> Unfortunately, it appears that the older generations' viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time.
I have hope. The generations born since the early to mid 80s have been raised in a world where change has become at least constant if not accelerated. These generations, as they age and take over the roles of the higher echelons of business and government, may prove more adaptable to an ever changing world.
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.
You 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.
I 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.
Shall 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.
Why is it that preventing the old from voting is "bigotry", whilst preventing the young from voting is merely an act prudence? You must remember that democracy is governance "by the people, for the people", not governance by some arbitrarily selected subset of the people. There is an age below which the majority of people are unable to make informed decisions about political representation (either due to lack of understanding or pressure from third parties like family), but I'm not convinced that 18 is that age.
Mind you, age cutoffs aren't the only way of tackling this problem.
> 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.
Unlikely. Net knowledge growth rate usually decreases significantly with age. You'll likely accumulate more knowledge between now and when you're 75, but certainly not three times more[0]. Ask a 75 year-old ;-)
> Nor do I think being in school adequately prepares or informs anyone to be a citizen.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, that was the point of my proposal. I don't think that today's youth take an active enough interest in politics, and I believe that allowing them to participate in the democratic system could increase their motivation to become more informed citizens.
[0]: At least, not by any measurable metric. "Common sense" is completely different.
> Why is it that preventing the old from voting is "bigotry", whilst preventing the young from voting is merely an act prudence?
There are lots of laws that restrict certain rights and privileges to adults only, and for fairly sensible reasons. No one wants to be governed by children. Maybe you want to lower the age of adulthood, and maybe that's possible, but it's something we'd need to do across the board.
There's also the troubling idea that you'd be taking the franchise away from people who already have it, rather than simply not extending it to people who do have it.
Finally, why would allowing people to participate in the democratic system at age 13 make them take an active interest in politics when allowing people to participate in the democratic system at age 18 does not? The root problem is that young people don't really have vested interests yet. They don't have jobs, or property, or children they're sending to school. When the 26th Amendment was passed, they did have the vested interest of not being drafted, I'll give you that, but that went away. Extending the vote to people who have even fewer vested interests won't have the desired effect.
I actually think that lowering the age of majority across the board to around 16 would be a good idea. You'd have to do it sensibly, though. So at age 16, compulsory education is over and you begin two years of national service, but you also immediately get voting and other rights. I can see something like that working.
> Net knowledge growth rate usually decreases significantly with age. You'll likely accumulate more knowledge between now and when you're 75, but certainly not three times more[0].
I was taking that into account, though. I'll probably know two and a half times more by the time I'm 50 ;)
> Diving down a ridiculously slippery slope by jumping from voting to euthanasia is hardly productive to the discussion.
On the other hand, that jump does provide contribute to the conversation by demonstrating the exact reason why wishing for a bartending unicorn would be a better use of my time. That is the exact sort of ludicrous hyperbole you would face if you sincerely brought this sort of proposal to the public. I mean hell, people already bitch about euthanasia when public healthcare comes up.
Any sort of unfamiliar change is absolutely impossible within the confines of the political system we have built ourselves into.
I've made substantial criticisms as well, criticisms that you interestingly ignore. I admit it's hard for me to take your outright dehumanizing bigotry in good faith.
I would say, and did say, that it's horrifyingly bigoted.
I would also say "all adult citizens" is probably the most just way to go about it. Inventing rationales to disenfranchise people is a dangerous way to enable bigotry.
On top of that, if you really want to give voting power to those who have the greatest stake in the future, then you should probably disenfranchise people without living descendants, or potentially give people more votes the more descendants they have. If you die without ever having children, you have no interest in what comes after your lifetime, but if you do have children, you want to pass on a better world and a better country to them. This is doubly true if you have grandchildren, since now you're interested in an even longer term, even after your children die. So why not give people one vote for themselves, two votes if they have children, three votes if they have grandchildren, and so forth, with one additional vote for each new generation added to their family line? This is also radically bigoted and unjust, but you could just as plausibly argue that it does give voting power to those who have the greatest stake in the future while having nearly the exact opposite effect.
Because those children and grandchildren have their own votes.
Regardless of whether you want to take away anyone's right to vote (and I don't), I take jlgreco's suggestion as a starting point for a discussion of the fact that, through politics, much older people have an undue influence on the present and future lives of the young.
You're missing the point. The point is that you can use plausible sounding justifications to disenfranchise anybody, and once you start that game it'll never be played in good faith. Universal suffrage just works.
I also wanted to pry a little into the assumption that people only care about their own well-being and not about anything after their own lifetimes. Actually, people are concerned about the well-being of the children and grandchildren that will survive them. I suspect if you measured it, you'd find that young, childless people are the worst at long-term orientation, partially because they have less reason to be, partially because they haven't had the personal experience of short-term thinking turning around to bite them, and partially because they have less conception of the fullness of time in the first place.
But who knows, right? Either one of us might be wrong, but either one of us can make a pretty convincing-sounding argument to disenfranchise arbitrary groups of people, which in effect means that either one of us will end up trying to disenfranchise whatever demographics vote against us. People used to think there were convincing-sounding reasons to disenfranchise women and blacks, or even people who didn't own land. I'd like to think we've moved past that kind of thing.
> Elections are won by convincing the "right" people to get out and vote and the "wrong" people to stay home. Disenfranchisement is already happening.
Yes, it's bad enough what already happens, but that's hardly an argument for making it worse.
> I would also argue that concern for one's offspring is not sufficient to know what's best for them, let alone the offspring of others
Now you're changing the argument entirely, and not in a very promising direction for you. If it's a question of knowledgeability, you've just undermined your entire scheme to give 13 year olds the vote.
Now you're changing the argument entirely, and not in a very promising direction for you. If it's a question of knowledgeability, you've just undermined your entire scheme to give 13 year olds the vote.
In fairness, that was proposed by jlgreco, and I just wanted to use that suggestion to move toward a more practicable discussion of the de facto disenfranchisement of younger voters by the two-party system, higher turnout among older voters, etc.
A possibility I would like to consider for discussion is a multi-tiered legal system in which every ~25 years the new generation starts from scratch with a new set of laws, limited only by a small set of human rights guidelines. People can then opt into whichever generation's set of laws they want, with the ability to switch tiers every year or two, but you can only vote in the tier for your age group.
It's not a fully formed idea and I"m sure one could poke lots of holes in it, but I still think that it would be interesting to discuss in another context (this thread's already long enough that this comment is only an inch wide on the article page).
By this argument, rich people should have 1000:1 vote compared to poor people - their stake in the policy outcomes are far greater, they could lose millions upon millions with tax changes, regulation changes, economy downturns, etc. In fact, by this logic, poor people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to have voice in anything regarding taxation at all, since they won't be taxed and have no stake in it. You can go very far with this kind of twisted logic. Good thing nobody thinking this way would get anywhere near real power. At least in this regard the American political system yet holds some sanity and doesn't allow disenfranchising people to engineer some or other outcome.
This is actually not that dissimilar from the argument for only allowing free male landowners to vote.
It's bad enough that people are statistically disenfranchised by things like gerrymandering and small states. I can't imagine what it would be like if you let the politicians actually disenfranchise people.
I 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.
You 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!
Ah, so I imagined you mentioning "conservatives" who "pump out kids". I see. And 75-year-olds don't care neither for next 10 years they are expected to live, nor for their relatives, nor for their kids & grandkids, etc. Just wow.
> And 75-year-olds don't care neither for next 10 years they are expected to live
So the 75 year old has 10 years left to care about (actually 3.2 years on average...) while the 13 year old has well more than half a century.
If the 75 year old feels they have information and insight that is critical to the future, they should be spending their time telling younger people about it even without my proposal. With today's system they will only get the opportunity to vote a handful of more times; if they know something that their children and grandchildren need to know they should talk to those children and grandchildren to let them know. Elections are a horrific way to pass down generational knowledge. That is not what they are designed for.
The elderly should be in a position to advise, never to dictate.
I'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.
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.
I'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?
An 13 year old is in what, 8th grade? Probably the only year that most Americans ever spend learning about their own government? When else does the average american learn about their government, if not in school?
Some of Americans read those things called books. You know, on their own volition, without being forced to do it by unionized government workers. Some of them also read magazines, newspapers and such, containing plenty of information. There's also this newfasioned thing called the internets, where they say you can read about stuff too. Of course, I'm not sure how "average" your American has to be - maybe for you, average one is one that only can be taught by a teacher in a coercive mass-production setting and forgets everything he had been taught very soon. I see how you want to increase a number of such people among the electorate - if you other ideas are as harebrained as this one, you need a big supply of short-attention-spanned, never learning, reading averse, infantile electorate to gain any acceptance.
Yes, 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.
You 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?
Well, that's nothing new.