In 2017 I worked with a colleague to critically assess the outcome of the 2016 US election. In achieving this graphic, mapping-based analysis of the elections, we speculated on the implications of a youth weighted vote. This was driven by the assertion that many policy decisions will have greater bearing on the longer lives of the youth compared to their elderly counterparts.
We described the project as follows:
“Democracy of the Departed explores age-weighted voting to reform the U.S. electoral system in order to give more power to younger voters to influence politics. It is assumed that many policies such as energy and climate policy, education and judicial appointments, have long-term, and sometimes irreversible impacts. These consequences are born by the younger generations for much longer than other age groups. We propose a weighted voting system where younger age groups get proportionately more voting power. In a case study of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, it becomes clear that such weighted voting in favor of the younger generations would have altered the election’s outcome.”
“Democracy of the Departed explores age-weighted voting to reform the U.S. electoral system in order to give more power to younger voters to influence politics. It is assumed that many policies such as energy and climate policy, education and judicial appointments, have long-term, and sometimes irreversible impacts. These consequences are born by the younger generations for much longer than other age groups. We propose a weighted voting system where younger age groups get proportionately more voting power. In a case study of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, it becomes clear that such weighted voting in favor of the younger generations would have altered the election’s outcome.”