The case for a blatantly discriminatory Australian voting system (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by arbilp3@aussie.zone to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

My preferred method is to weight votes according to age: voters below, say, 30 would receive a more heavily weighted vote, voters 30 to 60 would get a less weighted vote, and those over 60 would retain their current single vote. For argument’s sake, you could multiply the vote of under-30s by 1.3 and that of 30- to 60-year-olds by 1.1. People’s ballot papers could be distinguished by colour – under-30s get blue, 30s to 60s green and oldies red – to make counting easier on election night.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago

My preferred method of electoral discrimination is a neutral, consensus-driven basic competency test, with answers pre-published in an AEC pamphlet. If one can't review a basic factsheet ahead of time and answer basic facts about the election, their vote surely isn't adequately informed.

As for this article, age seems like an arbitrary factor to standardise. Why not the same with other relevant demographics? Out of all the problems our political system has, this surely isn't the way to solve them.

[-] arbilp3@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago

I reckon the point the article makes has some merit. Plus, whether you agree with it a little, a lot, or not at all, it's prodded us into discussing and thinking and learning from each other. I am so glad that people care about democracy. We need to keep the conversation alive.

[-] shirro@aussie.zone 8 points 2 days ago

One person one vote isn't perfect but any attempt to tweak it gives power to some group to disadvantage another. We fought for this for too long. Universal suffrage is a corner stone of Australian democracy. Start carving out the aged and next will be indigenous, women, people who don't own property and before you know it we are tipping our hats to the aristocracy. Fuck that. People need to engage their brains and read some books and stop jumping on board every distracting opportunity to kick our fellow Australians in the teeth to distract us from the real problems.

[-] Lumisal@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah because that negative stuff you mentioned in your slippery slope fallacy hasn't already been happening under the current system 🙄

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago

Cite your sources

[-] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago

Ahh yes. Three-fifths of a person. That's always gone well.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago

Hell, there's a sitting US Senator who's brain dead and being propped up every few weeks for a photo op.

It couldn't be much sillier than what we have now.

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

We do not have a US voting system . At all.

[-] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago

we do that in the Senate now

[-] MisterFrog@aussie.zone 4 points 2 days ago

No we don't. We do proportional representation (per state).

In each of the electorates, votes are weighted equally.

It's only because of proportion of representatives per person in different states that someone's vote is technically different.

[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 11 points 3 days ago

The problem with weighting votes is that one that’s allowed, if another group comes into power, they can change the weights to suit them by deciding that the currently favoured voters have it alright whereas another group are doing it hard.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago

It is interesting that there is no maximum voting age. It is difficult to construct an argument for a minimum that doesn't become one for a maximum.

I think we should just implement actual democracy, instead of this bourgeois half-measure. But if we are sticking with elitism a general knowledge test of recent events/political system knowledge/literacy would be a very funny way to weight votes.

[-] eremophila@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days ago

A maximum politician age would be a preferable first step if considering age caps.

[-] shirro@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago

Australia has preferential compulsory voting. If people here wanted to vote for a geriatric local representative then so be it. Better for the people to make that decision and to be able to take it back than to live under the boot of an autocracy.

Since we elect local and state representatives and not a tyrant any old person has to exhibit some level of political ability to navigate party politics to the front bench.

We cop a lot of distorted shit from US politics here. To the point we have lost MAGAs wandering around. The average age of their reps is 57 and their senate is 65. Their tyrant is an 80 year old with obvious dementia. Our PM is 63 and the average is 52 here. I want to see more 30 year olds in parliament and I think the average age needs to be closer to 40. I think we do this by getting young people away from their phones and into community orgs and public service not by age restrictions. How are we going to level up our young people to take on public service? It is a struggle to fill the positions on local sporting clubs and community groups. Scrolling on your phone is not participation.

[-] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

I would vehemently endorse such a bill. Under the guise of 'All Australians retire at x'. I'd propose that number to be ~70 years old.

Interestingly, our politics aren't too bad at this. Only 4/226 members in parliament and senate are over this age (they're all blokes of course). Contrast to the USA where this is a far bigger issue - over a third of their senators are over 70 and a fifth of their house members (not sure what the term for those is) are over 70.

[-] tankiesmasher@aussie.zone 4 points 3 days ago

Children are represented by their parents who advocate for them.

Old people need to advocate for themselves.

A poll test is anti-democratic as hell, and a step towards authoritarianism.

[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

But if we are sticking with elitism

...

would be a very funny way

considering the emphasised text extracted from the above passage what do you think the author's stance on the article is?

Why do you think she used those terms? Are they at odds with her opinion or reenforcing it?

Consider the way the author has described the current system as a "bourgeois half-measure" contrasted with "actual democracy" what do you think the author imagines instead? Where else has similar language been used in relation to critiques of European representative democracy?

[-] tankiesmasher@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Probably some slopulist led revolution to institute communism, followed by a million or so deaths, societal collapse, and a century of no true Scotsman fallacies defending it. I don't listen to commie critiques because they are all illiterate and ahistoric hacks, and I don't take anything they say as quaint or humorous because they are amoral campists who hide behind masks.

[-] Pappabosley@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Thanks for the flashback to high school

[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Apparently some here need basic reading comprehension revisted ¯\(ツ)/¯

load more comments (19 replies)

[-] eremophila@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

Young people are too busy buying mcdonalds on ubereats while looking for kardashian merch on amazon.

You lot are as bad as the baby boomers, you would use ai to count the votes.

[-] shads@leminal.space 3 points 3 days ago

I have a few people round me that are in the 60-83 age range. I gotta tell you aging is a heart breaking bitch.

My Nan can't remember what she ate for breakfast, she keeps breaking her TV and then demanding that we buy her a new one to replace it.

So we set it up for her and within a couple of hours she is confused, scared and upset. Demands we take it away and that we get her old TV fixed.

The local repair guys have said they can no longer buy parts for the 720P No name LCD that she actually knows how to use. So next time it breaks we are in for a world of pain.

She is more irrational, scared and confused than at any point in her life before now. Also more opinionated and convinced that she is right (in between the meltdowns when she realises what she has lost).

Her vote counts for everybit as much as mine does. Until we get her gerontologist to complete an AEC exemption application and send it in at least.

[-] eremophila@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago

That sounds like your nan might have dementia, because of that you believe everyone over the age of 60 has dementia.

Based on that 'logic' it is okay for me to believe that everyone under 30 is an undereducated, self-absorbed, ai using crypto bro, with the attention span of a pineapple.

We could apply similar 'logic' to every generation.

[-] shads@leminal.space 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Oh she has dementia alright, early stages, hence the reference to the Gerontologist. Specifically a doctor who manages conditions with a high association with age. I am not saying that everyone in a certain age bracket has it, just using an example. But let me be clear, someone retaining full capacity of their mental faculties into their twilight years is simply not common enough to be statistically worth talking about. I have worked in industries that intersect with the elderly and know that special provisions have to be made. I also agree that young people are not doing an amazing job of demonstrating competency. But pretending the accumulated wisdom of 70+ years somehow offsets the decline in neuroplasticity is disingenuous at best. I would suggest talking to some people in aged care and asking them how often their clients/patients are the model of rationality and reason.

[-] arbilp3@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

I am really concerned that society being what it is now, with so many life-related systems compromised by inequitable access to wealth, oligarchical and other types of undemocratic rule, unhealthy food, mind-controlling and body-affecting technology, pollution, etc, etc., we may be in for ever-growing levels of cognitive decline at earlier ages accompanied by growing levels of neurodivergent conditions in children as well as mental health problems in general. We really need to concentrate on the causes of growing unhealth and stick together, not let the system make us more defensive and isolated. Know the real enemy.

[-] shads@leminal.space 1 points 2 days ago

We are also in a period where we can acknowledge that people exist on a spectrum and people change. My youngest son has ADHD, we got him treatment, support and flexible learning arrangements that mean 99.9% of the time he can be a "regular" kid with a "regular" life. When I was his age it was just drug them, pack them into the special class and forget about them. As much as I agree with your sentiment we do live in slightly enlightened times.

We assume elderly people are going to struggle with people taking advantage of them in so many other aspects of life, why do we let the media and politicians get away with it?

To be clear, I am not advocating for stripping anyone's rights, or giving them a lessened voting weight. I don't actually have a solution. I just think it's the sort of thing a mature democracy would be able to discuss in good faith. Instead we get to be told about how much privacy and personal sovereignty we want to sacrifice in the name of "won't somebody think of the children".

[-] arbilp3@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Yes, you are right. There certainly is a deeper and growing understanding of neurodivergence and I am happy for you that your boy is being treated as he should be. I've often wondered if I have some neurodivergence myself.

And I also agree with your other ppints.

load more comments (11 replies)

load more comments