Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[Sovaal]

Just like there is an age restriction for when people can vote there should also be an age restriction for when people have to stop voting.

These group of people are most actively chased after by politicians to the determinant of young people who are the main or future participants in the economy and future of a country.

Do you agree with this proposition?

It’s “detriment”.

I say we restrict people who can’t type correctly from voting. Hell, why stop there? I say anyone who doesn’t agree with me shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

[Page]

There are places with both of these things and their democracy continues to work just fine.

I wouldn't trust a child to have any decision making power in the political realm.

The same argument was used by people against lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.

A 16 year old has a stake in the outcome of the election. They are already eligible to work and their wages and benefits depends on who is in government, as well as the costs of education, and environmental policy which has permanent consequences.

[Sovaal]

I wouldn't trust a child to have any decision making power in the political realm.

The same argument was used by people against lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.

A 16 year old has a stake in the outcome of the election. They are already eligible to work and their wages and benefits depends on who is in government, as well as the costs of education, and environmental policy which has permanent consequences.

Why stop at 16 then?

[Jetan]

Any argument to disenfranchise people who don't vote how you want them to vote is just a more roundabout argument against voting and is bad.

To be honest I'd absolutely be for enlightened dictatorship if there was any way to actually quarantee good rule and character, because frankly, people are idiots. But since that's impossible, democracy it is.

[Rakenshi]

I'm 66. I question whether YOUNG people are qualified to vote. So many seem ignorant of history. Small wonder...they have so little of it themselves.

Don’t blame the younger generations for their lack of historical knowledge when it’s clear that the current education system doesn’t place any empathis on History! Enough with blaming the complete lack of historical passion on teens when it’s fairly clear that society itself doesn’t value historical education and continues to push STEM, STEM, and more STEM.

[Iwassoclose]

I wouldn't trust a child to have any decision making power in the political realm.

The same argument was used by people against lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.

A 16 year old has a stake in the outcome of the election. They are already eligible to work and their wages and benefits depends on who is in government, as well as the costs of education, and environmental policy which has permanent consequences.

At 16, you have the world at your finger tips. You can vote for people who can actually help you with post secondary benefits and you can directly see the benefits of voting. Now that's a lot of power and some people don't want the power dynamics to change because they want to be the preferred voting block to chase after. What do they care about post secondary education or social activism?

[Jetan]

I wouldn't trust a child to have any decision making power in the political realm.

The same argument was used by people against lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.

A 16 year old has a stake in the outcome of the election. They are already eligible to work and their wages and benefits depends on who is in government, as well as the costs of education, and environmental policy which has permanent consequences.

The cut off point must be somewhere, might as well place it at legal age of majority. Kids have plenty of time to vote after they turn 18.

[-Ocelot-]

No, because when you start imposing such restrictions you essentially lose a fundamental right. A ban for 65 or higher could become a ban on 55 or higher down the road. Or it could extend to a ban for the 18-21 age group. While I do believe that the elderly vote irrationally, I wouldn't support a restriction on who can and can't vote based on age.

[The Archregimancy]

All right-thinking people will no doubt agree with me that the franchise should be restricted to archaeologists over the age of 50 with PhDs.

[Page]

It’s “detriment”.

I say we restrict people who can’t type correctly from voting. Hell, why stop there? I say anyone who doesn’t agree with me shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Communists should be restricted from voting.

They're more of a detriment to society than the elderly.

That only accelerates the revolution.

[Heloin]

Any argument to disenfranchise people who don't vote how you want them to vote is just a more roundabout argument against voting and is bad.

To be honest I'd absolutely be for enlightened dictatorship if there was any way to actually quarantee good rule and character, because frankly, people are idiots. But since that's impssible, democracy it is.

I once heard the option that the only people who should be lose the vote were those who called for others to love it. I'd say I'd like it but then I'd just disenfranchise myself

[Jetan]

All right-thinking people will no doubt agree with me that the franchise should be restricted to archaeologists over the age of 50 with PhDs.

I for one welcome our new dusty Overlords.

[Ethel mermania]

Any argument to disenfranchise people who don't vote how you want them to vote is just a more roundabout argument against voting and is bad.

Probably should lose their right to vote over it.

[Vassenor]

I'm 66. I question whether YOUNG people are qualified to vote. So many seem ignorant of history. Small wonder...they have so little of it themselves.

Ah yes, the whole "young people are too stupid to know what's best for them" shtick.

[Jetan]

To be honest I'd absolutely be for enlightened dictatorship if there was any way to actually quarantee good rule and character, because frankly, people are idiots. But since that's impssible, democracy it is.

I once heard the option that the only people who should be lose the vote were those who called for others to love it. I'd say I'd like it but then I'd just disenfranchise myself

If we could just replace the people governing would be so much easier.

[Ethel mermania]

All right-thinking people will no doubt agree with me that the franchise should be restricted to archaeologists over the age of 50 with PhDs.

People who pave kings under parking lots really shouldn't be telling people who can vote.

Then again I dont wind up like poor dick the third.....

[USS Monitor]

I've seen this suggested a bunch of times, and I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, old people often have difficulty internalizing new information, and many people suffer cognitive decline in the last years of their lives. On the other hand, we should always be wary of disenfranchising anyone because it's very open to abuse. Some old people are sharper than others, and it wouldn't be fair to the ones that still are thinking clearly.

[Vassenor]

Ah yes, the whole "young people are too stupid to know what's best for them" shtick.

Tell me, who do you think the most experienced people in society are?

Why is everyone so obsessed with the idea that only people with "experience" should be able to vote?

[Onocarcass]

I'm 66. I question whether YOUNG people are qualified to vote. So many seem ignorant of history. Small wonder...they have so little of it themselves.

22 and while I'm only speaking as a US citizen, I don't think there should be an upper limit to being able to vote. And I wouldn't trust anyone to set a limit on mental capacity, as that seems like a hell of a way to give rise to tyranny.

[Aureumterra]

If you're above the age of eighteen, you should be able to vote. Period.

Most 18 year olds haven’t faced the real world yet and often gravitate towards naive ideas, such as if a politician was proposing giving out free money. Very little college aged kids are informed enough to make an educated decision

[Scymira]

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.)

[Vassenor]

If you're above the age of eighteen, you should be able to vote. Period.

Most 18 year olds haven’t faced the real world yet and often gravitate towards naive ideas, such as if a politician was proposing giving out free money. Very little college aged kids are informed enough to make an educated decision

So in other words because they might not vote the way you want they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Ethel mermania]

If you're above the age of eighteen, you should be able to vote. Period.

Most 18 year olds haven’t faced the real world yet and often gravitate towards naive ideas, such as if a politician was proposing giving out free money. Very little college aged kids are informed enough to make an educated decision

Indeed, but if a military can draft you, You should have some say in how you are being used. So I think 18 is the right age for the franchise

[Hinodia]

Okay zoomer

[Skyhooked]

Well, as local, crazy anarchist, I say, that the elections are just for show, president's big fancy red button is just a well made decoration, so I say, let all and anyone vote! Young, 16 years old folks, elderly dudes, prisoners (Thieves, murderers, arsonists, jaywalkers) doesn't matter! No one's gonna be hurt, but stability and faith in democracy will increase.