The Value of a Citizen’s vote should diminish with age

People only deserve a vote if they are in the workforce and paying taxes- economically involved in
society.

You cannot devalue a person’s vote because everyone is equal in society

Old people neither have the ability nor need to contribute to society. Karl Marx, the founder and
creator of the communist ideology, states in his 1848 publication The Critique of the Gotha
Programme, that “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” If old people
are not showing any ability in contributing to society, then what do you deserve to get out of it?
They don’t deserve anything out of the government, so they should receive less of a vote.

We are not living in the utopian world that Marx is suggesting and because of that, we are not equal.

It’s discriminatory to devalue other people’s vote

Is it discriminatory?

Or is it the wise thing to do properly represent the majority view of people who are active in society?

Discrimination is defined as “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people,

especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”

Can we really call the devaluation of aged people’s votes unjust?

Oxford dictionary states than the concept of being ‘just’ is ‘based on or behaving according to what
is morally right and fair.’

Is devaluing aged people’s votes to help and advantage the future generations unfair? I don’t think
so. I think it is the wise thing to do- to look towards the future. The older generation already had
their fair chance of contributing in society and speaking their opinions through voting. If we want to
move forward as a society, in government and more importantly in views and values, we need to
stop thinking towards the past and those people aged past the current political world.

That is why devaluing older people’s vote to better society in the future, is not unjust or unfair and
especially not discriminatory.

Australia’s population is aging. The majority of people are 65+

If the majority of voters are older people, then the results are going to become skewed towards
ideas and policies benefitting older people. Is this really the right thing for the future of Australia?
Being hung up on superannuation and developments of retirement homes?

How are the young people, the people of the future, going to set up their lives and look forwards if
the political landscape is dominated by people aligned towards the past?

This is why the devaluation of older people’s votes is necessary, to balance the

There is inherent wisdom in what old people can contribute to a vote

“Inherent Wisdom” can normally mean a fixed mindset, where they are entrenched in their
individual beliefs. Young people are open to new ideas, and open to new politicians with new ideas.
For many years, the Main political parties in Australia’s history has been Labour vs Liberal, isn’t it
time for a young, fresh politician, to mix it up and bring some new ideas.

As you all know, Donald Trump is the newly elected president of U.S.A. He is a highly polarising
figure with most people either loving him or despising him.

What most people don’t know, however, is that 49% of people over 65 in America supported Donald
Trump. Although 49% isn’t the majority of people, it is in this case it is, as a whopping 12% of people
over 65 didn’t vote at all.

Do you really believe that Old people can bring wisdom to a vote when they voted in the most hated
president ever? According to a recent CNN poll, 58% of Americans disliked trump. This is historically,
the most disliked president at this stage of his presidency ever.

Do you still believe old people bring wisdom when voting?

The One Vote, One Person system is the right and fair system to use in a democratic environment.

Changing the value of older people’s votes is neither undemocratic, nor un-Australian. "The people"
remain sovereign under this system since every citizen is still entitled (and required) to vote.
However, votes are treated differently, and this should be good news for democracy. This new
system does not rest on the hollow idea that everyone deserves the same right to vote: rather,
democracy is intrinsically linked to the Australian "fair go" and the fact that Australians have the
same chance to fully realise their plans in life. The "one person, one vote" system, however, treats
people who have had their chances in life, and those who have not yet, identically. This is not fair,
and plural voting would help redress this injustice.

Intro

Good afternoon Adjudicator, Ladies and Gentlemen.

We, the Affirmative team have argued that the value of a citizen’s vote should diminish with age.
We have defined the word ‘value’ as the weight attributed to or the number of votes.

Sum up of arguments

Our first speaker stated, from a social perspective, that the views and values which older people
hold are becoming less and less relevant in our constantly developing society.

He also argued from a political perspective, that younger people’s votes should have more weight
attributed to them during elections, because they have much more at stake than someone who is
already retired, and will have to live with the repercussion of the vote for longer.

Our second speaker argued that the older generation are no longer the driving force in society and
they do not contribute as much as younger people do.
Our second speaker also argued that Australia’s aging population trend is skewing and creating an
imbalance in the representation of the peoples vote and therefore the younger generation will not
be benefitted during elections.