Ageing populations are skewing democratic options towards providing pensions and other welfare services for the old. As there are limits on what can be provided the young, with much less democratic voice, are being squeezed.
There has been a proposal that universal suffrage should be extended (yes, it's not universal but it has gone from men with a certain level of property, to men without, to men, and women above a certain age, to men and women over 21, to men and women over 18 and it's always called universal suffrage) to all citizens, regardless of age.
Those citizens under the age of 18 (or 16) would have their votes exercised by a parent or guardian acting on their behalf. This would correct the inappropriate democratic weighting in favour of the old; who, in all fairness, have had their whole lives to get ahead, and provide for their retirement anyway.
Otherwise, to correct this old age weighting, their could be suffrage death at, say, 70. But that seems rather hard and loses all the good sense that older and wiser heads can bring.
What is there against having votes really for all, and the young represented by their parents?
Parents already vote taking their children's interests into account most carefully, so why not give them the vote?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Because minority ethnics have large families ? Wouldn't this make them over-represented ?
In my view children ought not to vote - you need only look at the rubbish they eat and the stupid clothes they wear.
Hi, Hatfield Girl - heard a lot of good things about you and I hope I'm welcome here.
I'll just sit at the back of the class sucking my thumb and throwing in the odd question now and then, if you don't mind.
I hale from Bushey (Watford) 'tually - miss the place dreadfully. No difficulty finding a Chinese in Hatfield these days is there !
Hello, E-K, I tried to look at your reincarnation but either you're writing straight into binary or the link's not right. I'll try via someone elses's blog. It's a pleasure to see you.
The suggestion was that the children should have their votes given for them till they reach a responsible age (pause, mmmm, how many of us grown-ups have reached a resposible age). Ethnicity doesn't come into this, it's getting the weight of the old on the vote reduced a bit.
If you have a whole life to get organised for retirement I'm not 100% convinced about poor old pensioners; there's only so much the economically active can be expected to hand over, I'd like to have more of it handed over to the very young. You've got children - if you held a vote for each of them you and Mrs E-K would consider very carefully which party offered the best for their interests as well as yours; you do anyway, so why not count them.
It needn't be an issue of ethnicity, HG - Catholicism uses high birth rates hedgmonically so religion is at it too.
A similar question could be posited along the lines of Richard Dawkins' 'is it ever right to indoctrinate at a young age ?' and whenever has a teenager grown into the model of their parents ? most I know rebel to some degree or another. I suppose that in middle-age I AM becoming my parents, but doesn't this prove that such a policy would enforce a middle-aged agenda ? On second thoughts ... hey, I think it's a good idea ;-)
Democracy is getting old E-K; we need to have the very young really counted, through their parents and guardians.
The separate point, that people who've had three quarters of a lifetime to get organised shouldn't vote themselves so much when the very young can say nothing at all, is reinforced when you think of the young just starting out in life paying nearly half their wages in funding services and repaying 'debt' from their tertiary education. They're getting a terrible deal too.
Have a look round your next Ryanair flight, particlularly outside the holiday season; lots of 'pensioners' off for a 'break'.
If 50 is the new 30 then 65 is no more than 50 and they ought to be at work. We can't have people withdrawing from economic activity on the age criteria chosen more than half a century ago. There has to be a health and fitness dividend, just like there was a peace dividend at the end of the Cold War. Bevan thought the price of social and health services would fall as the benefits of a decent living standard and health care cut in. And he was probably right. There are people 'retiring' perfectly capable of supporting themselves for a few more years ; the young can't bear this burden any longer and they shouldn't be asked.
Another interesting question! How about abolition of all voting, as it encourages people to think they can have something for nothing?
Nothing comes of nothing, S, And I'm extremely conservative )small 'c') on recasting universal suffrage. It is our last defence in the face of Labour authoritarianism, and even in this I know my hopes are misplaced and will be confounded. At least let us keep our votes, albeit they have been rendered almost worthless.
I was, of course, joking; but I agree that one's vote feels wasted and devalued. I think the European project is profoundly anti-democratic. I think we are watching the reconstruction of a remote and arrogant aristocracy, made from the base materials of high-level business and financial managers, professional politicians and their media flappers. Perhaps Peter Hitchens is right to say that both the major British parties need to fall apart before we can get one that reconnects with the people.
Post a Comment