Plural • Solution #11 for Strengthen the voting power of the younger generation for future-oriented decisions.
Solution #11
Four life phases, 0 to 29, 30 to 44, 45 to 64, and 65 and older, each counts a quarter of the result. No one loses their voice, but no generation overrides the others. Whoever has lived here for 60 years should have as much say as someone with a 20‑year horizon.
Convinced? Rate this contribution from the community — and help make the best ideas visible.
4 comments
Join the discussion: ask questions, challenge ideas, and add context so the post becomes clearer.
1000 characters remaining
A. V. T.Partner in Crime
3 months ago
I find this highly problematic, especially the question of who decides where the boundaries of life stages lie. 29 years old, 45 years old, 33 years old: this is not lived the same way by every person.
Some start companies at 18, others start families at 25, and some start families only at 40. Some start their own businesses at 50, others only begin studying at 30, while others already finish a PhD at 19.
I deliberately choose 90th‑percentile examples here to clearly illustrate this boundary‑setting problem. I say a firm “no” to this solution.
The delineation feels arbitrary and discriminatory.
0
Y. R.Author
3 months ago
Der Einwand trifft einen realen Punkt, aber er zielt am Kriterium vorbei. Die Phasen behaupten nicht, dass alle 33 Jährigen gleich leben. Sortiert wird nicht nach Lebenslage, sondern nach der verbleibenden Zeit, in der man mit dem Entscheid leben muss. Und die hängt tatsächlich fast nur am Alter. Der Firmengründer mit 50 und der Frührentner mit 50 haben unterschiedliche Biografien, aber denselben Horizont.
Beliebig ist eine Grenze zudem nicht schon deshalb, weil sie an den Rändern hart ist. Das Stimmrecht ab 18 ist genau gleich gebaut, der Tag vor dem Geburtstag zählt nicht, der Tag danach schon. Dasselbe gilt für das Rentenalter, die Schulpflicht, die Strafmündigkeit. Wir akzeptieren das überall, weil die Alternative, jeden Einzelfall zu prüfen, viel willkürlicher wäre.
Wo genau die Grenzen liegen, ist trotzdem eine berechtigte Debatte. Sie sollten aus den BFS Daten hergeleitet und periodisch überprüft werden, nicht aus dem Bauch heraus gesetzt.
0
S. B.
3 months ago
I don't understand the practical implementation.
1
Y. R.Author
3 months ago
It is counted the same way as today, only in four piles instead of one. The age is already recorded in the voter register, so you already know which ballot belongs to which phase. In the end, each life phase has its own “Yes” percentage, and the average of these four values decides.
Example: 80 % Yes for the youngest, 60 % in the second phase, 40 % in the third, 30 % for the oldest. Today the proposal would be rejected because the larger age groups pull the overall result down. With the new method the average is 52.5 % and it passes.
Important: The number of ballots in a pile no longer matters, only the ratio within it. This also eliminates unequal voter turnout without having to force anyone to vote.
Technically, it is just one more counting step. Legally, a constitutional amendment is required; that is the real effort, not the implementation.