The demographic tidal wave, with its attendant political and economic implications, continues to shape the modern democratic landscape, and William Watson’s recent column in the Financial Post serves as a timely reminder of the fraught debates surrounding the principle of **one** person, one vote.
Watson, a veteran voice on Canadian economics and policy, wades into the contentious waters of “elder power” – the growing political heft of an aging population. Writing for a piece published in the Financial Post, which curiously appears under a “united-states” desk designation despite its Canadian focus, Watson tackles a radical proposition: giving seniors only a fraction of the vote afforded to younger Canadians. His column firmly rejects this notion, framing it as a non-negotiable principle for seniors and a non-starter for democratic integrity.
The context is clear: as populations age, concerns about intergenerational equity mount. Pensions, healthcare, and public debt often fall heavily on the shoulders of younger generations, while voting power increasingly concentrates with older cohorts. This perceived imbalance fuels proposals, often extreme, to re-engineer the very mechanisms of representation. Watson’s piece is a direct response to such a suggestion, positioning itself as a defense of a core democratic tenet.
What landed
Watson’s column, as summarized, plants its flag firmly on a crucial hill: the principle of universal suffrage. He unequivocally dismisses the notion that a person’s vote should be weighted based on their age. This is the core strength of his argument, and it is here that he lands with commendable force. To suggest that “giving seniors a fraction of the vote younger Canadians get” is a viable solution to “elder power” is, as Watson implies, a dangerous path. It undermines the foundational democratic ideal of “one person, one vote,” a principle hard-won and essential for political equality.
His phrasing, “one fogey, one vote,” though perhaps a touch provocative in its casualness, effectively distills the discriminatory essence of the proposal he’s critiquing. It highlights the absurdity and inherent unfairness of devaluing a citizen’s voice simply due to their age. Credit where it’s due: Watson’s rejection of this particular solution is absolute and necessary. It’s a clear call against age-based disenfranchisement, reinforcing that while “elder power may be a political problem,” the proposed “solution” is an affront to democratic values. He correctly identifies this as a “hill to die on” for seniors, articulating a fundamental right that should not be up for debate.
What doesn’t add up
While Watson’s staunch defense of equal voting rights is laudable, his column, as summarized, appears to fall short in one critical area: engaging with the *underlying problem* that gives rise to such radical suggestions. The summary states that “Elder power may be a political problem but giving seniors a fraction of the vote younger Canadians get is no way to try to solve it.” This phrasing acknowledges a problem but offers no insight into Watson’s perspective on how this “political problem” *should* be addressed, if at all.
This creates a significant gap in the argument. To merely reject a poor solution without offering any alternative or even a nuanced discussion of the challenges of intergenerational equity is to leave the conversation incomplete. Is “elder power” a problem that needs solving? If so, what are the legitimate avenues for addressing it? Watson champions an essential democratic principle, but in doing so, he seems to sidestep the complex policy challenges that demographic shifts present. The column, by focusing solely on rejecting an extreme proposition, risks becoming a defense of the status quo without acknowledging the genuine fiscal and social pressures that have led some to consider such drastic measures.
Furthermore, the very framing of “elder power” as a “problem” invites a deeper exploration that the piece, again as summarized, doesn’t seem to provide. Is the democratic success of one demographic cohort inherently problematic? Or is the problem the *impact* of that success on others? Watson’s piece provides a firm “no” to a bad idea, but a deafening silence on the “yes” to any good ones. It’s a powerful defense of a fundamental right, yet it offers little in the way of constructive thought on navigating the real-world implications of an aging electorate, leaving the impression of a rhetorical victory without a practical path forward.
Come Monday morning, Watson’s column will undoubtedly be applauded by those who believe in the unassailable sanctity of the “one person, one vote” principle. And rightly so. But it does little to advance the thorny, uncomfortable conversation about intergenerational fairness that societies desperately need to have. The demographic shifts continue, the fiscal pressures mount, and the underlying “political problem” of elder power remains, perhaps even more entrenched, because only the most extreme “solution” has been decisively swatted away, leaving other, more nuanced discussions still waiting to begin.
Source: OnTheRecord