Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[The Blaatschapen]

No. This is ridiculous lol. Elderly people have significantly more life experience than the younger generation and will make far better decisions. This is crazier than "voters should be 16", because at least that one isn't completely dumb

Will old people make better decisions? Trump is old. Is he making good decisions?

[Saiwania]

Don't forget that it was primarily the older generations who voted Brexit.

Brexit is good. It means that the UK will get less Muslim and poor country immigration than would otherwise happen because of the EU's radically liberal politics. Sufficiently nationalist Britons shouldn't take the transformation of their country lying down, if its arguably for the worse.

[Alvecia]

Don't forget that it was primarily the older generations who voted Brexit.

Brexit is good. It means that the UK will get less Muslim and poor country immigration than would otherwise happen because of the EU's radically liberal politics.

That's the meme, but in actuality, it probably won't change our immigration policies at all.

[Incredible Bums]

You'd think that, but one of Fox News' largest demographics are old white people.

Well, and almost all "influencers" on "youtube", "instagram" and other "social media" are mostly viewed by "old white people"...
In fact, who cares about who is watching a known "US of A right-winger media" ? The world is bigger than your puny little US of A, you know ? This at least you should have learned from being in NS...

[Marxist Germany]

No. This is ridiculous lol. Elderly people have significantly more life experience than the younger generation and will make far better decisions.

Like racism, an outdated notions of modern job roles, and general boomery?
Not that I'm saying all 60+ people are like that, but if we're going to start generalising people I'd much rather have 16 yr olds voting rather than them. Don't forget that it was primarily the older generations who voted Brexit.

Your true colours have slipped, you're only pissed off with old people because they don't vote the way you like them to?

[Idzequitch]

There never comes a point where you're too old for the government to screw up your life; therefore, you're never too old to vote against the government screwing up your life.

Seriously though, the laws of a nation affect all its citizens, so it's important everyone is able to vote for their representation in government, unless there's a really good reason they shouldn't be allowed to do so, such as the fact that young children lack the ability to understand political policy or what policies would benefit them (though hey, maybe dessert before dinner would be a policy that could garner support from all sides?). Seniors, as long as they retain the ability to think for themselves, must retain the right to vote.

Sometimes, the laws of another country affect citizens of other countries.

If that is the metric, I want voting rights in the USA.

Clever. But any argument can be drawn to extreme conclusions if applied incorrectly. I'd rather not start a new world order, thanks. I was pretty clearly talking about proper representation of citizens. If my elected representative is making decisions that are affecting you in another country, then you'll need to elect a representative who will respond to mine in the manner you deem appropriate. Three cheers for politicking (Or not. The politicians don't need the ego-boost).

[SD_Film Artists]

Like racism, an outdated notions of modern job roles, and general boomery?
Not that I'm saying all 60+ people are like that, but if we're going to start generalising people I'd much rather have 16 yr olds voting rather than them. Don't forget that it was primarily the older generations who voted Brexit.

Your true colours have slipped, you're only pissed off with old people because they don't vote the way you like them to?

I'd say it's because of them not knowing or not caring about how warped housing and education costs have become, also destroying the environment. You know just the little things.

[Idzequitch]

Your true colours have slipped, you're only pissed off with old people because they don't vote the way you like them to?

I'd say it's because of them not knowing or not caring about how warped housing and education costs have become, also destroying the environment. You know just the little things.

So would you say only the well-informed deserve a say in their representation in government?

[Diamond Snow]

The removal of voting rights is a serious human rights violation.
People who love civic rights don't think this idea even if there are many foolish old male.
In my opinion, teenagers should have voting rights rather.
I am 30 years old, but when I was a teenager, I was intelligent, enthusiastic about politics than today.
I am so old and I can only deamr of technological singularity and immortality.
And after the technological singularity, the life is infinite so the age is unlimited
All citizens from 12 to billion years of age have the right to vote.

[Incredible Bums]

To be honest, I favour a system that would financially reward people for voting. This would provide more incentives for the young to vote and would end the disgraceful generational prejudice of politicians as a result.

That´s, I have to state, is complete bullshit; if you have to be "monetary incented" to use your right to vote and somehow participate in how the state you´re living in goes, you simply forfeit this right willingly and therefore have to live by an outcome people "decided" (usually by majority) for you.
Voting is a fundamental right in democracy, and not something one has to be "nudged to"...

[Saiwania]

The world is bigger than your puny little US of A, you know ? This at least you should have learned from being in NS...

American citizens are in the unique position of almost never having to leave the country if they so choose, and the US is far bigger than most of Europe put together.

Relatively few Americans even bother getting a passport if the country itself has tons of places to go. For most US citizens, going overseas is typically only for those who can afford a vacation, are retiring to where it simply costs much less to live, or are traveling for lower prices for something such as for medical tourism.

[Incredible Bums]

What were they thinking when they earned that pension?

Probably trying to remember when they last went to the toilet, or what pedal makes the car go vroom.

...just like everyone else...

[SD_Film Artists]

I'd say it's because of them not knowing or not caring about how warped housing and education costs have become, also destroying the environment. You know just the little things.

So would you say only the well-informed deserve a say in their representation in government?

In theory yes, though in practice it's virtually impossible to designate who is "well informed" enough to vote, as then you get into an argument of book smarts vs street smarts etc.

[Saiwania]

In theory yes, though in practice it's virtually impossible to designate who is "well informed" enough to vote, as then you get into an argument of book smarts vs street smarts etc.

We could go back to the old system of linking voting rights with property ownership. Those who own real estate usually are informed about financial stuff enough to be informed about other things such as politics. But this would disenfranchise everyone who rents and probably the majority of the population.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Considering that absolute monarchs such as Louis XVI and Nikolai II did a pisspoor job of actually tackling poverty and developing their own country properly, I would take your "promises" of glory with a pinch of salt. After all, authoritarian countries today have the tendency to be more impoverished and corrupt than their democratic counterparts, where leaders are at least formally accountable to the people, who can vote them out at any moment. Absolute monarchs howewer can only be deposed by a violent revolution, which may or may not succeed depending on just how ruthless said king/queen is.

There isn't a single proper Christian Monarchy in the entire world, except for technically the Vatican and Liechtenstein.

And a couple bad rulers aren't an excuse to vilify an entire mode of government, otherwise democracy would be the best target. People like Nixon and Trump were elected democratically. Or what about FDR, who put his citizen in internment camps for being Japanese?

Monarchy has also had such rulers as Saint Louis IX, Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, William of Normandy, etc...
Monarchy has an over-abundance of rulers who changed things in their countries and accomplished great things. Democracy doesn't, it's mediocre at best.

Aside from the fact that you have just invoked whataboutery to deflect legitimate criticism of feudal monarchs, FDR and Nixon's actions don't even lift a candle to the atrocities and misery inflicted by absolutist monarchs throughout human history. And you are claiming democracy doesn't have its great leaders? That's where you are wrong, kiddo. Thorvald Stauning in Denmark, Einar Gerhardsen of Norway, and Hjalmar Branting along with Per Albin Hansson of Sweden did implement large-scale socioeconomic reforms that greatly contributed to their nations' development, and so did Clement Attlee in Britain.

Charles de Gaulle also spearheaded the Free French resistance in Africa and eventually liberated France itself, and during his presidency, he helped restore French prestige on the world stage. Other examples of great leaders of democratic nations include the aforementioned FDR (Who saved the American economy from total collapse and spearheaded the war effort with the Soviets against the Nazis), General Aung San in Burma, Nelson Mandela in South Africa, and Bruno Kreisky in Austria.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Oh yes, grand things, I'm sure the plundered are comforted knowing they will be reborn in his glory. But will William? Will Charlemagne?
How exactly do you *not* venerate these mean, in your celebration of their conquests? Perhaps you should instead find examples of more beautiful souls, such as the one called Christ?

An excellent example. Christ Himself is called king of kings, lord of lords and king of heaven. He makes many mentions of giving respect to the king, and that the monarch is the representative of God. He is the very reason why I am a monarchist.

Not only that, but democracies tend to be completely opposed to Christ.

Poland is a democracy despite being predominantly Christian, and so is Canada, the United States, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Australia, Slovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, Lithuania, Italy, and Croatia.

[Incredible Bums]

Oh, instead of having the "liar and cheater" foisted on us by virtue of being a habsburg?

In fact, all of the Habsburgs were "liars and cheaters"; I should know about, because they ruled my own country for many centuries...
Better to somehow chose your favorite "liar and cheater" at least than to have to accept whoever is set in place by "divine birthright".

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

In theory yes, though in practice it's virtually impossible to designate who is "well informed" enough to vote, as then you get into an argument of book smarts vs street smarts etc.

We could go back to the old system of linking voting rights with property ownership. Those who own real estate usually are informed about financial stuff enough to be informed about other things such as politics. But this would disenfranchise everyone who rents and probably the majority of the population.

I am not neccessarily a economic guru or a master investor, but I am still politically aware and knowledgeable, and I would definitely be able to research a candidate's actual record and make a informed decision on how should I vote.

[Incredible Bums]

Monarchy is simply the only way to have a christian government. Monarchy is rooted in Christianity, and democracy is opposed to it.

This shows exactly how far your understanding and/or education of history goes...
Ever heard of ancient kings, pharaohs, radjahs, emperors and others of this kind ? Christianity roots back a mere twothousand years, monarchy is waaaaayyyy older.
And then, since I´m strongly opposed to Christianity (as well as any other religion)...

[Greed and Death]

No. This is ridiculous lol. Elderly people have significantly more life experience than the younger generation and will make far better decisions.

Like racism, an outdated notions of modern job roles, and general boomery?
Not that I'm saying all 60+ people are like that, but if we're going to start generalising people I'd much rather have 16 yr olds voting rather than them. Don't forget that it was primarily the older generations who voted Brexit.

The Boomers the ones who led both the civil rights and women's liberation movements.

And the Science is clear 16 year olds by and large are not fully developed so no we should not entrust the future of the country to them.

[Andsed]

I mean they should. Disenfranchising people is bad yo.

[The Blaatschapen]

Like racism, an outdated notions of modern job roles, and general boomery?
Not that I'm saying all 60+ people are like that, but if we're going to start generalising people I'd much rather have 16 yr olds voting rather than them. Don't forget that it was primarily the older generations who voted Brexit.

The Boomers the ones who led both the civil rights and women's liberation movements.

No they weren't. MLK was born in 1929. Too old for a boomer. Which sounds ironic, but boomers are decidedly post-WW2.

Nel van Beek, born in 1933. Same, too old.

Alright, I give you Selma Leydesdorff and Marjan Sax.

Though this is decidely second generation feminism already(abortion). Rather than the one for voting rights.

[Incredible Bums]

Sometimes, the laws of another country affect citizens of other countries.
If that is the metric, I want voting rights in the USA.

No, not as long as they don´t modernize their outdated and strange electional system; my country abandoned such a system one and a half centuries ago...

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Like racism, an outdated notions of modern job roles, and general boomery?
Not that I'm saying all 60+ people are like that, but if we're going to start generalising people I'd much rather have 16 yr olds voting rather than them. Don't forget that it was primarily the older generations who voted Brexit.

The Boomers the ones who led both the civil rights and women's liberation movements.

And the Science is clear 16 year olds by and large are not fully developed so no we should not entrust the future of the country to them.

The Civil Rights and Women's Liberation movements were both politically leftwing and progressive, which I don't condemn, and neither do I condemn boomers who are political progressives. I condemn boomers that constantly push for the failed dogma that is neoliberalism despite it being responsible for much of the world's financial crises and socioeconomic decay.

And 16 year olds are too insignificant within the wider picture to have any major effect on US elections when we look at the demographics directly, given they only comprise a tiny percentage of the US populace, so it isn't like we are suddenly granting them the keys to the White House. In addition, lowering the voting age to 16-17 isn't a radical "pipe dream" idea, given that countries such as Indonesia, Austria, Malta, Nicaragua and Brazil have already done such a step and their countries didn't turn into a Lord of the Flies-style hellhole.

[Incredible Bums]

Don't forget that it was primarily the older generations who voted Brexit.

The EC is foul, rotten, autocratic and corrupt, and primarily supports big capital interests (well, not so different to British gouvernment, I guess ). The earlier a nation leaves, the better for it. So what´s wrong with "Brexit" ?