6 ms·
One problem is that the elderly are living longer than ever, and continuing to vote. At the same time, the birth rate is not too high. However, the internet ha
by w1ntermute 14y ago
One problem is that the elderly are living longer than ever, and continuing to vote. At the same time, the birth rate is not too high.
However, the internet has proven to be a very effective way of getting people to go to the polls, and you can target your campaigns much more specifically, so as to include young people and exclude the elderly (who don't use the internet much anyway).
This is an important thing to keep in mind in a country like America, which has relatively low voter turnout. Election engineering can make all the difference in the results, as we saw with the success of Obama's reelection campaign machine.
- jlgreco 14y agoYou know, I honestly think we should hack a few years off one side of the voting population and slap it onto the other. Let people start voting 5 years earlier, and forbid people from voting once they are five years younger than the current average life expectancy. A vote in our system is a vote for what should be. The concept of a vote is inherently tied to the future; the young have the most to win or lose because the vote is for something in their comparably massive future, while for the elderly it represents little more than an opportunity to influence a world they will (again, comparatively) soon have zero stake in. Of course that is more of a pipe-dream than owning my own bartending unicorn.
- philwelch 14y agoLets not give thirteen year olds the vote.
- jlgreco 14y agoI have more faith in the average 13 year old than the average 75 year old. Worse case scenario we'll (continue to) have no coherent or thought out economic policy, but I really don't see such a shift being anything but good for social policy. The only real issue I see with it is that it could allow conservative religious parents who pump out kids to add a multiplying factor to their own vote. Efforts would need to be taken to ensure parents could not influence the votes of their children (improved voter privacy, and improved education). Really though, with the amount of 18 year olds currently voting, the 13-18 demographic would only have token representation. The important part of this change would be the age cutoff.
- smsm42 14y agoYou think matters can't be worse, but they can. But the idea of disenfranchising part of the nation because you disagree with political views of significant part of it is really what is appalling. The goal justifies the means, right? So when I say matters can be worse, I mean, for example, if people like you gain majority and it would be OK to deny people rights because they think wrong thoughts - it would be much worse. At least now everybody has a chance to vote. And if it doesn't work to disenfranchise those old stupid bastards, should we maybe put some arsenic in their food, so they leave us alone faster? If they don't deserve to have a vote, maybe there are other things they don't deserve too... Just kick the bucket already and free the road for the fresh 13-year-olds, eh? >>>> The only real issue I see with it is that it could allow conservative religious parents who pump out kids to add a multiplying factor to their own vote. Efforts would need to be taken to ensure parents could not influence the votes of their children (improved voter privacy, and improved education). Yeah, so the elderly is not the end. Let's get rid of all that disagree with you. Let's make it so they can't have kids, of at the very least - so that they can't poison kid's brains with their incorrect opinions. The only opinions the kids should be having are the right ones - yours. And with improved education it is of course exactly the opinion they would be having - because any person educated enough agrees with you. Or he isn't educated enough. Brilliant!
- jlgreco 14y agoBecause I disagree with their views? No, not just that. Because they don't have a proper stake in the outcome. What hyperbolic strawman bullshit.
- qxcv 14y agoI disagree. Whilst I don't think that voting rights should be taken away from the elderly, I do think that giving a greater range of ages the ability to vote (say, optional voting between 13 and 18) could be beneficial to society. That extra 5 year gap isn't a large enough number of people to reshape the political landscape in most Western nations, but it is sufficient to stimulate a healthy interest in politics at a young age, thus (hopefully) producing better informed voters who can in turn elect better governments.
- philwelch 14y agoI think the best way to have informed voters is to exclude uninformed schoolchildren from voting, personally.
- jlgreco 14y agoAnd I think the best way is to exclude people who haven't been inside a school for decades.
- philwelch 14y agoShall we euthanize them and harvest their bodies for food, as well? You're coming across as quite the bigot. I don't know about you, but I learn more every year, so I imagine by the time I'm 75, I'll know at least three times as much as I know now. I'd give my 75 year old self the vote long before I'd give my 13 year old self the vote. Nor do I think being in school adequately prepares or informs anyone to be a citizen.
- jlgreco 14y agoYeah, cannibalism is totally the sort of thing that I am suggesting.
- nitrogen 14y agoDiving down a ridiculously slippery slope by jumping from voting to euthanasia is hardly productive to the discussion. Instead, what would you say about jlgreco's contention that voting power should be given to those who have the greatest stake in the future?
- w1ntermute 14y agoI'm not sure about my stance on minors voting, but I think an upper limit on voting should exist either way. I don't see why someone who's probably going to die soon should get to vote on decisions that will affect the country for decades to come.
- jlgreco 14y agoYeah. The way I see it is that the elderly could still effect politics, but only indirectly. If 7+ decades on this planet have not taught them how to effectively communicate their ideas to younger generations, then I really don't see how they could have any worthwhile insight at all. If you are old, you can engage in public political discourse and pass on your knowledge, but you have no business leading by example anymore. That time is past.
- smsm42 14y agoSeriously, people should start voting at 13? So the next president would be Justin Bieber?
- jlgreco 14y agoNot possible for another 17 years. I am sure your average 13 year old could tell you that.
- philwelch 14y agoYou really think the average 13 year old knows the constitutional age limit to be President?
- w1ntermute 14y agoYes, it's much more likely that they know the age limit than your average baby boomer. Haven't you watched that show Are you smarter than a 5th grader? Most adults have shockingly poor general knowledge.
- smsm42 14y agoYou really believe participants on the TV shows aren't selected to maximize entertainment value and present anything except show producer's views on what entertains mass audience?
- jacquesm 14y agoLet's hope they know that he's Canadian.
- smsm42 14y agoI'm sure average 13 year old can't, and doesn't give half rat's ass about it, since average 13 year olds have different interests, but I would be glad to be proven wrong. Any proof? However, more interesting is that you think while you can disenfranchise US citizens at will, somehow you can't change eligibility age for presidency. Where this sudden reverence for tradition comes from, I wonder?