Young voters wanted Brexit the least – and will have to live with it the longest

It seems especially odd since it's usually the Leave side that's accused of being fascist.

Or is the idea to do more polling until a favourable outcome is received?

I've done this to help elicit requirements from stakeholders and it works really well

From my perspective there are so many problems with referendums that it might not be possible to find a solution at all. They have become a way to destabilize the current government although those are the elected officials. And still, in a general election there would probably be a support for the established parties in Britain. This shows to me an unsolvable discrepancy between referendums and elections.

Proven to be false with the result of this vote.

You already are. Care enough and you can join grass roots movements who are trying to influence the population to vote a certain way. Afaik, the Brexiters were a grass root campaign and they managed to multiply their votes by convincing the public to vote to leave.

And as a counterargument to older people being wiser older people tend to get very nostalgic about the old day and selectively remembering only the good things so I wouldn't trust the judgement of a random older person more.

Yes, but it's a different argument for a different system or principle.

i.e., the democratic principle is that one can influence the governance of oneself, whether directly or indirectly, you vote on the governance of the society you live in. Rule of the people.

In line with that principle is his suggestion to weight vote by age. i.e., as a proxy for the duration or degree to which you'll live in said society under any given proposed policy, is heavier for young people than old people, simply because young people live longer in these societies under these policies, on average. Such that these people who live 'more' under this policy, could be argued to deserve a bigger influence. In the same way that I as a European can't and shouldn't be able to vote on US domestic policy because I don't live there, and in the same way there've been (pipedream) ideas for the world to receive a minor vote in US (foreign) policy, because they're subjected to it so much. It's all in line with democratic principles.

Your argument is a valid one, too, but it's linked on another principle, a more technocratic one i.e. those who are educated ought to govern. That's not a very democratic principle (although I'm not ruling it out on that basis, democracy is imo the least worst system, not a system to be blindly put on a permanent pedestal).

By and large I think people tend to favour the former (democratic) over the latter (technocratic) principle. And within that context, a minor degree of age-weighing makes some sense, on paper.

In practice it's hard to execute, easy to abuse, and merely captures a democratic proxy. i.e. you don't get to weigh in young people who die early, who migrate, and if you do weigh things, how much would young people get a bonus for, 5%? 10%? It becomes an impossible political game that I don't think makes sense in the real world, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Paying for votes I think is a terrible idea by the way. About making the proportion of caring matter, I think you may realise there's already something basic like that, which is deciding whether to vote or not in the first place. We've seen time and time again, votes going differently from the polls, because people who got approached on the phone had an opinion but couldn't care enough to exercise it with effort by voting.

Every voter is required to write a test on the matter being voted on. And then their vote is weighted on the marks they got for the test.

That way people who have no idea what they are voting for have little say in the matter. And the people who really care about the issues will make sure they know how their vote will affect things, and they get a greater say in the matter.

I'm wondering if the EU isn't suffering from its own success. It modeled the free trade/free movement/peaceful cooperation at a time at which none of these things were common. That style of negotiation and cooperation then became common internationally, so that nowadays, it appears to make little difference if, say, Croatia is part of the EU or not.

Anyone old enough to remember the war (at all) would be in their 70s-80s now. It's sad but I think there won't be any WWII veterans left soon.

Unlike older people, who appear to believe the £350million a week lie?

I wouldn't like to speculate on how significant this bias might be though, nor would I know how to level that particular playing field. Maybe everyone donates into a central pot and campaigners all get an equal share of the pot?

Turns out that, with regards to the Southern European bailouts, that didn't matter. Even with a deal in place to protect against being part of bailouts, the UK was still asked to pay £850 million towards the last Greek bailout.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/15/european-co...

>I don't see how trade tariffs (which the UK will now have to negotiate) will be a good thing for the UK.

Just set up free trade zones. Unless the EU will be a bunch of un-self-intereseted dicks with a chip on their shoulder and for no other reason than spite exclude the UK from free trade networks.

It's up 9% from where it was in February of this year. Surely the immediate market reaction to a huge political change is not a good indicator of anything.