We don't have to dismiss democracy to think the outcome of any democratic vote was a bad one. Sometimes the majority is wrong. This doesn't invalidate the system. It just means we need, as ever, to work on being less wrong as a society.https://twitter.com/WinterfellT/status/938434870451118080 …
-
-
It could indicate a disrespect for the judgement of a large proportion of your fellow citizens tho.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The disrespect should be for the "leaders" who allowed what is for all intents and purposes a *permanent change in the status quo to be determined by 50%+1. Such questions customarily require some level of supermajority. Cyclical elections, completely different.
-
Likely a radical idea to some, but I'd even argue that for something like Brexit, 16 yr olds can vote, and maybe no one over, say, 70. Younger people face a half to 3/4 of a century living with this vote. Not so the elderly. Perhaps weighting based on age. Radical, but ...
-
Yes, that doesn't always indicate that they know what is best for their future though. In this case, I think it's clear it would have worked out better but I wouldn't want to make it a norm that long-term plans are weighted towards to the opinions of teenagers.
-
In general I think your concerns are valid. :) Maybe weight for 20-35, 36-54, and 55 & above. Let's leave the teenagers to play with their phones. :)
-
I'd feel different about weighting depending on the demographic pyramid, too, perhaps. In Japan, most things are decided by people over 55. Of course, most long term decisions are *usually handled by lawmakers. The Brexit vote was kind of unusual.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.