But they aren't being over riddenthey aren't voting!
Tories lost the 2019 election among working age adults
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
But they aren't being over riddenthey aren't voting!
Splitting populations into demographics is useful for many aspects of life. People have different outlooks, experiences, needs, wants that are often more aligned with others like themselves than those unalike. Splitting them out gives a more detailed picture.
It's clearly not meaningless, as the split of the vote for retirees vs everyone else is massively different. A huge disparity.
You may wish to shrug it off because the old people got your choice over the line, but that doesn't make the difference in votes between the groups any less worthy of note.
"working people's votes are being overridden"
"but they aren't voting"
You make no sense.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-turnout/
But your splitting them into categories but then not making sure your categories are actually representative
You claim older people win more election therefore they are overriding the working age group.
But the issue is actually that working age people don't really bother to vote.
Because of the way you have decided to split it by age but the not account account turn out you're comparing a group with 80% turnout to a group with 40% turn out.
But in reality that 60% that didn't turn out has to be taken as happy with whoever in which case you've got 60% of the young voter actually votibg thw way the old people are and suddenly there is no disparity any more
How are peoples votes being overriden? Its equal vote for every person of voting age. Everyone gets a fair vote.
What do you propose?
With only a small number of exceptions, every adult in the UK gets a single vote at each general election.
How (or if) they use that vote is up to them.
How do you propose to rig the system to get the outcome you think 'should' happen?
Wprking age votes are not being over ridden, they aren't voting. So they are choosing the position "I do not care what the outcome is, you guys decide I'm happy with whatever"
They just aren't voting.
You're complaining that young people aren't winning elections because of old people but when less than half vote then it doesn't matter as the majority agree with the winner by default of not voting
Yes, that's what happens.
The question isn't "is the voting system wrong?", the question is "is it potentially bad that old people are giving the working age population a government they voted against?"
You can, like many others, cop-out of the discussion and say "that's democracy", but it's ignoring the issue.
It's like if someone's ordering take away they ask the group, "pizza or Chinese"
Of 10 people 5 are retired 5 are working age.
3 of the retired people say pizza
1 says Chinese
1 doesn't mind
Of the 5 working age
2 say Chinese
0 says pizza
3 say they don't mind
So 4 votes for pizza
2 for Chinese
4 for anything
Pizza gets 8 effective votes
Chinese 2.
But your saying but because one group is older that it's unfair their being listened to instead of the working age people because no one in the young group wanted pizza but it wins.
Your argument is basically ageism that you've hidden behind fiddling stats
Of 10 people 5 are retired 5 are working age.
3 of the retired people say pizza
1 says Chinese
1 doesn't mind
Of the 5 working age
2 say Chinese
0 says pizza
3 say they don't mind
So 4 votes for pizza
2 for Chinese
4 for anything
Pizza gets 8 effective votes
Chinese 2.
But your saying but because one group is older that it's unfair their being listened to instead of the working age people because no one in the young group wanted pizza but it wins.
Your argument is basically ageism that you've hidden behind fiddling stats
But the working age group didn't vote against they didn't express a preference either way as they didn't vote!
I'm not asking to change the system. I'm discussing if there's a problem with old people's votes being so different, and having a government with no mandate from the workforce.
They voted for Labour, with their actual votes.
I have no idea what you're trying to get at.
"I'm not ageist but..."
Learn about voter turnout.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.co...ur-at-the-2019-general-election/#.YLt_ZrfTVPw
I don't see the relevance in this discussion
You rarely see the relevance in anything that doesn't fit your agenda, that doesn't change it
You're focusing on the voting choice of people who actually voted by age group.
Votes are counted on absolute numbers, so turnout matters.
If you have two groups of 10,000 voters, and their headline voting rates (split for simplicity) are as follows.
Group A.
Labour 90%
Tory 10%
Group B.
Tory 90%
Labour 10%
If turnout is identical in both groups, the election will be a dead heat.
If, however, group A has a 50% turnout, and group B has 100% turnout, the overall results look very different.
Group A
Labour 4,500
Conservative 500
Group B
Tory 9,000
Labour 1,000
So now, the Tories win by 5,000 votes, or near enough 60% to 40%
This is the key issue, young working people who actually vote do tend to support labour, at least at the last election, but barely 40% of them actually vote. This contrasts with voting rates nudging 90% in the elderly.
Working people, if they all votes, could outvote the retired, but they don't. The system, in that respect, isn't failing, it's working as intended.
As I've said, repeatedly, I'm questioning whether its potentially bad that older people's votes are reversing younger (but not just 'young': all working ages) people's.
The system that gives the result isn't relevant to that.
The machinations of the voting system is just getting brought up as a distraction by posters who are happy with the result.
The system is highly relevant if it is the cause of the problem, because that would mean that it couldn't be changed, that it is a systemic error.
In this case though, the cause isn't systemic, it's due to the choices of the actors within the system, and they could choose to change it if they wanted to.
So with that in mind, no, I don't think it is a problem, because the actors within the system could change the outcome if they were unhappy with the outputs by changing their own behaviour.
I will add though, that I still support the idea that we need more significant protection from tyranny of the majority than we currently have in some areas, especially economic ones, but that's less voting system and more constitutional change.
No it’s not. You just have a different yet no more credible POV than other people. May I ask how old you are? Might help frame your standpoint better. I’m 53 to help you frame mine.
No 40% of them voted for a mixture of Conservative and Labour.
60% didn't vote
You are just saying because of the 40% that voted the majority was Labour that the 60% that didn't vote should be assumed as voting Labour (and the % that voted Conservative should be ignored)