Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[The New California Republic]

That isn't the subject of the thread, and forcing it to be such would be threadjacking, so no.

/notamod.

im not saying lets force switch it... it was just a question... u need 2 chill

Looks like an attempt to threadjack to me:

lets switch the topic

[Severina]

At the root of any "so-and-so shouldn't be allowed to vote" argument is a group of people who vote a way you don't approve of.

If the argument is that voting affects the next generation more than the previous, then you should also want to deny voting rights to the terminally ill.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'm a republican too. Down with the monarchy!

Well, shouldn´t you start with your own royalty then ?

Well, yes, in a humane way of course

Also, it's not my royalty. I do not own them, they do not own me.

[Rainbowsix]

lets switch the topic would everyone like it if young people werent allowed to vote (like you have to be 35 to run for president)

God no. When it comes to age requirements I think it's one of the things the current voting system does do right. If you're an adult, you should be able to vote. The only restriction I know of at that point is if you're in prison or not a citizen, which are their own arguments.

so i have to wait for god to tell me to vote?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

God no. When it comes to age requirements I think it's one of the things the current voting system does do right. If you're an adult, you should be able to vote. The only restriction I know of at that point is if you're in prison or not a citizen, which are their own arguments.

so i have to wait for god to tell me to vote?

Time to edit the Wikipedia page for "non-sequitur" so that it uses this post as an example.

[Luxenermy]

God no. When it comes to age requirements I think it's one of the things the current voting system does do right. If you're an adult, you should be able to vote. The only restriction I know of at that point is if you're in prison or not a citizen, which are their own arguments.

so i have to wait for god to tell me to vote?

What?

I said, "God no" just to emphasize the "no" in that statement. What are you even on about? Do you need a minute?

[The Emerald Legion]

There's been two basic arguments against this proposal so far.
1) Older people are wiser than young people.
2) Older people are more reliable than young people.

Argument one is fairly easily disprovable, and has already been disproved multiple times. Scammers target old people. It's not because they're wiser. It's because they're more gullible.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/30/w ... on-makers/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0043647
https://gero.usc.edu/labs/matherlab/fil ... al2005.pdf

Argument two is not a valid argument as it actually presents a reason why older people should NOT vote. To say that a group can be counted on as a reliable voter implies one of two things.
a) The person can be counted on to deliver a specific vote, regardless of the wisdom of said vote.
b) The person can be counted on to be swayed by arguments, regardless of their validity.

If either a or b is true for a specific voting bloc, they are no longer actually participating actively in democracy, and are in fact a threat to it, and so should not be allowed to vote.

Older people have to retest to continue driving because of the obvious question of public safety at a micro level, and they should at the very least be tested to be able to continue to vote because of the obvious question of public safety at the macro level. (And if testing people to be able to vote bothers you, you can always simply name a cutoff age.)

Scammers also target young people. Why the fuck do you think student loans are a thing?

[The New California Republic]

God no. When it comes to age requirements I think it's one of the things the current voting system does do right. If you're an adult, you should be able to vote. The only restriction I know of at that point is if you're in prison or not a citizen, which are their own arguments.

so i have to wait for god to tell me to vote?

Why are you being really facetious with your replies today?

[Rainbowsix]

so i have to wait for god to tell me to vote?

What?

I said, "God no" just to emphasize the "no" in that statement. What are you even on about? Do you need a minute?

im being sarcastic i agree with you whole-heartedly

[Luxenermy]

so i have to wait for god to tell me to vote?

Time to edit the Wikipedia page for "non-sequitur" so that it uses this post as an example.

I'd love to see that lol.

[Luxenermy]

What?

I said, "God no" just to emphasize the "no" in that statement. What are you even on about? Do you need a minute?

im being sarcastic i agree with you whole-heartedly

Ah! Sarcasm is a foreign language on the internet sorry. Hard to tell when it's being spoken.

[Rainbowsix]

im being sarcastic i agree with you whole-heartedly

Ah! Sarcasm is a foreign language on the internet sorry. Hard to tell when it's being spoken.

i understand that xD sorry for any confusion

[Antityranicals]

The idea has a little bit of merit... After all, the votes of older people are what keep bankrupt institutions such as Social Security careening yet further into bankruptcy. However, it's still probably not smart, because that leaves voting to younger individuals who are probably even more selfish than their older compatriots, and they'll probably invent even stupider ideas than expanding Social Security.

[The Emerald Legion]

basically but im not surprised NationStates as a whole seems to be leftist

The internet is left leaning.

Eh. Depends on where you go.

[Andsed]

Nah. Someone voting for things you don't like is not a reason to take away their voting rights.

It's not about things "I like". The voting pattern of 60+ people in my country consistently puts younger generations at a disadvantage, while not affecting older generations at all. They simply vote for things that doesn't even concern them.

And? Cause I am still not seeing how the voting patterns of the elderly merits barring them from voting.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Anyone who pays taxes should be able to vote. The United States' main founding principle is that taxation should equal representation.

...which every real democracy has abandoned ages ago - except for the US, because (sorry, but I have to declare this) the US is not even rudimentary a "real democracy".

[Rainbowsix]

"The internet is left leaning depending where you go, but the tower of pisa is left leaning as well so what's your point."

- teacher in my class

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Anyone who pays taxes should be able to vote. The United States' main founding principle is that taxation should equal representation.

...which every real democracy has abandoned ages ago - except for the US, because (sorry, but I have to declare this) the US is not even rudimentary a "real democracy".

Good thing that I agree with this particular hot take, although I draw different conclusions from it.

[The Archregimancy]

Anyone who pays taxes should be able to vote. The United States' main founding principle is that taxation should equal representation.

That would, of course, include all non-citizens with the right of residency in the United States; which may be your intent.

[Antityranicals]

Anyone who pays taxes should be able to vote. The United States' main founding principle is that taxation should equal representation.

...which every real democracy has abandoned ages ago - except for the US, because (sorry, but I have to declare this) the US is not even rudimentary a "real democracy".

"Real Democracy" is not desirable. The US would have ended up like post-Revolution France or worse...

[Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated-]

"The internet is left leaning depending where you go, but the tower of pisa is left leaning as well so what's your point."

- teacher in my class

Which is relevant to a thread about voting rights how? Also, it leans south, left and right are subjective.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Anyone who pays taxes should be able to vote. The United States' main founding principle is that taxation should equal representation.

That would, of course, include all non-citizens with the right of residency in the United States; which may be your intent.

As it happens, it actually is, although it's more indirect. Those who pay taxes should receive the benefits of citizenship, voting included.

[The New California Republic]

"The internet is left leaning depending where you go, but the tower of pisa is left leaning as well so what's your point."

- teacher in my class

Which is relevant to a thread about voting rights how? Also, it leans south, left and right are subjective.

He is still pushing the idea that the idea behind this thread is a conspiracy by the left, even though there is no evidence of that.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

...which every real democracy has abandoned ages ago - except for the US, because (sorry, but I have to declare this) the US is not even rudimentary a "real democracy".

"Real Democracy" is not desirable. The US would have ended up like post-Revolution France or worse...

Post-Revolution France wasn't a real democracy either, but then again I can't think of any "real democracy" that was bigger than one city. Representative democracies (i.e. republics) that represent popular opinion as accurately as possible are my ideal government styles.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Well, shouldn´t you start with your own royalty then ?

Well, yes, in a humane way of course
Also, it's not my royalty. I do not own them, they do not own me.

Oh yes, I always was a fan of what happened at Jekaterinburg... Short, brutal and decisive, so no further whining about "lost proprties" or even worse, "restitutional claims".
And, just to add : not so long ago they in fact "owned" you (your ancestors), or what else do you think that "lijfeigenschaap" means ?