My preferred method is to weight votes according to age: voters below, say, 30 would receive a more heavily weighted vote, voters 30 to 60 would get a less weighted vote, and those over 60 would retain their current single vote. For argument’s sake, you could multiply the vote of under-30s by 1.3 and that of 30- to 60-year-olds by 1.1. People’s ballot papers could be distinguished by colour – under-30s get blue, 30s to 60s green and oldies red – to make counting easier on election night.
Children are represented by their parents who advocate for them.
Old people need to advocate for themselves.
A poll test is anti-democratic as hell, and a step towards authoritarianism.
…
considering the emphasised text extracted from the above passage what do you think the author’s stance on the article is?
Why do you think she used those terms? Are they at odds with her opinion or reenforcing it?
Consider the way the author has described the current system as a “bourgeois half-measure” contrasted with “actual democracy” what do you think the author imagines instead? Where else has similar language been used in relation to critiques of European representative democracy?
Probably some slopulist led revolution to institute communism, followed by a million or so deaths, societal collapse, and a century of no true Scotsman fallacies defending it. I don’t listen to commie critiques because they are all illiterate and ahistoric hacks, and I don’t take anything they say as quaint or humorous because they are amoral campists who hide behind masks.
Thanks for the flashback to high school
Apparently some here need basic reading comprehension revisted ¯\(ツ)/¯