Should votes / consultations etc. responses be weighted?
Discussion
It’s probably always been the case, but I’ve noticed more around consultations, referendums, votes etc, about how polarising they can be, probably most likely linked to social media. Where, for me, this becomes interesting is how the level of perceived impact on the individual vs how much their voice is heard. I don’t have a strong opinion either way and can see both sides, but I have come across some recently.
As this is PH, start with a road-based example. Should residents on a street where a proposed cycle lane will impact them (say, removing on-street parking) have a greater say than the potential users of that cycle lane? The same would apply to bus stops. Should their response carry more weight than 100s of users that could use the lane and the associated benefits?
Example 2 - Council consulting on a local plan for the next 20 years. Many who seem to be against the plan already have a home or may not be alive when the plan comes to fruition. Should a retired 70-year-old response carry the same weight as a 20 year old when the plan is concerning the future of an area to build more homes or improve transport for example?
Example 3 - Don’t want to start a fight but there will be 1000s of people who voted in recent referendums and elections that are no longer with us. They don’t have to live with the consequences of their choices. The obvious counter to this will be to get more young people to vote.
If you pay your way through life and are a valid member of society, your opinion is worth the same as the next person in a democracy. If there were any weighting, it would always seem unfair to the group that loses out. The issue is people are short-sighted and selfish, and some good ideas that will improve the life of a larger group of people can be stopped by a few, especially if apathy leads to the counter voices not speaking up.
I probably spend too much time on social media, it’s always the loud voices on either side you hear; most people are just trying to get on with their lives, just thinking out loud really.
As this is PH, start with a road-based example. Should residents on a street where a proposed cycle lane will impact them (say, removing on-street parking) have a greater say than the potential users of that cycle lane? The same would apply to bus stops. Should their response carry more weight than 100s of users that could use the lane and the associated benefits?
Example 2 - Council consulting on a local plan for the next 20 years. Many who seem to be against the plan already have a home or may not be alive when the plan comes to fruition. Should a retired 70-year-old response carry the same weight as a 20 year old when the plan is concerning the future of an area to build more homes or improve transport for example?
Example 3 - Don’t want to start a fight but there will be 1000s of people who voted in recent referendums and elections that are no longer with us. They don’t have to live with the consequences of their choices. The obvious counter to this will be to get more young people to vote.
If you pay your way through life and are a valid member of society, your opinion is worth the same as the next person in a democracy. If there were any weighting, it would always seem unfair to the group that loses out. The issue is people are short-sighted and selfish, and some good ideas that will improve the life of a larger group of people can be stopped by a few, especially if apathy leads to the counter voices not speaking up.
I probably spend too much time on social media, it’s always the loud voices on either side you hear; most people are just trying to get on with their lives, just thinking out loud really.
Votes should carry equal weight in a democracy.
With regard to consultations I don’t think you can set hard and fast rules but some weighting probably already happens. To your example there is no automatic rights over the road outside your house so if adding a cycle lane or double yellows etc was in the wider benefit of the town/city planning etc I don’t think concerns of residents should carry more weight in stopping it due to wishing to park for example.
With regard to consultations I don’t think you can set hard and fast rules but some weighting probably already happens. To your example there is no automatic rights over the road outside your house so if adding a cycle lane or double yellows etc was in the wider benefit of the town/city planning etc I don’t think concerns of residents should carry more weight in stopping it due to wishing to park for example.
Dingu said:
Votes should carry equal weight in a democracy.
With regard to consultations I don’t think you can set hard and fast rules but some weighting probably already happens. To your example there is no automatic rights over the road outside your house so if adding a cycle lane or double yellows etc was in the wider benefit of the town/city planning etc I don’t think concerns of residents should carry more weight in stopping it due to wishing to park for example.
I agree but when politicians get involved it muddies the water. Particularly when they may not represent the people who will use something. With regard to consultations I don’t think you can set hard and fast rules but some weighting probably already happens. To your example there is no automatic rights over the road outside your house so if adding a cycle lane or double yellows etc was in the wider benefit of the town/city planning etc I don’t think concerns of residents should carry more weight in stopping it due to wishing to park for example.
How do you feel about things involving long-term planning?
NIMBYism is a big issue, though sometimes it might not be in their back yard when it eventually happens!
I agree there should be weighting in some situations. Lets take the Brexit referendum as an example - this isn't about Brexit as such, but its a useful illustration.
A Professor of Economics at Oxford had the same say on an issue of major economic complexity and impact as a hairdresser from Sheffield!
I appreciate they both have to live with the same consequences, but that doesn't mean that they have the same level of understanding of the question being asked.
The same applies to any referendum question or consultation. Should we at some point have a referendum on the future of the NHS, it would be a healthcare and economics based question. Therefore if you have proven expertise in these fields your view naturally is worth more than that of Jo Public, and as such should have a greater impact on the outcome.
A Professor of Economics at Oxford had the same say on an issue of major economic complexity and impact as a hairdresser from Sheffield!
I appreciate they both have to live with the same consequences, but that doesn't mean that they have the same level of understanding of the question being asked.
The same applies to any referendum question or consultation. Should we at some point have a referendum on the future of the NHS, it would be a healthcare and economics based question. Therefore if you have proven expertise in these fields your view naturally is worth more than that of Jo Public, and as such should have a greater impact on the outcome.
Jonathan27 said:
A Professor of Economics at Oxford had the same say on an issue of major economic complexity and impact as a hairdresser from Sheffield!
I appreciate they both have to live with the same consequences, but that doesn't mean that they have the same level of understanding of the question being asked.
How much would you expect the Professor at Oxford, to know about the effects of membership of the EU is affecting the daily life of a Hairdresser in Sheffield?I appreciate they both have to live with the same consequences, but that doesn't mean that they have the same level of understanding of the question being asked.
(The answer of course, is none, therefore both of their votes have equal merit).
How are we as a society to avoid making the same mistakes over again if those without any life experience have more influence than those which do?
It's easy to say the young should have more power (and we all know which side of the political compass stands to gain the most) but given the example of lowering the voting age to 16 - what real experience or knowledge do they have? Besides the education system (and the inherent biases therein), they have never worked a job, run a business, paid any tax, travelled independently, hired or fired anyone, (hopefully) had little experience with hospitals or the police, never raised a family, or taken a mortgage. How can we expect such people not to be very easily influenced by unscrupulous targeted campaigning when they have no 'lived experience' to balance out the rhetoric?
It's easy to say the young should have more power (and we all know which side of the political compass stands to gain the most) but given the example of lowering the voting age to 16 - what real experience or knowledge do they have? Besides the education system (and the inherent biases therein), they have never worked a job, run a business, paid any tax, travelled independently, hired or fired anyone, (hopefully) had little experience with hospitals or the police, never raised a family, or taken a mortgage. How can we expect such people not to be very easily influenced by unscrupulous targeted campaigning when they have no 'lived experience' to balance out the rhetoric?
LimaDelta said:
How are we as a society to avoid making the same mistakes over again if those without any life experience have more influence than those which do?
It's easy to say the young should have more power (and we all know which side of the political compass stands to gain the most) but given the example of lowering the voting age to 16 - what real experience or knowledge do they have? Besides the education system (and the inherent biases therein), they have never worked a job, run a business, paid any tax, travelled independently, hired or fired anyone, (hopefully) had little experience with hospitals or the police, never raised a family, or taken a mortgage. How can we expect such people not to be very easily influenced by unscrupulous targeted campaigning when they have no 'lived experience' to balance out the rhetoric?
I do agree with that regarding experience and I don't want another Brexit thread but the obvious counter to that is that Brexit and the Tories have generally been voted in by older people, and cannot say that is entirely mistake-free. It's easy to say the young should have more power (and we all know which side of the political compass stands to gain the most) but given the example of lowering the voting age to 16 - what real experience or knowledge do they have? Besides the education system (and the inherent biases therein), they have never worked a job, run a business, paid any tax, travelled independently, hired or fired anyone, (hopefully) had little experience with hospitals or the police, never raised a family, or taken a mortgage. How can we expect such people not to be very easily influenced by unscrupulous targeted campaigning when they have no 'lived experience' to balance out the rhetoric?
Locally, future plans can be blocked by those wanting to maintain the status quo, from the value of their property or a simple view out the window, preventing infrastructure improvements or housing. These people may not live with the long-term consequences of their actions as they have their home or may pass away.
Type R Tom said:
Dingu said:
Votes should carry equal weight in a democracy.
With regard to consultations I don’t think you can set hard and fast rules but some weighting probably already happens. To your example there is no automatic rights over the road outside your house so if adding a cycle lane or double yellows etc was in the wider benefit of the town/city planning etc I don’t think concerns of residents should carry more weight in stopping it due to wishing to park for example.
I agree but when politicians get involved it muddies the water. Particularly when they may not represent the people who will use something. With regard to consultations I don’t think you can set hard and fast rules but some weighting probably already happens. To your example there is no automatic rights over the road outside your house so if adding a cycle lane or double yellows etc was in the wider benefit of the town/city planning etc I don’t think concerns of residents should carry more weight in stopping it due to wishing to park for example.
How do you feel about things involving long-term planning?
NIMBYism is a big issue, though sometimes it might not be in their back yard when it eventually happens!
It's isn't always NIMBYism (no idea if that's a real word or not
) it is just as likely to be experience and "seen this before and it won't achieve what they think it will".Besides which, most councils ignore the results of consulations anyway. Ours did. 70% voted that the extension of the city should have pedestrian access like the rest of the city using footbridges and underpasses. Completely ignored and installed roundabouts and traffic lights with pedestrian crossings (which conveniently meant that they also had to reduce the speed limit from NSL to 40)
It's not a straightforward question/answer. Common sense would say every voice is equal but I can see why people may not agree.
If you'd arranged a trip somewhere for a dozen people and a couple were coming along for free (for whatever reason) would you allow the non paying couple to have an equal say in the destination. Bearing in mind they could chose Barbados rather than Spain and the rest of you would need to pay more. Non tax paying voters have a similar power. If you're not contributing should you be able to commit others to more expenditure even if everyone will benefit from it?
I guess you could say they couple have been coming on an annual trip for the last 30 years and deserve to have an equal say regardless of whether they are currently contributing?
If you'd arranged a trip somewhere for a dozen people and a couple were coming along for free (for whatever reason) would you allow the non paying couple to have an equal say in the destination. Bearing in mind they could chose Barbados rather than Spain and the rest of you would need to pay more. Non tax paying voters have a similar power. If you're not contributing should you be able to commit others to more expenditure even if everyone will benefit from it?
I guess you could say they couple have been coming on an annual trip for the last 30 years and deserve to have an equal say regardless of whether they are currently contributing?
Type R Tom said:
LimaDelta said:
How are we as a society to avoid making the same mistakes over again if those without any life experience have more influence than those which do?
It's easy to say the young should have more power (and we all know which side of the political compass stands to gain the most) but given the example of lowering the voting age to 16 - what real experience or knowledge do they have? Besides the education system (and the inherent biases therein), they have never worked a job, run a business, paid any tax, travelled independently, hired or fired anyone, (hopefully) had little experience with hospitals or the police, never raised a family, or taken a mortgage. How can we expect such people not to be very easily influenced by unscrupulous targeted campaigning when they have no 'lived experience' to balance out the rhetoric?
I do agree with that regarding experience and I don't want another Brexit thread but the obvious counter to that is that Brexit and the Tories have generally been voted in by older people, and cannot say that is entirely mistake-free. It's easy to say the young should have more power (and we all know which side of the political compass stands to gain the most) but given the example of lowering the voting age to 16 - what real experience or knowledge do they have? Besides the education system (and the inherent biases therein), they have never worked a job, run a business, paid any tax, travelled independently, hired or fired anyone, (hopefully) had little experience with hospitals or the police, never raised a family, or taken a mortgage. How can we expect such people not to be very easily influenced by unscrupulous targeted campaigning when they have no 'lived experience' to balance out the rhetoric?
Locally, future plans can be blocked by those wanting to maintain the status quo, from the value of their property or a simple view out the window, preventing infrastructure improvements or housing. These people may not live with the long-term consequences of their actions as they have their home or may pass away.
As far as local planning goes, how different are old people who will die, to young people who will move away?
LimaDelta said:
Type R Tom said:
LimaDelta said:
How are we as a society to avoid making the same mistakes over again if those without any life experience have more influence than those which do?
It's easy to say the young should have more power (and we all know which side of the political compass stands to gain the most) but given the example of lowering the voting age to 16 - what real experience or knowledge do they have? Besides the education system (and the inherent biases therein), they have never worked a job, run a business, paid any tax, travelled independently, hired or fired anyone, (hopefully) had little experience with hospitals or the police, never raised a family, or taken a mortgage. How can we expect such people not to be very easily influenced by unscrupulous targeted campaigning when they have no 'lived experience' to balance out the rhetoric?
I do agree with that regarding experience and I don't want another Brexit thread but the obvious counter to that is that Brexit and the Tories have generally been voted in by older people, and cannot say that is entirely mistake-free. It's easy to say the young should have more power (and we all know which side of the political compass stands to gain the most) but given the example of lowering the voting age to 16 - what real experience or knowledge do they have? Besides the education system (and the inherent biases therein), they have never worked a job, run a business, paid any tax, travelled independently, hired or fired anyone, (hopefully) had little experience with hospitals or the police, never raised a family, or taken a mortgage. How can we expect such people not to be very easily influenced by unscrupulous targeted campaigning when they have no 'lived experience' to balance out the rhetoric?
Locally, future plans can be blocked by those wanting to maintain the status quo, from the value of their property or a simple view out the window, preventing infrastructure improvements or housing. These people may not live with the long-term consequences of their actions as they have their home or may pass away.
As far as local planning goes, how different are old people who will die, to young people who will move away?
I live in a student city that was Tory forever but went Labour last time, many people claim it was the students that swung it. Many have now left (some stay) and we have an MP that's now seen as a Transphobe so
I don't think there is any point in even discussing it, as any system to apply weighting to pubic voting would be totally and utterly unworkable.
Unless in very specific and limited causes with small numbers of voters, but even then, how much effort and bureaucracy would have to go into deciding, measuring, and awarding the weighting? It would be a massive task. Even then, who gets to decide each persons 'value' or weighting?
Unless in very specific and limited causes with small numbers of voters, but even then, how much effort and bureaucracy would have to go into deciding, measuring, and awarding the weighting? It would be a massive task. Even then, who gets to decide each persons 'value' or weighting?
Lord Marylebone said:
I don't think there is any point in even discussing it, as any system to apply weighting to pubic voting would be totally and utterly unworkable.
Unless in very specific and limited causes with small numbers of voters, but even then, how much effort and bureaucracy would have to go into deciding, measuring, and awarding the weighting? It would be a massive task. Even then, who gets to decide each persons 'value' or weighting?
You are probably right but it does happen to some extent. Cycle lane example again, some consultations are individually numbered so you know where the response comes from to prevent cycle or taxi lobby types from replying and impacting the results. If a weighting is applied to that local response is another matter but at least you know where is came from. That's for the politicians. Unless in very specific and limited causes with small numbers of voters, but even then, how much effort and bureaucracy would have to go into deciding, measuring, and awarding the weighting? It would be a massive task. Even then, who gets to decide each persons 'value' or weighting?
As I said, it was just coming from watching stuff locally and the types of responses people give (on social media - not ideal) to schemes and plans. Usually "I've lived here all my life and..." some people feel their view is more important without seeing the bigger picture as they don't want it
Sheets Tabuer said:
Wouldn't have thought you needed to weigh voting in referendums, just have a higher threshold for the result.
That could work. Just like in a GE, you need a majority to form a parliament, then in a referendum you should need to beat the other side by a significant amount. You could assume that all the registered voters are pro the status quo, so anyone proposing change must receive more votes than those voting against, and those abstaining. It would be a significant margin, and less chance of the result being protested afterwards. Should also increase turnout too.Fairly academic though, as I can't see any government offering a 'once-in-a-generation' referendum any time soon. Once bitten...
Sheets Tabuer said:
Wouldn't have thought you needed to weigh voting in referendums, just have a higher threshold for the result.
I did used to think that, and felt it should be 75% or more to enact major change, but the problem is you could end up with 74% of the population wanting change, eg a clear majority, but not getting it.I'm still undecided TBH.
LimaDelta said:
That could work. Just like in a GE, you need a majority to form a parliament, then in a referendum you should need to beat the other side by a significant amount. You could assume that all the registered voters are pro the status quo, so anyone proposing change must receive more votes than those voting against, and those abstaining. It would be a significant margin, and less chance of the result being protested afterwards. Should also increase turnout too.
Fairly academic though, as I can't see any government offering a 'once-in-a-generation' referendum any time soon. Once bitten...
Indeed.Fairly academic though, as I can't see any government offering a 'once-in-a-generation' referendum any time soon. Once bitten...
It will be a long time before any government trusts Joe Public with a massively complex and important decision, which they probably don't fully understand the consequences or mechanics of.
We have a government and a parliament to make important decisions for us. Thats what they are there for.
It's an interesting question. Made me think of public meetings, where it's often those who feel strongest about an issue, and those who shout loudest, who get their voices heard.
Our local council wanted to make decision-making more accountable to the people in the mid-90s. So they devolved some powers from central committees to local 'neighbourhood committees' made up of the councillors representing those areas, with the meetings held out in the neighbourhood and the public allowed to speak during the meetings.
A crowd of loud protesters sometimes managed to bounce the councillors into altering their decision, but in some cases it was only a dozen people out of 20,000 who lived in the 'neighbourhood' area. Nobody really knew the opinion of the 99.9% who didn't bother to come to the meeting, or were too busy or didn't know about it.
Our local council wanted to make decision-making more accountable to the people in the mid-90s. So they devolved some powers from central committees to local 'neighbourhood committees' made up of the councillors representing those areas, with the meetings held out in the neighbourhood and the public allowed to speak during the meetings.
A crowd of loud protesters sometimes managed to bounce the councillors into altering their decision, but in some cases it was only a dozen people out of 20,000 who lived in the 'neighbourhood' area. Nobody really knew the opinion of the 99.9% who didn't bother to come to the meeting, or were too busy or didn't know about it.
Granadier said:
It's an interesting question. Made me think of public meetings, where it's often those who feel strongest about an issue, and those who shout loudest, who get their voices heard.
Our local council wanted to make decision-making more accountable to the people in the mid-90s. So they devolved some powers from central committees to local 'neighbourhood committees' made up of the councillors representing those areas, with the meetings held out in the neighbourhood and the public allowed to speak during the meetings.
A crowd of loud protesters sometimes managed to bounce the councillors into altering their decision, but in some cases it was only a dozen people out of 20,000 who lived in the 'neighbourhood' area. Nobody really knew the opinion of the 99.9% who didn't bother to come to the meeting, or were too busy or didn't know about it.
I've witness this many times, both professionally and personally. It can't be a coincidence that it's often old people with their arms crossed in the local papers complaining about something the Council wants to do? Our local council wanted to make decision-making more accountable to the people in the mid-90s. So they devolved some powers from central committees to local 'neighbourhood committees' made up of the councillors representing those areas, with the meetings held out in the neighbourhood and the public allowed to speak during the meetings.
A crowd of loud protesters sometimes managed to bounce the councillors into altering their decision, but in some cases it was only a dozen people out of 20,000 who lived in the 'neighbourhood' area. Nobody really knew the opinion of the 99.9% who didn't bother to come to the meeting, or were too busy or didn't know about it.
Many people are just trying to get on with their lives and don't have the time or aren't bothered enough to get involved, the issue lies when those people stop something that will benefit the majority.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff