8 ms·

When I read these sorts of articles were clearly there a govt for the NIMBYs, by the NIMBYS, so that everyone gets off my lawn, I start to wonder if we need a m

When I read these sorts of articles were clearly there a govt for the NIMBYs, by the NIMBYS, so that everyone gets off my lawn, I start to wonder if we need a maximum voting age. If you're not going to be around in 20 years, don’t understand the issues that will impact working people today and into the next generation, maybe you shouldn’t be voting.

xeromal 3y ago
If you can't vote, you shouldn't be obligated to participate in society through taxes, laws, and other requirements. I doubt you could sell anyone on that though.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  And then you should not receive anything from society either... No more pensions or public health care. Or other type of social care.
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    > No more pensions or public health care. Or other type of social care. It's the exact opposite. When you are retired you paid all of your life for those things trough taxes. It's the youngsters that are getting them for free, having contributed a lot less if not zero.
- cuban-frisbee 3y ago
  You are obligated to participate before you can vote, you can be obligated after too.
ghqst 3y ago
I like the general idea, but I don't know if this could ever be implemented, much less in a clean way
- wizofaus 3y ago
  You could make voting compulsory for everyone under retirement age. Which in Australia translates to making it voluntary for everyone over said age, an idea I think you could sell pretty well - however most here have been used to voting all their life and probably wouldn't stop just because they no long risked being fined for not turning up to the polls.
Nursie 3y ago
Yep, experience of life, love of family, desire to help steer the country you’ve contributed your whole life to… nah, you’re right, fuck the old they have nothing to offer. I’m not sure I could fully express how foul I consider this recent memeplex that older people shouldn’t be allowed to participate in democracy.
- paulmd 3y ago
  Having no stake in the long term future is not the same thing as having nothing to offer. We also don’t generally allow other “transient” populations like non-citizen immigrants to vote either, despite them having a lot to offer too. If you’re not going to be here in 10 years you don’t get a say. We also have lower age limits on voting and there’s very good reasons for that too. People try to raise the voting age limits all the time to curb the political influence of the younger voters. It’s a situation like class wars where one side is playing hardball and the other side isn’t even aware they were playing. Point out the nature of the game you’ll be pounced (just as you did here) for “ageism” despite ageism already being written into the rules, and despite the elderly here (in the US) are continually trying to shift those rules even further in their own favor. The hand of the dead should not bind the living, nor should the hand of transient populations bind those with a long-term stake in the society. And there will inevitably be some edge-cases where people slip around the edges of the rules (citizens with deadly illnesses, immigrants who own homes and settle, etc) but those are just the guiding principles society has agreed upon, except when it comes to the elderly.
  - Nursie 3y ago
    > We also don’t generally allow other “transient” populations like non-citizen immigrants to vote either This is not why we don't allow migrants who have not yet become citizens the ability to vote. They have not (yet) been granted a place in society because they have not yet demonstrated commitment to the country, nor contributed, and the country has not yet decided they are valuable enough to allow into the society. > We also have lower age limits on voting and there’s very good reasons for that too. Yes, due to inexperience of life, ignorance of politics and the wider world, and brains which are not yet fully formed, reasons that people below these ages are denied full autonomy in a number of areas. These reasons are not applicable to most older people. > People try to raise the voting age limits all the time In the context of the UK, which this discussion is about, this has literally never happened, not once. The elections are comparatively well run, you seldom have to wait more than a few minutes to vote there because polling stations and staff are not limited, gerrymandering doesn't exist, voter suppression is pretty universally regarded as evil. You seem to be in the US, one of your political parties appears to have effectively become cancerous and is trying to kill US democracy, I wish you luck in dealing with it but inter-generational hate is unlikely to help. > It’s a situation like class wars where one side ... Point out the nature of the game you’ll be pounced (just as you did here) ... those are just the guiding principles ... There are no sides here. There is no war between the young and the old. These are not principles that society has agreed on at all. It's hard to see how you could be more wrong. I 'pounced' upon these views because they are gross. At what age do you think people have no stake in the long term future? Do you only have a stake or guidance to give if you personally will be affected? Do you not get to vote on the short term matters that do personally affect you? Should people in general only be able to vote on things that affect them personally and directly? I don't have kids, should I be denied a vote because we might be deciding eduction policy and school funding? Besides naked prejudice, you seem to have a very transactional view of democracy - you assume people will obviously only vote in their own short-term self interest, not use their knowledge and morality to guide their choices for their own good and that of others. I wish you luck in fixing the US, but don't project its flaws onto everyone else. And don't just blame old people for your woes. Those steering the ship over there are not all ancient and there are plenty of young people involved in all sorts of terrible stuff.
peoplefromibiza 3y ago
entire countries have been built on the concept of no taxation without representation. Moreover, you can be 18, not be around in 20 years and don't understand the issues that will impact working people today. Or you can be 40 and never have worked a single day. Or you can be 80 and have a lot of experience and understand plenty about history repeating and see things coming before anyone else. Age is one of the worst proxies for human intelligence A lot of the rhetoric around "old people not getting it" sounds to me a lot like that classmate that never studied, but blamed the professore for the bad votes, "he hates me" they usually say.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  > Age is one of the worst proxies for human intelligence Whoever suggested it was a good one? I would never support any attempt to block older voters from participating in democracy, but it can be an issue if a particular demographic, particularly one that might have the least direct motivation to vote for policies aimed at long-term system wide improvements, has outsized representation. Interestingly we allow that governments are determined currently by the number of seats (representing a particular area) they can win, maybe it's not so crazy to consider the number of age brackets they can win...that way the fact that there might be many more 65-70yos vs 20-25yos wouldn't affect the outcome.
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    > but it can be an issue if a particular demographic, particularly one that might have the least direct motivation to vote for policies aimed at long-term system wide improvements, has outsized representation that's democracy working as intendend. Besides: don't underestimate the fact that older people have much more motivation than adults, because they are at rest, they can think about the past, they actually have a past to think about and can draw conclusions on what their generation did and what the results were and how that affects the people they love and are worried about, particularly their nephews, who represent the real "new hope" for them. Most elderly were too busy working and taking care of their families when they were younger to focus on the long term results of their actions. While younger people lack either the motivation, the experience or the tools to make such an analysis. > that way the fact that there might be many more 65-70yos vs 20-25yos wouldn't affect the outcome You are assuming that all the old people vote against the interests of the 20-25 years old people and vice versa, but actually it's very far from the truth. The tension between equal representation and fairness of the outcome has been studied for a long time. See the Arrow impossibility theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...

xeromal 3y ago

If you can't vote, you shouldn't be obligated to participate in society through taxes, laws, and other requirements. I doubt you could sell anyone on that though.

Ekaros 3y ago
And then you should not receive anything from society either... No more pensions or public health care. Or other type of social care.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > No more pensions or public health care. Or other type of social care. It's the exact opposite. When you are retired you paid all of your life for those things trough taxes. It's the youngsters that are getting them for free, having contributed a lot less if not zero.
cuban-frisbee 3y ago
You are obligated to participate before you can vote, you can be obligated after too.

ghqst 3y ago

I like the general idea, but I don't know if this could ever be implemented, much less in a clean way

wizofaus 3y ago
You could make voting compulsory for everyone under retirement age. Which in Australia translates to making it voluntary for everyone over said age, an idea I think you could sell pretty well - however most here have been used to voting all their life and probably wouldn't stop just because they no long risked being fined for not turning up to the polls.

Nursie 3y ago

Yep, experience of life, love of family, desire to help steer the country you’ve contributed your whole life to… nah, you’re right, fuck the old they have nothing to offer. I’m not sure I could fully express how foul I consider this recent memeplex that older people shouldn’t be allowed to participate in democracy.

paulmd 3y ago
Having no stake in the long term future is not the same thing as having nothing to offer. We also don’t generally allow other “transient” populations like non-citizen immigrants to vote either, despite them having a lot to offer too. If you’re not going to be here in 10 years you don’t get a say. We also have lower age limits on voting and there’s very good reasons for that too. People try to raise the voting age limits all the time to curb the political influence of the younger voters. It’s a situation like class wars where one side is playing hardball and the other side isn’t even aware they were playing. Point out the nature of the game you’ll be pounced (just as you did here) for “ageism” despite ageism already being written into the rules, and despite the elderly here (in the US) are continually trying to shift those rules even further in their own favor. The hand of the dead should not bind the living, nor should the hand of transient populations bind those with a long-term stake in the society. And there will inevitably be some edge-cases where people slip around the edges of the rules (citizens with deadly illnesses, immigrants who own homes and settle, etc) but those are just the guiding principles society has agreed upon, except when it comes to the elderly.
- Nursie 3y ago
  > We also don’t generally allow other “transient” populations like non-citizen immigrants to vote either This is not why we don't allow migrants who have not yet become citizens the ability to vote. They have not (yet) been granted a place in society because they have not yet demonstrated commitment to the country, nor contributed, and the country has not yet decided they are valuable enough to allow into the society. > We also have lower age limits on voting and there’s very good reasons for that too. Yes, due to inexperience of life, ignorance of politics and the wider world, and brains which are not yet fully formed, reasons that people below these ages are denied full autonomy in a number of areas. These reasons are not applicable to most older people. > People try to raise the voting age limits all the time In the context of the UK, which this discussion is about, this has literally never happened, not once. The elections are comparatively well run, you seldom have to wait more than a few minutes to vote there because polling stations and staff are not limited, gerrymandering doesn't exist, voter suppression is pretty universally regarded as evil. You seem to be in the US, one of your political parties appears to have effectively become cancerous and is trying to kill US democracy, I wish you luck in dealing with it but inter-generational hate is unlikely to help. > It’s a situation like class wars where one side ... Point out the nature of the game you’ll be pounced (just as you did here) ... those are just the guiding principles ... There are no sides here. There is no war between the young and the old. These are not principles that society has agreed on at all. It's hard to see how you could be more wrong. I 'pounced' upon these views because they are gross. At what age do you think people have no stake in the long term future? Do you only have a stake or guidance to give if you personally will be affected? Do you not get to vote on the short term matters that do personally affect you? Should people in general only be able to vote on things that affect them personally and directly? I don't have kids, should I be denied a vote because we might be deciding eduction policy and school funding? Besides naked prejudice, you seem to have a very transactional view of democracy - you assume people will obviously only vote in their own short-term self interest, not use their knowledge and morality to guide their choices for their own good and that of others. I wish you luck in fixing the US, but don't project its flaws onto everyone else. And don't just blame old people for your woes. Those steering the ship over there are not all ancient and there are plenty of young people involved in all sorts of terrible stuff.

peoplefromibiza 3y ago

entire countries have been built on the concept of no taxation without representation. Moreover, you can be 18, not be around in 20 years and don't understand the issues that will impact working people today. Or you can be 40 and never have worked a single day. Or you can be 80 and have a lot of experience and understand plenty about history repeating and see things coming before anyone else. Age is one of the worst proxies for human intelligence A lot of the rhetoric around "old people not getting it" sounds to me a lot like that classmate that never studied, but blamed the professore for the bad votes, "he hates me" they usually say.

wizofaus 3y ago
> Age is one of the worst proxies for human intelligence Whoever suggested it was a good one? I would never support any attempt to block older voters from participating in democracy, but it can be an issue if a particular demographic, particularly one that might have the least direct motivation to vote for policies aimed at long-term system wide improvements, has outsized representation. Interestingly we allow that governments are determined currently by the number of seats (representing a particular area) they can win, maybe it's not so crazy to consider the number of age brackets they can win...that way the fact that there might be many more 65-70yos vs 20-25yos wouldn't affect the outcome.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > but it can be an issue if a particular demographic, particularly one that might have the least direct motivation to vote for policies aimed at long-term system wide improvements, has outsized representation that's democracy working as intendend. Besides: don't underestimate the fact that older people have much more motivation than adults, because they are at rest, they can think about the past, they actually have a past to think about and can draw conclusions on what their generation did and what the results were and how that affects the people they love and are worried about, particularly their nephews, who represent the real "new hope" for them. Most elderly were too busy working and taking care of their families when they were younger to focus on the long term results of their actions. While younger people lack either the motivation, the experience or the tools to make such an analysis. > that way the fact that there might be many more 65-70yos vs 20-25yos wouldn't affect the outcome You are assuming that all the old people vote against the interests of the 20-25 years old people and vice versa, but actually it's very far from the truth. The tension between equal representation and fairness of the outcome has been studied for a long time. See the Arrow impossibility theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...