4 ms·

There is much less variance on cognitive ability on the younger end of our lives than the higher end. Arbitrary age limits in youth are unfair, but less unfair

There is much less variance on cognitive ability on the younger end of our lives than the higher end. Arbitrary age limits in youth are unfair, but less unfair than the same on the upper end of life. I had a friend who remained sharp until her mid 90s. I have family members who shouldn't be voting in their early 70s. That range is massive, whereas we can mostly agree that nearly all 14 year olds aren't capable, but most 20 year olds are - unfair but not as vast a range.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> There is much less variance on cognitive ability on the younger end of our lives than the higher end. I'm not sure that's true. Mental maturity in kids varies widely, too. There are some pretty mentally mature kids changing the world. Look at Greta Thunberg. There are also many fewer years for older people to live with the consequences of their votes. Everything has trade-offs. In this case, the loss would not be as bad as the loss we get from excluding those below 18. Whatever the counterexample of sharp old people, I can think of one for sharp young people. We ignore those exceptions for young people, we can ignore them for old people, too. And if you're worried the old-age cutoff will be too young, just pick whatever age's median mental acuity matches 18 year olds - what's good for the gosling is good for the goose.
coldpie 3y ago
Your friend could still vote, just not run for office at 90 years old. This seems like a fine compromise to avoid the Feinstein/McConnell/RBG/etc pattern.