Limiting suffrage is a surprisingly popular point of view in the US these days. You can find high profile advocates for it with a lot of power/status, like Pete

Limiting suffrage is a surprisingly popular point of view in the US these days. You can find high profile advocates for it with a lot of power/status, like Peter Thiel: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio... I won't dismiss all these arguments offhand, because there's a lot of valid things to be said about how poorly informed the average voter is. But it troubles me that a lot of people seem comfortable openly saying that maybe things would be better if Those People (substitute group of your choice) weren't allowed to vote, and I see those kinds of arguments from various points on the political spectrum, even if they are often just angry venting i.e. 'if retirees stopped voting that would fix things, since they want bad things' A specific example I've seen a lot is that climate change would have been fixed already if only The Olds weren't voting, since they (at least according to this PoV) are actively voting against climate measures since they'll be dead before the sea levels rise. Not going to express an opinion on this one.