Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[Samadhi]

Marketers, statisticians, academicians et. al, have different years for what different demographics are and they do not always match. Sometimes, like the line between Boomeers and Gen-Xers it can vary by 3 years. If you are on the cusp just identify with what demographic best fits (if at all). Don't let others put you into a box.

This. I've seen some people list the millennial birth years as 1976-1990, and others use 1991-2005. Why not use ranges of consistent length, which would make Generation X 1965-1983, Generation Y/Millennials 1984-2002, and Z/iGen/whatever 2003-2021? This fits in pretty well with my personal "millennial" range of 1987-2004.

Or better yet, get rid of these pseudoscientific factions altogether. Judge people for who they are, as opposed to writing off every concern of a 60-year-old as that of a "senile boomer", or writing off every concern of a 20-year-old as that of a "millennial snowflake". As for the OP, disenfranchising "old people" is incredibly unfair to those over the predetermined, arbitrary age cutoff whose mental faculties are still intact, and it only serves to trivialize the needs of concerns of an entire generation. Besides, how old is "old" anyway? Is it people over the age of 80? 70? 65? 55? 40? 30?

Sounds like boomer talk to me.

[Ghost Land]

This. I've seen some people list the millennial birth years as 1976-1990, and others use 1991-2005. Why not use ranges of consistent length, which would make Generation X 1965-1983, Generation Y/Millennials 1984-2002, and Z/iGen/whatever 2003-2021? This fits in pretty well with my personal "millennial" range of 1987-2004.

Or better yet, get rid of these pseudoscientific factions altogether. Judge people for who they are, as opposed to writing off every concern of a 60-year-old as that of a "senile boomer", or writing off every concern of a 20-year-old as that of a "millennial snowflake". As for the OP, disenfranchising "old people" is incredibly unfair to those over the predetermined, arbitrary age cutoff whose mental faculties are still intact, and it only serves to trivialize the needs of concerns of an entire generation. Besides, how old is "old" anyway? Is it people over the age of 80? 70? 65? 55? 40? 30?

Sounds like boomer talk to me.

*laughs*

I'm not even a boomer. As I said in the current version of the post and even in my signature, I'm under 30 myself. You can't just dismiss every comment made by an "old person", or that you think is made by an "old person", as meaningless drivel. People of all ages have important things to say, from teenagers to young adults to the elderly, and disenfranchising an entire generation is not the answer.

[Servilis]

I agree 100%, Boomers are a menace.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I agree 100%, Boomers are a menace.

Let's disenfranchise the commies next.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I'm not really a fan of actively taking away rights from people

[Swindenland]

Everyone should be allowed to vote. In addition to that, there are many liberal and social democratic elderly. Those are never mentioned.

[Merni]

Why? Is is because old people are more conservative, or something?

Either way, unless a person is so senile that he/she can be classified as insane, old people should absolutely have as much of a right to vote as young people...possibly even more so, considering their experience. (which has been pointed out already in this thread)

[Internationalist Bastard]

Why? Is is because old people are more conservative, or something?

Either way, unless a person is so senile that he/she can be classified as insane, old people should absolutely have as much of a right to vote as young people...possibly even more so, considering their experience. (which has been pointed out already in this thread)

Thing is, I'm not sure how many senile people actually vote. I mean sure there's cases of it, and you know, Reagan's presidency, but I don't imagine it's common enough to really be an argument

[Kotelia]

Just waiting for the "OK boomer" comments

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Just waiting for the "OK boomer" comments

Already started on the Okay Zoomer comments.

[Xmara]

Just waiting for the "OK boomer" comments

Okay boomer

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

I agree 100%, Boomers are a menace.

Let's disenfranchise the commies next.

Then disenfranchise libertarians and Austrian schoolers for good measure.

[Cekoviu]

Just waiting for the "OK boomer" comments

I don't think anyone can beat this.

[Salandriagado]

Why? Is is because old people are more conservative, or something?

Either way, unless a person is so senile that he/she can be classified as insane, old people should absolutely have as much of a right to vote as young people...possibly even more so, considering their experience. (which has been pointed out already in this thread)

I believe that the general argument is that they are not going to feel the effects of many of said decisions.

[Cekoviu]

Why? Is is because old people are more conservative, or something?

Either way, unless a person is so senile that he/she can be classified as insane, old people should absolutely have as much of a right to vote as young people...possibly even more so, considering their experience. (which has been pointed out already in this thread)

I believe that the general argument is that they are not going to feel the effects of many of said decisions.

See climate change. They're totally fine with fucking over younger generations in exchange for minor conveniences because they won't feel the effects of doing so.

[Antityranicals]

Let's disenfranchise the commies next.

Then disenfranchise libertarians and Austrian schoolers for good measure.

That's cool, only if we disenfranchise everyone else along with them, abolish government as it exists today, and allow governments only to exist in the form of contracts between two consenting parties. Cool?

[Antityranicals]

I believe that the general argument is that they are not going to feel the effects of many of said decisions.

See climate change. They're totally fine with fucking over younger generations in exchange for minor conveniences because they won't feel the effects of doing so.

And you're perfectly fine with f*cking over younger generations in exchange for feeling good about destroying the freedom of mankind over a theory which is little better than fantasy...

[Cekoviu]

See climate change. They're totally fine with fucking over younger generations in exchange for minor conveniences because they won't feel the effects of doing so.

And you're perfectly fine with f*cking over younger generations in exchange for feeling good about destroying the freedom of mankind over a theory which is little better than fantasy...

Ah, how I wish I were as naïve and ignorant as you. It would be nicer than the reality.

[Salandriagado]

See climate change. They're totally fine with fucking over younger generations in exchange for minor conveniences because they won't feel the effects of doing so.

And you're perfectly fine with f*cking over younger generations in exchange for feeling good about destroying the freedom of mankind over a theory which is little better than fantasy...

You are absolutely categorically incorrect in every way.

[Napkizemlja]

Peak wokeness is saying "Ok boomer" and wanting to disenfranchise the elderly all the while older workers struggle, older workers having to work well beyond retirement, and while poverty rates for seniors climbs whilst still thinking you aren't being a short-sighted, malignant cunt.

[Fahran]

"They" is a bit of a weasel word in this case, isn't it? You're making an argument about people's franchise stemming from things that they are or they do as individuals. Then you dismiss applying the same standards consistently based on "quite often they aren't". What about the exceptions?

It's not a weasel word in the slightest. The system does not tailor itself around the individual when it comes to suffrage because this would lead to greater expense, would diminish the body politic substantially, and would likely create ubiquitous social instability as we reduced a number of our fellow citizens to an underclass. We exclude only those who we can in good judgement and prudence exclude, being of suspect loyalty, alien in culture, or of too few years to have assumed the mantle of genuine responsibilities. Money itself is not but a singular service. A Russian oligarch who invests in our economy for his own benefit may well prove less valuable than a poor native from the countryside.

And indeed, what about the people who genuinely are part of more than one society? I don't know anything about your circumstances, but I do know mine. I'm a migrant, I've lived years in three different countries on two different continents. I'm surrounded by people who are the same, as the company I work for is a global one from yet another continent. The idea that I, or they, are part of just one society just runs afoul of lived experience. I have "ties to local culture and institutions" in more than one geographic locality.

I have dual citizenship because it has been determined that, by birthright or cultural heritage, I'm worthy of citizenship and franchise. You can be a resident and in the process of becoming a member of a particular society while not yet having been awarded citizenship for your troubles. It is for the state to determine based on how they assess your contributions and your fidelity to the process. Some states grant citizenship for military service while other require you to jump through hoops. It is not for a guest or an alien to demand anything from their host - just as I would not demand things from someone in whose home I was a guest.

National borders and the bureaucratic barriers created by naturalisation are attempts to create black and white differences, where in practice things are grey for a not insignificant number of actual people. And maybe that's an abstract point that doesn't matter too much in practice. But the exercise of some influence over the laws that affect me, from where roads are built to how healthcare is paid for to what the tax rate is, that is an actually important thing.

Greys are subjective and can be filtered accordingly until we have an objective standard.

We recognise this already. People are allowed to vote in local elections based on residence, rather than where in a country they were born. We recognise that a Texan can live in Baileyville, Maine, and have enough of an interest in their adopted home to vote for their local mayor or even rep at a higher level. But move that Texan to Little Ridge, New Brunswick, and everything is different?

You have to be a resident for a set amount of time and register as such to be granted access to the local franchise. It's not quite as simple and free as you're making out.

As I said, to make that work you have to create rigid categorisations and impose them on people whose lived experience doesn't match them.

There's no problem with doing that.

You're not really engaging with my argument though. Almost all the things you talk about are measurable, countable things. How many years of conscription. How many years of work. How many dollars paid in taxes.

Except the system doesn't measure them on a spectrum.

You use those to say some have a better claim to the franchise than others. Except you only do that for non-citizen residents when contrasted with born citizens. You don't make any distinction between born citizens. You don't claim that old rich people should have more votes than poor young ones.

Because, again, it's not measured on a spectrum.

So the argument is actually nowhere near as well supported as you make it out to be. It does boil down purely to "Person A has an inherent right and Person B does not". Even naturalisation is really a distraction. At a minimum, you're asking that Person B should suffer "taxation without representation" for some measure of time, and spend some amount of their own resources, before they can be granted the right. It's really got nothing at all to do with contributions to society.

It does. A citizen contributes more than an alien as a general rule. If I moved to Argentina tomorrow, my contributions would be substantially limited by the fact that I'm not well-integrated into their society and culture. A three year old Argentine would be more familiar with both than I would. It'd be silly for me to expect the same rights as an adult Argentine when it came to suffrage.

The choice to do nothing is not the absence of a choice. It's misleading to imply that this choice is any less partisan or ideological than any other choice would be.

It takes far less effort to keep a system that isn't actually broken than to change it to award more power to the wealthy or allow anyone in the world to vote in an election where they have less skin in the game.

[Antityranicals]

And you're perfectly fine with f*cking over younger generations in exchange for feeling good about destroying the freedom of mankind over a theory which is little better than fantasy...

You are absolutely categorically incorrect in every way.

Look, I've no problem if you want to plant some trees, or use less electricity. What I do have a problem with is using the conjectures of a group of propaganda scientists largely funded by a well-organized socialist lobby as an excuse to literally put partial or full bans on on burning stuff, and funding it by stealing trillions of dollars from the voluntary sector of our economy to fund a bureaucratic morass in the coercive sector...

[Salandriagado]

You are absolutely categorically incorrect in every way.

Look, I've no problem if you want to plant some trees, or use less electricity. What I do have a problem with is using the conjectures of a group of propaganda scientists largely funded by a well-organized socialist lobby as an excuse to literally put partial or full bans on on burning stuff, and funding it by stealing trillions of dollars from the voluntary sector of our economy to fund a bureaucratic morass in the coercive sector...

Once again: you are absolutely categorically incorrect in every way.

[Antityranicals]

Look, I've no problem if you want to plant some trees, or use less electricity. What I do have a problem with is using the conjectures of a group of propaganda scientists largely funded by a well-organized socialist lobby as an excuse to literally put partial or full bans on on burning stuff, and funding it by stealing trillions of dollars from the voluntary sector of our economy to fund a bureaucratic morass in the coercive sector...

Once again: you are absolutely categorically incorrect in every way.

It's quite inarguably true that these are things which I have a problem with...

[Deacarsia]

There shouldn't be enough government to have a need to vote.

Best take in the thread.

I agree.