Ahh yes. Three-fifths of a person. That's always gone well.
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
15 points (77.8% liked)
Australian Politics
1851 readers
83 users here now
A place to discuss Australia Politics.
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia (general)
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
We do not have a US voting system . At all.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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)
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.
100% agree... except we need to ban rusties and racists from voting /s /ns
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
A maximum politician age would be a preferable first step if considering age caps.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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?
Thanks for the flashback to high school
Apparently some here need basic reading comprehension revisted ¯\(ツ)/¯
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.
How can you have a real democracy when the majority of voters only ever vote for 2 parties?
Fix the system as much as you want, but how do you fix the voters?
Well if you remove the parties and get people voting directly on issues instead, you’re one step closer to a real democracy.
Representative democracy is just a way for the lobbyists and rich to have all the power by buying a few people and spamming them with financial/media support to win and advance their agenda.
Direct democracy is a pretty flawed and exhausting way to do things. It's very rare that a person has strong knowledge and interest in more than one or two domains and so consultation is necessary. Every individual replicating that work is an idealistic fantasy.
You can look at how rapidly interest in repeat votes falls off in cases like the French revolution. Copying a model of recallable ground up councils seems more sensible to me.
Local people get together and send some number of speaking/voting representatives to the next tier of organising body and so on. Meetings are always open, but only these representatives have the right to speak so you can actually get stuff done. People who aren't happy with how the people they chose are doing can always recall them and choose again. You aim to have consensus as a process for approval with quorum establishment to break critical lock ups. Power can be devolved to higher councils but recalled by the lower ones, so ultimately the seat of power is the local level where people are much more engaged and social mechanisms help temper abuse of power.
It's undoubtably slower and less efficient, but stuff like the anarchist councils in the Spanish civil war shows it can work I think. It would require trial and revision.
edit: importantly though we can't say we live democratically if the majority of social arrangements necessary for live are dictatorial. Housing, work, and community life must be transformed. Voting on some law or trade treaty and then going to your completely disenfranchised job to pay rent for your disenfranchised housing is not democracy in any material sense.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Then half of the Aussie population (or more) wouldn't be able to vote! You are being super-elitist! 😆
I think we should just implement actual democracy.
Agree.
Why would you need a maximum voting age? If someone has the maturity and clarity to vote, they should vote.
I did say it'd be funny, not good.
RE max: just as human brains start life half formed and silly, they end life that way too. It is well established that we suffer cognitive decline after a lifetime of various insults to the brain and general aging. Nobody is ever as sharp as they were in the mid twenties. We try and make up for this with wisdom but we all go to the grave early or a shell of ourselves.
The cognitive arguments around a minimum extend to a maximum. Realistically you can't, but you can't have a well defined minimum either. I think it would be cool to let anyone interested vote, provided they can pass some general knowledge stuff first if they're say under 16 or 14 or something to demonstrate they're cognizent of what they're doing.
We're on the same page but not the same paragraph.
If we're gonna be ageist and generalise I'll add my 20c worth. In your mid-twenties you are neither more or less sharp than in your mid-sixties or even seventies. Much has to do with genetic, developmental, cultural and particularly lifestyle factors. A twenty-something person who has lived in physical, social, or cultural deprivation is unlikely to be as sharp as a sixty-something person who has lived in relative affluence which would be marked by healthy nutrition, reasonable educational opportunities, contacts, stability, etc.
General knowledge is also culturally loaded.
Anyway, I won't rave on. The gist is that generalising about personal attributes like age, gender, etc, is a bit silly and not useful. They cannot be used as sole indicators of anything. We grow and develop out of a complex of factors and we need to implement real democracy, as you say, and also work towards a much fairer and just society than we have now.
Age related cognitive decline is extremely well documented. There is no way around it, you can slow it sometimes but everyone shows decline, it's well established. Particularly between 60-80 decline starts becoming rapid.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41999-025-01377-8 for example is a longitudinal study of several hundred adults. They find:
Advancing age was associated with poorer performance across all cognitive domains. Processing speed and executive indices declined earliest, with significant decrements evident in the early 70 s. Neither linear regression nor ANCOVA using test year revealed any improvement in neuropsychological test performance; instead, significant deterioration across multiple domains was observed.
If you think people can be too young to think clearly because their brain is far enough from a healthy adult human's as to represent one unsuitable for decision making you necessarily must draw the same conclusions around aged brains. It's not bias, it's just decay. We all rot in the end
If you think people can be too young to think clearly because their brain is far enough from a healthy adult human’s as to represent one unsuitable for decision making you necessarily must draw the same conclusions around aged brains.
What I am saying is that all of us, no matter our age, are affected by multiple, complex factors and that we shouldn't be too quick to generalise. Our body does wear down but this doesn't have to affect decision-making. Some go to their deaths in their 90s with a very lucid mind, some start getting dementia symptoms in their 40s and some a lot earlier, including childhood. We are all affected by a society which tends to promote health-reducing habits and environments for reasons of profit and then there are genetic factors in the mix as well. There's quite a bit of research at present on healthy old age.
From the moment we are born, we are one day closer to our death but that doesn't mean we must accept how we fare according to general trends. Our intelligence changes, not only declines, and we can play a conscious role in this.
You cant use age as a discriminatior for cognition. There's plenty of older people who are more congniscent than people of a younger age.
Why would you need a maximum voting age?
didn't you read the article ? it's actually answered.
Someone aged 80 voting vs someone aged 18. The polices implemented by an 80 yr olds choice will effect the 18 yr old for many decades.
i think we should lower the voting age to the age of criminal responsibility, surely if someone is able to to be some criminal mastermind, they have the wherewith all to vote.
You've responded to me but I think you meant to respond to someone else.
I have not proposed a max voting and and yes, I did read the article and I thought it was so interesting that I posted it here.
No matter where people stand, it's great to see that they care about our democracy.
The only viable idea is lowering to 16.
Weighted votes sounds like a nice voting model idea but half the reason for democracy is thats how govs obtain legitmacy. Weighted votes are pretty illegitmate.
We cant fix the issue of young voters being ignored by changing the voting system unfortuntely
I also think that 16-year-olds could vote but it should not be obligatory until they turn 18.
I'm not so sure that weighted votes would be illegitimate (but I am not an expert). If young people's voice had more weight they could counter some of the awful decisions being made.
I meant illegitmate in the sense I cant see people ever accepting it. I suppose in principle people in the far future could, but not as we are now.
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.
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.
Whilst I'm in agreement that the elderly don't have to live with the decisions they make, I don't think this is the answer. After all, why not say babies have the highest weighting as they'll have to deal with the fallout for the longest.
So the simple answer...make the elderly work menial jobs nobody else wants until they drop dead. This solves their other complaint that too.many foreigners keep coming over and working in farms. Problem solved. Or develop a "Logan's Run" type system instead.
Hey, not all seniors think like bigots.
Babies and children can't vote for obvious reasons.
I dunno, makes as much sense as weighing different voters votes OP.
view more: next ›