2 ms·
I don’t really see a problem with that. People get wiser as they get older and more mature. This has been proven by insurance companies, who charge higher rate
by oceanplexian 2y ago
I don’t really see a problem with that. People get wiser as they get older and more mature.
This has been proven by insurance companies, who charge higher rates for younger drivers since they’re more likely to be reckless and get into an accident. Not the kind of person you would want to encourage to vote, unless you have ulterior motives to manipulate impressionable young people.
- Retric 2y agoIt’s easy to make the opposite argument around declining mental facilities and less education for the oldest Americans who are the most likely to vote yet have increased insurance costs despite driving less. Whites also vote more than Hispanics, are suggesting ignoring their issues is a good thing as well? In the end, having out groups is inherently a bad thing no matter who makes them up.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bravetraveler 2y agoI can ramble a little about it, I don't know how much water it'll hold. First, as an adult who is otherwise held to certain responsibilities, we've already decided "they are the kind of person we want to vote..." unless they're a felon or something. The social contract says the people/law abiding adult citizens aren't to be subjugated. They get to defend themselves and vote. Not some of them. All. With well-meaning attitudes like yours - applying insurance risk/pooling to rights - we manage to treat criminals too poorly. That's not hyperbole. The wider practice is so disgusting I'm announcing my choice to move on before I allow this to degrade. Second, it's a numbers game. There's safety in the padding they provide simply by taking power away from zealots. There are more than two potential outcomes - good/bad. Shades. Finally, how is one to learn if not by participation?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]