Although official data is unavailable, a demographic analysis of the vote shows that, throughout Britain, places with lots of older citizens voted for Brexit, while places with younger voters ticked the "Remain" box. But the latter voters, not the former, will bear the brunt of Brexit: they are the ones for whom it will be harder to study or work in Europe, to make experiences overseas and to broaden their skills. The tens of thousands of pensioners, who, on the other hand, voted for Brexit, will have much less to lose from leaving the EU. Is it fair they all had the same say in such decision?

Or consider the case of Australia. As we witnessed yet again on the lead-up to this election, the two major parties tend to ignore the interests of young voters in favour of those of the older ones. Younger voters are less concerned with "economic management", superannuation, border protection, and are interested in rising university fees, job insecurity, unaffordable housing. Not only does this disparity impact negatively on their engagement with politics; it is seriously unfair. Younger voters should rather receive more attention from politicians, because they will have to live longer with the consequences of the electoral outcome. 

Younger people (say under 60) should be allowed to cast more votes during elections, because they have much more at stake than someone who is already retired. And older voters (say over 60) should accept that the views of younger citizens should have priority over their own.

Take the referendum for an Australian republic: shouldn't those who will have to live under such system for a long time be allowed more say than those who will not? Or if the decision over same-sex marriages was left to a referendum shouldn't young gay people, whose lives would be deeply affected by the result, be allowed more votes than old retirees?  

Plural voting 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 doesn't 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 realise their plans in life. The "one person, one vote" system, however, treats people who have had their chances in life, and those who haven't yet, identically.

The idea of plural voting is not new. The British philosopher John Stuart Mill, one of the fathers of liberalism, already defended it in the 19th century, though he wrongly focused on education rather than age (ignoring that someone with a university degree can be less politically savvy than the average Joe). But he was right to point out that democracy should reconsider the importance of the "one person, one vote" principle.

And let's not forget that the word "democracy" refers to an ideal, a world where citizens persuade each other through rational exchange, where no money is involved, no power inequalities, no private interests.

The world in which we live is very different from that.