6 ms·

Having spent Christmas back home, I've come to the conclusion that people over 65 should not have the right to vote. You've had almost forty years of voting, y

Having spent Christmas back home, I've come to the conclusion that people over 65 should not have the right to vote. You've had almost forty years of voting, you don't really have any future left, and your minds aren't what they used to be. Please stay out of it.

dazc 8y ago
So, what you're saying is, people who have 40 years more experience of life than you have, people who've paid taxes for most of those years, people who sacrificed a better lifestyle so they could change your nappies, etc shouldn't vote because their political opinions don't chime with yours? You don't know it yet but a lot of what you think you know stems from fake news too.
- beat 8y ago
  Do they have 40 years of experience, or one year of experience 40 times?
  - dazc 8y ago
    Not sure what your point is?
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Ah, the old "we changed your nappies so we know better than you" argument.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Really ageism is an area of accepted double standards - denying Alzheimer's patients the right to vote is considered absurd yet even college graduate minors cannot vote despite being proven more capable than average. Or rare absurdities like a minor charged as an adult who managed to get acquitted in spite of the situation's seriousness isn't allowed to vote because of lacking the capacity. Holding the elders to the same rationale is fair if not just - the situation isn't just for anyone affected but they aren't getting special treatment. To give an absurd example executing people for jaywalking is unjust but doing it to all regardless of station is fair. I believe in keeping voting sancrosanct mind you but I can see a rhetorical and logical point to it.
ddingus 8y ago
Archive this. When you reach that age, find your mind likely still nimble, read it.
saemil 8y ago
Wow. Should we also say that people younger than 30 should not vote because they do not have the life experiences necessary to make rational decisions?
- dazc 8y ago
  People aged 18 to 30 should vote.
- zedpm 8y ago
  Don't worry, they're already opting out on their own[0] [0] https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2017/comm/voting-rates-age.html https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2017/comm/voti...
- TremendousJudge 8y ago
  Or maybe children should vote, since they have all the future ahead of them. If there's a reason why education is ignored so much by governments it's because children don't vote
  - asdff 8y ago
    "as president, I will give free lollipops to every boy and girl who votes for me"
    - TremendousJudge 8y ago
      I know, I was being facetious. However, the bit on education I still believe it to be true
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we've gone from "big tent" to "white van" politics.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    Head of politics at Cambridge suggests 6 year olds should be given the right: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-year-olds-the-vote-says-cambridge-university-academic https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-ye... "Hey, why is it that socialist ideas are so unpopular with adults who have life experience?"
magduf 8y ago
I'm not sure this is fair to all people over 65. It sounds like maybe your relatives are much like mine, and I agree, my relatives shouldn't be voting either. If we're going to put up a discriminatory barrier to voting, I think it'd be more effective if it was education-based. People with no education make poor voting choices, as we've seen in recent elections.
- kaffeemitsahne 8y ago
  It's quite frightening to see how popular this education barrier to voting idea is. Another one I've heard is that everyone should make a test before being allowed to vote.
  - howard941 8y ago
    I'm inclined to support educational qualifications for elections supervisors and poll workers, not voters, and while we're there, forcing open source/open inspection ballot counting systems. Isn't it long past time to deal with the ineptitude problem and corrupt canvassing at the source?
  - deadmetheny 8y ago
    Let's just go all the way and narrow it down to landowners. If we're removing suffrage those idiot olds, why stop when we can get rid of it for those pesky poors too?
- jgroszko 8y ago
  So under-represented or disadvantaged communities that don't have the resources to meet the education standards don't get to vote? Education requirements can very easily become a proxy for race/class.
  - tivert 8y ago
    > So under-represented or disadvantaged communities that don't have the resources to meet the education standards don't get to vote? Education requirements can very easily become a proxy for race/class. Easily become a proxy for race/class? They already were used to disenfranchise people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting > From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.
axaxs 8y ago
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your line of thought, but removing the right to vote from ANY group is dangerous idea. People always vote in their own best interests, typically for the now/near future. Imagine social security and medicare being ended overnight. Not only would there be a lot of homeless/starving seniors, but, in 20-30 years when the current voters aged out, nobody who was eligible to vote would care enough to help them. This would likely end up as some quasi Logan's Run type scenario. This is absolutely not a voice in favor of the mentioned programs, just used as an example.
olooney 8y ago
It's always insidiously attractive to deny voting rights to groups of people who, in our own opinion, do not have good character or good judgement. It certainly sounds clever to say we're implementing rules so only the best and the brightest can vote which (we argue) will lead to better decisions and a higher caliber of elected leaders. And in fact such arguments often have carried the day and lead directly to such policies being implemented. In various places and at various times, women, ethnic and religious minorities, felons, unmarried males, landless people, people who could not pass a reading test, and many other small powerless groups have all been denied the right to vote. However, the result has never been "smarter" political decisions and "better" governance, but only ever the political oppression of the disenfranchised group. It makes more sense to view voting rights as political capital that forces politicians to care about the needs of particular voting blocks then as a ticket to participate in some impartial decision process. The implication of this point of view is this: to get a more equal society, or at least to prevent certain extreme example of inequality, we need to make sure that as many people as possible have the right to vote. The process of deciding who can and cannot vote is also fraught with moral hazard and the potential for corruption. A literacy test before voting sounds reasonable (if you believe we only want smart educated people voting) but it leads to corrupt situations like this: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-the-supreme-court-the-impossible-literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-give-black-voters.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-t... This is a rare example of a real slippery slope: once you start the process of identifying small "undesirable" groups to disenfranchise, the process is unlikely to stop in anything short of full blown dictatorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
dandare 8y ago
The reason why democracy works is not that it generates the best decisions, it works because it makes the least amount of people unhappy.

dazc 8y ago

So, what you're saying is, people who have 40 years more experience of life than you have, people who've paid taxes for most of those years, people who sacrificed a better lifestyle so they could change your nappies, etc shouldn't vote because their political opinions don't chime with yours? You don't know it yet but a lot of what you think you know stems from fake news too.

beat 8y ago
Do they have 40 years of experience, or one year of experience 40 times?
- dazc 8y ago
  Not sure what your point is?
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Ah, the old "we changed your nappies so we know better than you" argument.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Really ageism is an area of accepted double standards - denying Alzheimer's patients the right to vote is considered absurd yet even college graduate minors cannot vote despite being proven more capable than average. Or rare absurdities like a minor charged as an adult who managed to get acquitted in spite of the situation's seriousness isn't allowed to vote because of lacking the capacity. Holding the elders to the same rationale is fair if not just - the situation isn't just for anyone affected but they aren't getting special treatment. To give an absurd example executing people for jaywalking is unjust but doing it to all regardless of station is fair. I believe in keeping voting sancrosanct mind you but I can see a rhetorical and logical point to it.

ddingus 8y ago

Archive this. When you reach that age, find your mind likely still nimble, read it.

saemil 8y ago

Wow. Should we also say that people younger than 30 should not vote because they do not have the life experiences necessary to make rational decisions?

dazc 8y ago
People aged 18 to 30 should vote.
zedpm 8y ago
Don't worry, they're already opting out on their own[0] [0] https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2017/comm/voting-rates-age.html https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2017/comm/voti...
TremendousJudge 8y ago
Or maybe children should vote, since they have all the future ahead of them. If there's a reason why education is ignored so much by governments it's because children don't vote
- asdff 8y ago
  "as president, I will give free lollipops to every boy and girl who votes for me"
  - TremendousJudge 8y ago
    I know, I was being facetious. However, the bit on education I still believe it to be true
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we've gone from "big tent" to "white van" politics.
- sparkie 8y ago
  Head of politics at Cambridge suggests 6 year olds should be given the right: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-year-olds-the-vote-says-cambridge-university-academic https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/06/give-six-ye... "Hey, why is it that socialist ideas are so unpopular with adults who have life experience?"

magduf 8y ago

I'm not sure this is fair to all people over 65. It sounds like maybe your relatives are much like mine, and I agree, my relatives shouldn't be voting either. If we're going to put up a discriminatory barrier to voting, I think it'd be more effective if it was education-based. People with no education make poor voting choices, as we've seen in recent elections.

kaffeemitsahne 8y ago
It's quite frightening to see how popular this education barrier to voting idea is. Another one I've heard is that everyone should make a test before being allowed to vote.
- howard941 8y ago
  I'm inclined to support educational qualifications for elections supervisors and poll workers, not voters, and while we're there, forcing open source/open inspection ballot counting systems. Isn't it long past time to deal with the ineptitude problem and corrupt canvassing at the source?
- deadmetheny 8y ago
  Let's just go all the way and narrow it down to landowners. If we're removing suffrage those idiot olds, why stop when we can get rid of it for those pesky poors too?
jgroszko 8y ago
So under-represented or disadvantaged communities that don't have the resources to meet the education standards don't get to vote? Education requirements can very easily become a proxy for race/class.
- tivert 8y ago
  > So under-represented or disadvantaged communities that don't have the resources to meet the education standards don't get to vote? Education requirements can very easily become a proxy for race/class. Easily become a proxy for race/class? They already were used to disenfranchise people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#Voting > From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.

axaxs 8y ago

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your line of thought, but removing the right to vote from ANY group is dangerous idea. People always vote in their own best interests, typically for the now/near future. Imagine social security and medicare being ended overnight. Not only would there be a lot of homeless/starving seniors, but, in 20-30 years when the current voters aged out, nobody who was eligible to vote would care enough to help them. This would likely end up as some quasi Logan's Run type scenario. This is absolutely not a voice in favor of the mentioned programs, just used as an example.

olooney 8y ago

It's always insidiously attractive to deny voting rights to groups of people who, in our own opinion, do not have good character or good judgement. It certainly sounds clever to say we're implementing rules so only the best and the brightest can vote which (we argue) will lead to better decisions and a higher caliber of elected leaders. And in fact such arguments often have carried the day and lead directly to such policies being implemented. In various places and at various times, women, ethnic and religious minorities, felons, unmarried males, landless people, people who could not pass a reading test, and many other small powerless groups have all been denied the right to vote. However, the result has never been "smarter" political decisions and "better" governance, but only ever the political oppression of the disenfranchised group. It makes more sense to view voting rights as political capital that forces politicians to care about the needs of particular voting blocks then as a ticket to participate in some impartial decision process. The implication of this point of view is this: to get a more equal society, or at least to prevent certain extreme example of inequality, we need to make sure that as many people as possible have the right to vote. The process of deciding who can and cannot vote is also fraught with moral hazard and the potential for corruption. A literacy test before voting sounds reasonable (if you believe we only want smart educated people voting) but it leads to corrupt situations like this: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-the-supreme-court-the-impossible-literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-give-black-voters.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-t... This is a rare example of a real slippery slope: once you start the process of identifying small "undesirable" groups to disenfranchise, the process is unlikely to stop in anything short of full blown dictatorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

dandare 8y ago

The reason why democracy works is not that it generates the best decisions, it works because it makes the least amount of people unhappy.