5 ms·

If it were up to me we would raise the voting age to 25, and maybe restrict it to homeowners and small business owners with more than X revenue or more than Y f

If it were up to me we would raise the voting age to 25, and maybe restrict it to homeowners and small business owners with more than X revenue or more than Y full time employees. Too many people are voting emotionally based on something someone told them one time about how the world should be. Not enough people voting based on having to grapple with accomplishing something difficult, wanting to improve the circumstances of their community, and seeing what human nature looks like over time. But no one asked me.

lordnacho 4y ago
But homeowners and businesspeople couldn't possibly vote based on emotions? Or are you suggesting they don't vote based on what they've been told the world should be?
- elbigbad 4y ago
  We’ll I think the point is that if I’ve inherited a home as part of a loved one’s estate or was gifted a home by virtue of generational wealth then I am naturally too mature to vote based on emotions. QED
vidarh 4y ago
Good thing nobody asked you, because a tyranny like that would be worth taking up arms against. I'll note many countries did have voting restrictions like that, and it did nothing good.
- svachalek 4y ago
  Including the early US (fifty acres of land in most states).
- whiddershins 4y ago
  You are calling a system where ~70% of people can make decisions about government representation a tyranny? When there are also codified hard limits of what the government can do to citizens as well?
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Yes, I am. A government is best measured by how it treats it minorities. A government that disenfranchises a substantial proportion of its competent population is one that deserves to be removed with arms if necessary - it has no legitimacy whatsoever.
jackothy 4y ago
That was how it used to be in lots of places. But it was not allowed to last because the wealthy eligible voters kept selfishly exploiting those that had no voting rights.
vlod 4y ago
I do agree with your second point (emotional voting seems to be common imho). "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people" - Probably Jefferson? I wish that the voting population were more knowledgeable about civics, the issues at hand and basic economic theory (i.e. no such thing as free money/services, that someone pays and not just everyone but you). I get a spew of party talking points for any interaction. I don't get a sense they even understand what they are saying. (Hence the reason for the first quote). A lot of people I see (or am exposed to), don't read the news and base their decisions on clickbait-y articles (without even reading it) or shared/liked articles with dubious authenticity from their family/friends. I get a sense of massive tribalism and am completely dumbfounded about it all. To quote Jefferson again: “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”
sometimeshuman 4y ago
Perhaps. But then we should not let anyone vote who has hit escape velocity. The person you described might be very well off at which point they are a single issue voter -- low tax rates.
- whiddershins 4y ago
  I’m ok with that.
afpx 4y ago
I feel like anyone who demonstrates responsibility for themself should be given the right to vote. So, maybe even as young as 11 or so. But, that would never happen.
bheadmaster 4y ago
> restrict [voting] to homeowners and small business owners What a great way to jumpstart a new feudal age. Lawmakers start pandering those two groups, eventually burning the bridge of mobility and turning all the renting working people into de-facto slaves. I am very relieved that nobody asked you.
whiddershins 4y ago
What is very telling here is people aren’t offended by the comment I replied to, which is enthusiastically advocating for age discrimination.
- vidarh 4y ago
  It's just that your comment is simply so much more extreme that it took the focus away. I find that deplorable too. But restricting vote to property owners is the kind of thing that'd make me seriously consider fomenting armed insurrection.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - whiddershins 4y ago
    It’s not more extreme, on a rational level. It’s literally the system the US had in the past, as opposed to disenfranchising old people which is just stupid and cruel. Most HN commenters seem to not understand that the majority of Americans are homeowners. The “mobile” city dweller is an exception. And although it might hurt feelings, most Americans probably don’t want to have policy shaped by people who are so mobile they can vote in bad policy and then move to somewhere else with little cost to themselves. Similar to most commenters on the internet don’t realize the TSA didn’t use to exist. The airlines dealt with security and everything was faster and more pleasant. Not all progress is good. Sometimes society makes mistakes and we need to figure out how to course correct.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      It would disenfranchise about 35% totally. Yes, it's extreme. That the US like many other countries were not in any way democratic before does not make it less extreme. And as I said, if I was a citizen of a country that decided to disenfranchise 35% of the population, then despite being a homeowner it'd be time to organise an armed insurrection; it's totally intolerable and a government that tries something like that needs to be overthrown with force.

lordnacho 4y ago

But homeowners and businesspeople couldn't possibly vote based on emotions? Or are you suggesting they don't vote based on what they've been told the world should be?

elbigbad 4y ago
We’ll I think the point is that if I’ve inherited a home as part of a loved one’s estate or was gifted a home by virtue of generational wealth then I am naturally too mature to vote based on emotions. QED

vidarh 4y ago

Good thing nobody asked you, because a tyranny like that would be worth taking up arms against. I'll note many countries did have voting restrictions like that, and it did nothing good.

svachalek 4y ago
Including the early US (fifty acres of land in most states).
whiddershins 4y ago
You are calling a system where ~70% of people can make decisions about government representation a tyranny? When there are also codified hard limits of what the government can do to citizens as well?
- vidarh 4y ago
  Yes, I am. A government is best measured by how it treats it minorities. A government that disenfranchises a substantial proportion of its competent population is one that deserves to be removed with arms if necessary - it has no legitimacy whatsoever.

jackothy 4y ago

That was how it used to be in lots of places. But it was not allowed to last because the wealthy eligible voters kept selfishly exploiting those that had no voting rights.

vlod 4y ago

I do agree with your second point (emotional voting seems to be common imho). "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people" - Probably Jefferson? I wish that the voting population were more knowledgeable about civics, the issues at hand and basic economic theory (i.e. no such thing as free money/services, that someone pays and not just everyone but you). I get a spew of party talking points for any interaction. I don't get a sense they even understand what they are saying. (Hence the reason for the first quote). A lot of people I see (or am exposed to), don't read the news and base their decisions on clickbait-y articles (without even reading it) or shared/liked articles with dubious authenticity from their family/friends. I get a sense of massive tribalism and am completely dumbfounded about it all. To quote Jefferson again: “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”

sometimeshuman 4y ago

Perhaps. But then we should not let anyone vote who has hit escape velocity. The person you described might be very well off at which point they are a single issue voter -- low tax rates.

whiddershins 4y ago
I’m ok with that.

afpx 4y ago

I feel like anyone who demonstrates responsibility for themself should be given the right to vote. So, maybe even as young as 11 or so. But, that would never happen.

bheadmaster 4y ago

> restrict [voting] to homeowners and small business owners What a great way to jumpstart a new feudal age. Lawmakers start pandering those two groups, eventually burning the bridge of mobility and turning all the renting working people into de-facto slaves. I am very relieved that nobody asked you.

whiddershins 4y ago

What is very telling here is people aren’t offended by the comment I replied to, which is enthusiastically advocating for age discrimination.

vidarh 4y ago
It's just that your comment is simply so much more extreme that it took the focus away. I find that deplorable too. But restricting vote to property owners is the kind of thing that'd make me seriously consider fomenting armed insurrection.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- whiddershins 4y ago
  It’s not more extreme, on a rational level. It’s literally the system the US had in the past, as opposed to disenfranchising old people which is just stupid and cruel. Most HN commenters seem to not understand that the majority of Americans are homeowners. The “mobile” city dweller is an exception. And although it might hurt feelings, most Americans probably don’t want to have policy shaped by people who are so mobile they can vote in bad policy and then move to somewhere else with little cost to themselves. Similar to most commenters on the internet don’t realize the TSA didn’t use to exist. The airlines dealt with security and everything was faster and more pleasant. Not all progress is good. Sometimes society makes mistakes and we need to figure out how to course correct.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    It would disenfranchise about 35% totally. Yes, it's extreme. That the US like many other countries were not in any way democratic before does not make it less extreme. And as I said, if I was a citizen of a country that decided to disenfranchise 35% of the population, then despite being a homeowner it'd be time to organise an armed insurrection; it's totally intolerable and a government that tries something like that needs to be overthrown with force.