Should every vote be equal?

In a vote which has long term effects should the vote of somebody aged 99 with Alzheimer's and on deaths door with no chance of living through any of the fallout have as much value as the vote f an 18 year old who will have to live with the effects for 60, 70 or 80 years?

Further to that is it right that the earlier described OAP on deaths door with Alzheimer's and no real understanding of what is happening is allowed to vote but a 17 year old who is studying politics at college isn't allowed a say?

By the way they are questions formed after reading the opinion yesterday of somebody who is 17 and studying politics

 

Its Called DEMOCRACY -One man one vote. Its not perfect but its the best we can manage. Or would you rather we go back 150 years and only aristocrats and the rich have a vote. I thought you were a socialist. Or is democracy OK as long as everyone votes the way YOU want?? Just asking.

 

Yes

 

I'd bet there were more 18-25 year olds that didn't bother to vote, than 99 year olds with Alzheimer's who did.

 

There's just no way to apply that fairly. One person, one vote. I'd got with no to 16 and 17 year olds though, I know some will have political knowledge but most will not. I know that is true for voters over 18 but there has to be a cut off and I think the age of being an adult should be it. (Although I actually think the age of being an adult should be lowered - or the school leaving age increased. I'd prefer the former but it makes no sense that 16 year olds can marry with permission, move out, get a job, have sex, learn to drive at 17 etc. but not be an adult).

 

yes. You're getting into the territory of only allowing people to vote that think a certain way or who share a certain set of values.

 

I'm not a socialist. I don't really align myself with any party or political viewpoint or ideology. I'm just me.

Also my question was essentially based entirely on what I read somebody saying yesterday and I wasn't really sure how I felt about it. On the one hand of course an older person should get just as much f an equal vote. On the other hand it's hard to deny that he has a point.

My personal opinion on the matter is that no democracy is truly fair or right. Every system I've read about has massive flaws

 

This is along the lines of the discussion that I had with my wife this morning. Before I start, I should perhaps declare that we both voted to REMAIN.

It seems like voting has been split in a number of ways. Scotland and Ireland voted REMAIN. England and Wales voted to LEAVE, but within England London voted overwhelmingly to REMAIN whilst the north voted overwhelmingly to LEAVE. Within these figures the better educated voted to REMAIN, the young voted to REMAIN and the old to LEAVE. Most politicians voted to REMAIN. In fact, given that the PM has done the honourable thing and has decided to resign, there does not seem to be anyone left with the merit to negotiate a decent deal for our exit.

I am 65 years of age. With the best will in the world, I do not have a great deal of time left as compared to a 20 year old say. And yet, it is probably my generation and older who have decided the conditions that the 20 year old will have to endure for the rest of his long life. It does not seem right somehow.

 

Of course these points were never raised before the remain side lost. It's been as straight a democratic vote as you can get.

 

We could have questioned that with the people that voted us in, look what I've endured.

 

That is true, but before the vote, no-one knew how fundamentally divided the country would be.

We have all voted without any knowledge of the terms for exit. We do not know whether the EU conditions for maintaining a tariff free import/export regime will be exactly the same as the term of membership that the British electorate has just rejected. The electorate has voted to step off a cliff edge without any knowledge of the consequences, for good or for bad. Speaking personally, I think that voting for something without having knowledge of its possible consequences is no more than a protest vote. It is no way to decide the future of our children and grandchildren.

 

It’s not called democracy - democracy is about informed choice. To be able to vote democratically you need to be provided with reliable information on which to base your choice. Otherwise it’s just a lottery. One of the many worrying things about this referendum has been the misinformation on all sides (but mostly the leave champagne) and this does not bode well for future elections. It builds mistrust in the political class and the press and it stops "we the people" for being able to meaningfully cast our votes.
It’s a strange thing about the internet, you would think it would be more easy to access facts now than ever before. The reality is we are swamped in untruths, and it’s very damaging for democracy.

 

Depends how much you want to get 'facts' - on something as monumental as this if you're happy to take what's presented by the newspapers and the competing sides from the TV news then surely it's the individual as much as the system at fault ? Redstar made a point earlier about people being educated 'just enough' - it's a big problem especially in those traditional Labour heartlands, and didn't improve much between 1997 and 2010. Perhaps that is unofficial policy ? Provide a compliant workforce ?

We're getting close on here to wanting people we don't deem worthy to be barred from having input.

 

But that's the same for any election - we never know what we're going to get afterwards, given politicians' propensity to lie.

As I've said elsewhere, in 1975 when I voted In I thought I was voting to join a European Free Trade bloc - no more, no less. Look where that led us, and consider what the result might have been way back then had we known what the future was to bring. We didn't, and so we voted for what we thought best at the time.

And now we've decided to leave. And the truth is that we simply don't know what the future will bring. This may be the worst mistake this country has ever made, or it could equally be the best decision we've ever made. And do you know what? NOBODY can honestly say which it's going to be.

 

It's clear from the data that older people have voted for a future that many of them might not see much of (at least as a worker) and that their children don't want. I'm surprised that there hasn't been more comment on that throughout the campaign.

Then again, young people are probably so used by now to being screwed over by their parents' generation that it probably won't even register!

 

Why not 16....or 15...or 14...till you get the right answer.

 

Sort of agree but it has been so for many years. Until manifestos become legally binding between incoming Govt and voters then its, as you say, a lottery as to what you have voted for.

For example... " There will be no top down reorganisation of the NHS" First thing they do once in office... "Top down reorganisation of the NHS"

Like ordering an Audi paying for it and when you go to collect it it has become a Trabant ''"because the economic circumstances have changed and unforeseen circiumstances means this is all we have"

How about "democracy tempered by assassination is the best form of Government "

 

this!!!!!!

 

I was not asking for people to be stopped from being allowed to vote.
But I think we should all agree that better clearer information from all sides would improve the democratic process. Which was less than ideal from all sides this time.