The Swiss reject key climate change measures

Subsidies aren’t much better either in many cases…

We see this with EVs now where countries and jurisdictions are looking for ways to make up for the lost tax revenue due to ever and ever increasing EV sales.

In a democracy you have to horse trade. You have to compromise. If 51% want X and 49% want not X, then you don't implement X, you implement 51% of X, or alternately you give the opponents something else so everyone walks away a little happy and a little unhappy. The idea of total victory as a result of getting 51% jeapordizes the republic as a whole -- that's how you get secession and create chaos, by locking people out entirely instead of giving them some of what they want and some of what they don't want. Referenda aren't able to do this. They aren't able to put people into a room and say "OK, we will put a bridge here and to gain your support we'll move the library over there". That type of consensus gathering process is critical to governing, which is why long lasting forms of government require closer to 60% or even more, e.g. they add various hoops and checks and balances to prevent the 51% from forcing their way and excluding the 49%. These anti-democratic measures are required for democracy to work.

This is similar to leading a team. If you have 10 devs and 6 are strongly for something and 4 are strongly against, only the bad manager chooses to steamroll over the 4. The good manager will find some alternate compromise to get most of those 4 onboard, because you don't want to lose a large chunk of your team and need a broader consensus than just 50% +1.

As far as the actual idea goes, better would be to (1) make it finer gained, and to (2) make it depend on the issue being voted upon.

Maybe something like this (numbers for illustration only--much more thought would need to go into determining the right numbers):

(1) If the life expectancy for an average voter of your age is at least 30 years, your vote weight is 1.00.

(2) If your life expectancy is not at least 30 years, your vote weight decreases as a function of how much under 30 years it is, reaching a minimum of 0.25 at 10 years life expectancy and then staying at 0.25 for the rest of your actual life, unless #3 applies.

(3) If a particular issue will likely have major short term consequences, your vote weight is based on the percentage of that short term that occurs within your life expectancy.

If I'm only expected to live 10 more years and we're voting on something that is going to seriously affect people for much much longer than that, it seems only fair that the people who are going to be more affected should have more say than me. That's what #2 is trying to cover.

#3 is to protect people against front loaded projects. Say the vote is on building something that will take 10 years to build and then have a major impact for the next century, and construction is going to be paid for by a 10 year tax increase. People with 10 year life expectancy would only get a 0.25 vote under #2, but they would be fully hit by the taxes in this case, and see none of the benefit, so they should have more say. #3 in this case would supersede #2 and give them a 1.00 vote.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution