Elections give every person one vote. Yet when low birth rates and population ageing change the number of voters in each generation, not every generation retains the same political influence. As the younger generation that will live longest in the future shrinks, the clock of democracy increasingly tilts toward the present and the past.

* Low fertility changes the generational composition of the ballot box. A decline in births eventually produces a smaller electorate of young adults. The generation that will live longest in the future may become the smallest political group.

* Dejuvenation describes the wider erosion of younger generations’ influence. When the young population declines, its economic, cultural and political weight may weaken alongside the labour supply. Societies must prevent demographic decline from creating a cycle of weaker representation and lower participation.

* Democracy contains a temporal imbalance between the present and the future. Policies such as pensions and healthcare produce visible benefits quickly, while the results of climate, education, debt and infrastructure policies appear much later. Political decisions must account for both the benefits enjoyed by current voters and the costs inherited by future generations.

* Responses to low fertility must rebuild confidence in the future. Insecure employment, unaffordable housing and weak political efficacy make marriage and parenthood feel increasingly risky. Building a society in which young people believe they can shape their future is as important as providing financial support.

* The goal is not generational conflict but a balance of time. Strengthening the voice of younger citizens should not require reducing the rights of older voters. Democracy must extend its time horizon so that present needs and future responsibilities can be represented together.

***

Imagine election day in a country in 2050. A long line forms outside the polling station from early morning, but most of those waiting are voters aged 50 or older. People in their twenties and thirties are conspicuously scarce. The election proceeds fairly, and every voter casts one equal ballot. Viewed only as a procedure, nothing appears to be wrong.

Yet the people who will live longest with the policies chosen that day are the young voters who make up the smallest group at the polling station. A power plant approved today will generate electricity for decades, and government bonds issued now will have to be repaid through future taxes. Artificial intelligence (AI) rules established today will affect the next generation’s employment and privacy, while the cost of delayed climate action will increase over time.

The principle of one person, one vote remains unchanged. What changes is the number of voters in each generation. When the young population declines, the electoral weight behind future-oriented issues may decline with it. In an election where people with another 10 or 20 years to live greatly outnumber those likely to live for another 60 years, politics naturally becomes more responsive to immediate demands. This does not mean that older voters are selfish or that younger voters always make long-term decisions. Age cannot be mechanically equated with political preference. The central problem is that when the demographic structure changes, the time horizon to which democracy responds may change as well. In a society where today’s majority differs from tomorrow’s, electoral fairness and intergenerational fairness do not necessarily coincide.

Low fertility has generally been discussed in terms of fewer births, labour shortages, school closures and pension depletion. But fewer children also mean fewer young adults 20 years later and fewer middle-aged voters 40 years later. Demographic decline transforms not only factories and classrooms but also the generational composition inside the ballot box.

Demographer Anne Goujon described this transformation through the concept of “dejuvenation” in the editorial “When the Future Loses Its Voice,” published in Science in July 2026. Goujon directs the Population and Just Societies Program at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and leads the Population Data and Projections Research Group at the Vienna Institute of Demography of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

The article was not a research paper reporting a new experiment or statistical model. It was an editorial that expanded the discussion of low fertility and ageing beyond economic dependency ratios to include political representation and confidence in the future. Goujon argued that when the number of young people declines, their economic, cultural and political influence can weaken alongside their share of the population. Dejuvenation differs slightly from population ageing. Ageing describes an increase in the proportion of older people within the total population. Dejuvenation focuses on the narrowing space occupied by young people as agents who shape society. Fewer young consumers, weaker bargaining power for young workers, the displacement of youth culture from the social centre and a decline in the electoral power of younger citizens become interconnected.

When the young population of a city begins to fall, maternity clinics and childcare centres may disappear first. Schools are later consolidated, and universities enrol fewer new students. As time passes, employers find it harder to recruit young workers and local consumer markets contract. This is the familiar story of demographic decline. But over a longer period, political candidates also begin looking at a transformed electoral map. The demands of generations with more votes are translated into policy more quickly, while the priorities of smaller generations risk being treated as expensive or less urgent.

Young people may then lose more than numbers. If the belief that politics does not listen to them spreads, their motivation to participate may also weaken. Lower participation gives political parties even less reason to respond to younger citizens. Demographic decline can create political powerlessness, which in turn produces still lower participation.

Italy was one of the most striking examples highlighted by Goujon. In 1950, Italians aged 18 to 49 substantially outnumbered those aged 50 and above. Younger adults formed a clear majority not only in the labour market but also in elections. By 2050, however, that relationship is projected to reverse. A generation that once occupied the centre of electoral politics will have become a numerical minority within a century. The transformation does not occur overnight. A small birth cohort recorded in one year becomes a small group of young voters 18 years later, a smaller core workforce after 30 years and a narrower tax base supporting the welfare state after 50 years. A single line in a demographic table moves along the conveyor belt of time, transforming schools, companies, housing markets and legislatures in sequence.

An Italian politician in 1950 could hardly ignore a large bloc of young voters. Employment, housing, education and family policy inevitably became major electoral issues. A candidate in 2050 faces a very different calculation. Pensions, healthcare and long-term care?issues directly affecting older voters?carry far greater political pressure. By contrast, education reform, housing for young adults and long-term climate investment may offer little immediate electoral reward.

Democracy is designed to respond to numbers. It is natural that policies preferred by more people receive priority. Yet when the demographic structure tilts strongly toward one side, majority rule encounters a difficult problem. The people who decide the cost of a policy are no longer necessarily those who will bear that cost for the longest period.

Imagine that a government postpones the replacement of an ageing bridge for 20 years to avoid an immediate fiscal burden. Current voters avoid a tax increase, but future voters inherit higher repair costs and greater safety risks. Delaying carbon reductions may lower energy costs today, but younger generations will live through a more severe climate crisis. Those with voting rights enjoy the present benefit, while those who cannot yet vote?or have not yet been born?inherit the future cost.

Politicians are judged at the next election. Voters are also more responsive to problems that directly affect their daily lives. Policies with immediate benefits therefore hold an advantage, while policies whose costs appear now but whose benefits arrive in the distant future remain politically vulnerable.

A pension increase has clearly identifiable beneficiaries and produces an immediate effect. Expanded healthcare and care services also improve the lives of current voters directly. Climate action, debt reduction, school reform, basic science, and the replacement of ageing infrastructure take much longer to produce visible results. Long-term policies are difficult to explain during an election, while their short-term costs are easy to see.

AI policy contains the same temporal tension. Allowing companies to develop technology rapidly may increase investment and productivity in the short term. But young people who will remain in the labour market for decades must live longest with jobs lost to automation, personal data accumulated by algorithms and uncertainty over responsibility for faulty decisions. The weaker the rules adopted today, the greater the technological and institutional costs that future generations may have to reverse.

Housing policy provides another clear example of conflicting generational timelines. Measures that preserve existing home values benefit voters who already own property, but they create higher barriers for young people entering the market. Restrictions on development may protect the environment and asset values of current residents, but lower housing supply can leave the next generation paying higher rents. Describing these tensions as a battle between young and old obscures the real issue. Many parents and grandparents worry about their children and grandchildren and support long-term policies. Young adults do not always focus on the distant future either. When employment is unstable and living costs are high, immediate cash support and jobs understandably become urgent.

The true conflict lies not between ages but between policy timelines: immediate benefits versus benefits arriving decades later, and present costs versus future costs. As the electorate ages, democratic societies must consider whether politics is beginning to discount the future too heavily.

Dejuvenation does not end with the number of voters. When younger generations lose confidence that they can shape their own futures, demographic decline and weakened political representation begin to reinforce each other.

Stable employment becomes harder to find, housing prices and rents rise faster than earnings, and climate disasters become more frequent. The familiar path followed by previous generations?from employment to marriage and home ownership?no longer functions in the same way. The promise that hard work will gradually produce a better life also fades. The future begins to look less like something to anticipate and more like a risk to endure.

Such uncertainty changes individual choices. Young people postpone leaving home, marriage and parenthood. Instead of building a long career in one organization, they move in response to short-term opportunities. When society appears unwilling to provide them with a durable place, their willingness to assume long-term responsibilities for that society can also weaken.

Political participation is affected as well. If voting seems unable to change housing costs or employment insecurity, and political parties appear focused on generations with more votes, the perceived value of a ballot diminishes. As young people vote and participate in parties less frequently, youth issues occupy even less space in policymaking. A smaller population produces weaker representation, and weaker representation creates a society in which fewer young people can build a life.

This is why cash bonuses alone cannot solve low fertility. The decision to have a child is tied more deeply to whether people can trust their future housing, employment, care services, education and environment than to a single payment. Without confidence that the future will improve, parenthood feels like a greater personal risk.

A society seeking to raise its birth rate must ask more than why people are not having children. It must also ask whether young people believe they can create a future within that society. Declining fertility may be a numerical expression of declining confidence in the future.

Democracy has an old weakness: people who have not yet been born cannot participate in present elections. A citizen who will live in 2070 has no vote on today’s carbon emissions, public debt, AI rules or urban planning. Yet present decisions narrow the range of choices available to that future citizen.

Dams, airports and nuclear power plants operate for decades. A road built on the outskirts of a city can lock in patterns of housing and commuting for generations. Cuts to education budgets may not be immediately visible, but they leave marks on the capabilities of an entire cohort. Government debt becomes future taxation, and damaged ecosystems become restoration costs for the next generation.

In the past, a large young electorate helped draw future interests into present politics. Young citizens are current voters who will also experience the results of long-term policies for many years. As their share of the electorate declines, the voice that indirectly represents the future becomes weaker as well.

Future generations cannot be given imaginary ballot papers, and current voters cannot be asked to surrender their political rights. The task is not to replace democracy but to extend its time horizon.

Governments can strengthen future-generation impact assessments that examine the costs major policies will leave after 10, 30 or 50 years. Youth assemblies and intergenerational deliberative bodies can help prevent the priorities of smaller generations from disappearing before the policy agenda is even formed. Independent fiscal and climate institutions can provide forecasts beyond the electoral cycle, while durable rules can make long-term investments harder to reverse whenever governments change.

Businesses cannot avoid the same question. Cutting recruitment and training to protect short-term earnings reduces costs today but leaves an organization without an experienced middle generation several years later. A company that retains only senior employees while denying entry opportunities to the young may appear stable, but its talent pipeline has stopped renewing itself. Dejuvenation can weaken not only national politics but also the future capabilities of organizations.

Strengthening the representation of young people does not mean reducing the political rights of older citizens. In societies with longer life expectancy, older people also live far into the future. Climate change, medical technology and digital transformation affect every age group. Framing the challenge as a generational conflict conceals the deeper problem of long-term representation.

The task is not to determine which generation receives the larger share. It is to incorporate the interests of people living across different time horizons into the same decision. Sustainable pension policy must consider both security in old age and the burden placed on younger workers. Housing policy must address the property rights of existing owners and the opportunities of new entrants. Climate policy must calculate current household energy costs alongside the environmental costs inherited by the next generation.

Goujon’s argument redirects the discussion of low fertility. The greatest danger in a society with fewer young people is not merely a shortage of workers. It is also a shortage of people able to imagine the future, demand it and turn it into a political agenda. A smaller generation must speak more loudly to explain its needs, yet in a society that has lost confidence in the future, it may also lose the strength to raise its voice. The maturity of democracy cannot be judged only by how quickly it responds to the present majority. It must also be judged by how well it incorporates the interests of those who have not yet become a majority, those who have already become a minority and those who have not yet been born and therefore cannot speak.

In an era of low fertility, the scarcest resource may not be labour or taxpayers alone. Confidence that the future can still be changed?and trust that those who will live longest in that future have a meaningful part in shaping it?may also be disappearing. Protecting the voice of the young is not a favour granted to one generation. It is a minimum safeguard preventing democracy from losing its future.

Science, July 2026, Anne Goujon, “When the Future Loses Its Voice”