Wednesday, 13 July 2016

The youth more wise then the old

 It has been proposed that the young in Australia should have two votes, compared to older people getting one. This proposition is not only ridiculous, but also unfair and against the principles of democracy.

So the old, proposed as the wise in society, should only have one vote compared to the youth having two. Does this mean that the whole hierarchy of society, the pyramid of age, the significance of seniors, should be reversed? Should the workplace be changed too?

Now, the proposed excuse for this is that ‘the youth have to prepare for the future, so they need more votes’. What a pathetic excuse. Sure, the youth are going to be living in the future, but the current older generation had a phase in their life where they were the youth, but did they demand two votes? No! This is just another attempt to wrought the democratic system that we are so proud of.

Workplace
So, if the youth are more important, or their views are more important, now, then should they be more important in the workplace. Lets bring the excuse over here. The youth are going to be living in the future, so lets kick out the 50 or so old members of the community, and bring the youth into the senior roles, after all, they need these positions for the future! So, these older members of the community, proposing these changes, lets kick them out, and put the youth in instead (well, whoever wants this obviously deserves to be kicked out!)

Politics
Well, if the youth are vote twice for their leader, why not make an age restriction on members of parliament, after all, the youth are the ones who will be living in the future, so they need the members in parliament to make the decisions, don’t they?
Everyone is not the young vs the old. We should not be battling between two
generations, but supplying everyone with equal abilities to put forward their views.

Let me tell you why I oppose this. The democratic principles that we have held in this nation since 1901 should stay in place. Why has the nation managed to roll on, mostly in profit (except for when the nation faced the catastrophic Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, and these people were probably voted in mostly by the youth)? And what is the point of having democracy when half the people in the nation are getting an unfair advantage when it comes to elections? Our best prime ministers have been older, those who apparently didn’t have the whole of their future to face. While it is true that the older people in society don’t have the amount of time in this world compared to the young, does that impair their rule to make proper judgment in what is best for this country.

The proposition makes you think that the older people in society are going to the election papers and voting for the worst candidate in spite of the young, because they have less time to face the consequences then the young. How stupid. Those who put these thoughts in our heads are the ones that deserve to get no votes!

And, if the point of democracy is to give everyone a fair vote, and a voice, then how good is our democratic system going to be if this proposition would to be instated?

Whoever proposed this should go and have a good long look at themselves, and think about how idiotic they have been when thinking up this idea.


It’s either democracy or not, and this proposition is throwing the democratic dream on the scrap heap.