It would be interesting to have a group like the AEC run a large scale pilot alongside an election to see what the outcome looked like: how differently that clock of voters would act compared to the existing one.
Would large families inadvertently have more political influence than singles and would the vulnerable elderly lose more sway?
I can’t help but think of the West Wing episode (S6E17) about that, and the concerns there were more around children being manipulated to vote one way or another, but I think you’ve addressed that already.
“Would large families inadvertently have more political influence than singles”
That assumes that children would vote the same way as their parents. And a large family might only be able to marshall, say, 7 votes which is scarcely decisive.
“would the vulnerable elderly lose more sway?”
Runciman would say that the aging population means that the elderly have a disproportionate sway anyway. And while the elderly in developed countries used to be poor, generous pensions and rising asset prices mean that they are wealthy.
Sorry for my lack of clarity: would government start to make decisions in favour of large families to overcome their voting power (is it possible to maximise the independent voting of dependant children as part of the pilot, perhaps).
I also want to draw a distinction between the wealthy elderly and the vulnerable elderly: a generous pension for someone who lacks their own housing, for example, doesn’t make all elderly well off.
Many governments already have pro-natalist policies in place due to declining birth rates.
In any democracy, widening the franchise inevitably reduces the influence of existing electorate. However I would note that the % of the electorate who is over 65 in developed countries is increasing, not decreasing. The elderly are richer than they used to be and their increasing electoral power is part of that.
What about the vulnerable young? Don't they deserve a voice as well?
Runciman makes the point that these exact arguments were used against giving women the vote. And they were wrong. No political systems is without costs and risks. I would say: give it a go and see what happens.
It would be interesting to have a group like the AEC run a large scale pilot alongside an election to see what the outcome looked like: how differently that clock of voters would act compared to the existing one.
Would large families inadvertently have more political influence than singles and would the vulnerable elderly lose more sway?
I can’t help but think of the West Wing episode (S6E17) about that, and the concerns there were more around children being manipulated to vote one way or another, but I think you’ve addressed that already.
“Would large families inadvertently have more political influence than singles”
That assumes that children would vote the same way as their parents. And a large family might only be able to marshall, say, 7 votes which is scarcely decisive.
“would the vulnerable elderly lose more sway?”
Runciman would say that the aging population means that the elderly have a disproportionate sway anyway. And while the elderly in developed countries used to be poor, generous pensions and rising asset prices mean that they are wealthy.
Sorry for my lack of clarity: would government start to make decisions in favour of large families to overcome their voting power (is it possible to maximise the independent voting of dependant children as part of the pilot, perhaps).
I also want to draw a distinction between the wealthy elderly and the vulnerable elderly: a generous pension for someone who lacks their own housing, for example, doesn’t make all elderly well off.
Many governments already have pro-natalist policies in place due to declining birth rates.
In any democracy, widening the franchise inevitably reduces the influence of existing electorate. However I would note that the % of the electorate who is over 65 in developed countries is increasing, not decreasing. The elderly are richer than they used to be and their increasing electoral power is part of that.
What about the vulnerable young? Don't they deserve a voice as well?
I’m worried that the vulnerable young will have their voices co-opted by other parties.
Runciman makes the point that these exact arguments were used against giving women the vote. And they were wrong. No political systems is without costs and risks. I would say: give it a go and see what happens.