edge case scenario.

I think whether a vote is influenced or corrupted is a completely different conversation.

I don't agree with letting 16 year olds vote. The problem is when you're younger you are generally more left wing. This is very true of students, particularly University students.

robschneider wrote:I don't agree with letting 16 year olds vote. The problem is when you're younger you are generally more left wing.

So just filter those views out because you don't agree with them? Nice.

robschneider wrote:This is very true of students, particularly University students.

Very, very, very few University students are under 18. Are you suggesting that the vote is removed from young adults in HE? Young people have been shat on from on high by every government there's been in my lifetime as it is!

robschneider wrote:I don't agree with letting 16 year olds vote. The problem is when you're younger you are generally more left wing. This is very true of students, particularly University students.

You should meet some of the bleeders I have to deal with in the Cotswolds. Entitled little sods.

WillPS wrote:

bilky asko wrote:

WillPS wrote: It's an interesting point though. Every single election is ageist because either under-16s or more often under-18s are not permitted to vote.

Somebody who could reasonably expect to die very soon has more say on the future of the country than somebody who might reasonably expect to live for 70 or 80 more years.

That's not to say I have a solution, just exploding one of the idiosyncrasies of democracy as we know it.

People who are in someone's charge may be influenced to vote a certain way. The idea of a minimum voting age is a sound one, regardless of how it is executed. Until a person is an independent adult, their vote is liable to corruption.

Denying over-60s is completely stupid. What about the terminally ill, for example? And what about the vast increase in centenarians - a sixty year old has a good chance of living another 40 years?

The age you've selected quite conveniently excludes almost every person who would have had a say the first time round. It is awfully sinister to exclude the people who have experienced the effects of their first vote from doing so this time.

Also, you presume that apathy of young voters should be disregarded, and those more willing to enter the democratic process should be excluded because it "skews" the vote. Those too apathetic to vote deserve whatever they get if they dislike the political situation.

I didn't choose an age either way, nor do I advocate denying over 60s the vote, nor do I advocate changing the voting age below 16. Like I said, I don't have a solution, just pointing out an edge case scenario.

I think whether a vote is influenced or corrupted is a completely different conversation.

I should have really made clear everything bar the first paragraph was directed towards all new Phil. I agree with you that the minimum age situation isn't perfect in its execution.

EDIT: Previous post edited to reflect this

robschneider wrote:I don't agree with letting 16 year olds vote. The problem is when you're younger you are generally more left wing. This is very true of students, particularly University students.

And as you get older, people's views are more likely to drift to the right.

Are you actually saying you only want people with right-leaning views to vote? :O