Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting to note that the usual excuses that are given for low turnout among young people--feeling like their vote won't make a difference--were not present here. This was a direct referendum: what should we do? No politician who will court the youth vote then do something else. Yet, turnout was still low. Which begs the question: why should anyone care what young people think when they can't be bothered to vote, even when there is literally nothing standing between their vote and the result they want?

View on HN

It could be also that younger people were more undecided about what to vote. I don't really know, I'm not even from UK, just an hypothesis.

There's some evidence that young people thought it was just an opinion-seeking referendum, and didn't believe that a leave vote would trigger leave even if the leave vote won. (This is a slightly different form of the "voted leave, thinking that most people would vote remain, because I don't want remain to be an overwhelming win".)

If that's true then it's not surprising a bunch of young people didn't turn out.

And, about young people: Before the ref a bunch of people were asking if the vote could be extended to 16 and 17 year olds. This is going to affect them, and it would have been good to include them.

The government declined.

There are about 1.5m 16 and 17 year olds in the UK.

That's looking like a bad decision.

Remain lost by 1,269,501 votes.

Given that turnout among 16/17 year olds would have been far from 100% and that at least some of them would have voted Leave, it doesn't look like extending the vote to them would have been enough to change the result.

> why should anyone care what young people think when they can't be bothered to vote

The answer is as you suggested: no one cares. It's really a double whammy, since not only do they not largely vote, but those that do contribute less $$.

It is difficult to find sympathy for young Britons. One could blame their first-past-the-post system, for enabling Cameron's gamble. But the voters turned down the mathematically-superior alternative vote in an earlier referendum.

So is it the media? The lack of a Swiss-style double vote? Both could have been prioritised as electoral demands by the populace.

Ultimately this falls on the British people, for not turning out and not doing their research. The sad truth is that rebalancing Europe will be a cost borne by the next generation of Americans.

Hispanics turn out to vote at lower rates than whites. Why should anyone care what they think?

The poor turn out to vote at lower rates than the rich. Why should anyone care what they think?

Those without college degrees turn out to vote at lower rates than those with college degrees. Why should anyone care what they think?

I get the point that you're trying to make and you're not entirely wrong. But I think you're ignoring structural factors that lead to certain group's voices being under heard in the body politic. Those groups should be responsible for reforming themselves sure. But those outside the groups are a little bit responsible too.

"But those outside the groups are a little bit responsible too."

How? If you can't even be bothered to show up why is it other people's responsibility to coddle you?

When one person doesn't vote, it's their fault.

When an entire demographic group is systematically underrepresented, you have to wonder if it's something about society that is pushing them away from the polls.

Maybe it's just all their fault.

> The poor turn out to vote at lower rates than the rich. Why should anyone care what they think? > Those without college degrees turn out to vote at lower rates than those with college degrees. Why should anyone care what they think?

It's the reverse. That's the whole point of "one person one vote", which was kind of a big deal in the beginning of the 20th century. People died for that.

Besides, I find your entire idea flawed.

Why ? To put it bluntly because the choice has always been between "the 51% oppress the 49%" and "the 0.01% oppress the 99.99%". If you want to experience the other end, be a construction worker in the middle east for a while. I think I know which you prefer.

Secondly, when push comes to shove the globalization represented by the EU has systematically worsened the economic situation of most Britons. Tech and finance industries in central London don't seem to see this, but ... If you compare actual living conditions provided by a tech wage in central London with living conditions afforded by a Ford job 30 years ago at Dagenham you might be surprised, not in a good way - especially by the size of realistically available accommodation. Which might give one aspect of a far more reasonable explanation for why Britons aren't having kids then what is usually trotted up by the press - speaking as someone who has done so. Now compare 99% jobs ... waiter or cleaner in central London, and what living conditions that provides. Because that's what most of the service sector jobs are.

The short of it is, the globalization movement has -to put it mildly- not delivered the promised economic prosperity, and should be thrown into the bin. Pensions getting cut, systematically worsening medical care, constant mass firings replaced by "do you want fries with that" jobs that pay a third, ...

Let's go out on a limb here and say that a lot of Britons aren't happy with the evolutions of the past 30 years. Free capitalism and free markets are "winner take all" systems and work by throwing workers under the bus.

I think you missed the point.

The young often say they don't vote cause there is no one to vote for.

The was a direct vote on a issue, they couldn't be betrayed, and they still didn't vote.

So perhaps they are just making excuses.

I didn't miss the point. I agree that "there is no one to vote for" is an excuse. But what is the real reason they don't vote? I can think of several hypotheses:

  - They haven't yet developed the habit of voting
  - They are busier booting up their lives than more established adults
  - They move around more and are not yet embedded in their community

None of these are reasons to think that their preferences should matter less.

What's your hypothesis for why the young vote in fewer numbers?

There lives have just 'been' so far. It's a foreign concept to interact out side of their world.

This is also selfish and ignorant but that's young mammals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com