There is something of an argument for giving wildlife the vote, given how much humans depend on it (well, the biosphere in general) for our continuing well-being and survival. Putting this into operation is the difficult thing. One badger, one vote, might have a progressive ring to it, but it would surely be a policy too far, and anyway there would be great difficulty in keeping the electoral register up to date, let alone arranging for postal votes.
But this is why we have wildlife charities. They are the ones that, through their campaigning, urge us to vote always with wildlife in mind.
We were urged to do this in the recent referendum, being constantly reminded by the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts, the saintly Bob Geldof, and many others, that we'd all soon be going to hell in a handcart if we didn't vote to remain in the EU. Except it would seem not to have worked, and the handcart is outside the door.
But perhaps it did work; perhaps the wildlife charities really did influence people to vote to remain. But, maybe these were the wrong people. Maybe they were going to be pro-EU anyway. Maybe the sort of people who listen to messages from wildlife charities were always likely to be pro-EU.
Maybe the wildlife charities should make greater efforts to influence those that don't think usually like they do, such as people with only a handful of GCSEs to their name (if that), 68% of whom, according to YouGov, are likely to have voted to Leave.
Respond