Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[The united American-Isreali empire]

No just no. They deserve equal representative views. Or starship troopers model. One way or the other.

[Domina Nostra Nova Terra]

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 detriment of young people who are the main or future participants in the economy and future of a country.

Do you agree with this proposition?

Disabled people aren't the main participants of the economy and for some of us, the future of a country, should we be denied the vote too?

[Audioslavia]

Of course old people should be allowed to vote you authoritaian twat.

This is a *** warning for flaming ***. Don't throw insults around.

Cheers.

[Neu Leonstein]

(though not really in the case of non-citizens since it does not make much sense to allow those who are not citizens of a nation vote in it's election.).

Citizenship is just a paper thing. Like having a driver's licence or not. It doesn't tell you much about whether someone is part of a society or not. There are plenty of people who are long term residents in a country without being citizens. They have a plenty large enough stake in how much taxes they pay, whether the roads gets fixed, how their medical treatments are paid for and so on.

[Neu Leonstein]

Do you agree with this proposition?

In sentiment, I do. Though in practice, I'm more in the school of thought that says democracy is a two-way process, and the "right" to vote is tied to a responsibility to be sufficiently informed about what is being voted on. You'd have heard it hundreds of times before, but if you can't pass a test of understanding of the political system, the major issues that parties campaigned on and a few basic technical facts about things like the economy, infrastructure or the environment, then I'd take that as you having made the choice to opt out of the democratic process.

In the immediate future though, I'm on board with anything that will help coagulate political movements that bring the intergenerational conflict in our society out of social media and into the policy sphere. Calls for boomers to lose the vote may serve that purpose, so I'm here for it.

[Cekoviu]

A relevant quote from a great philosopher:
"You don't get to order for the table if you're about to leave the restaurant."
-- Pete Davidson

Except that metaphor isn't appropriate for a democratic government. The elderly have rendered service to the state and deserve representation just as much if not more so than people have rendered less service.

It's a joke, my dude. Pete Davidson is a comedian.

[Neu Leonstein]

Except that metaphor isn't appropriate for a democratic government. The elderly have rendered service to the state and deserve representation just as much if not more so than people have rendered less service.

I find it amusing that living somewhere now equates to "service to the state". I assume the same goes for undocumented immigrants who live somewhere for years? Or maybe it has to do with how much taxes people paid in their lifetimes? So Bill Gates deserves many thousands of times the representation that you or I do?

[Cekoviu]

Except that metaphor isn't appropriate for a democratic government. The elderly have rendered service to the state and deserve representation just as much if not more so than people have rendered less service.

I find it amusing that living somewhere now equates to "service to the state". I assume the same goes for undocumented immigrants who live somewhere for years? Or maybe it has to do with how much taxes people paid in their lifetimes? So Bill Gates deserves many thousands of times the representation that you or I do?

>assuming that Fahran isn't Bill Gates

[Sovaal]

(though not really in the case of non-citizens since it does not make much sense to allow those who are not citizens of a nation vote in it's election.).

Citizenship is just a paper thing. Like having a driver's licence or not. It doesn't tell you much about whether someone is part of a society or not. There are plenty of people who are long term residents in a country without being citizens. They have a plenty large enough stake in how much taxes they pay, whether the roads gets fixed, how their medical treatments are paid for and so on.

That's great and all and if it truly affects them that much they can seek citizenship.

[Fahran]

Except that metaphor isn't appropriate for a democratic government. The elderly have rendered service to the state and deserve representation just as much if not more so than people have rendered less service.

It's a joke, my dude. Pete Davidson is a comedian.

Oh, never heard of him.

[Fahran]

I find it amusing that living somewhere now equates to "service to the state". I assume the same goes for undocumented immigrants who live somewhere for years? Or maybe it has to do with how much taxes people paid in their lifetimes? So Bill Gates deserves many thousands of times the representation that you or I do?

I would consider paying taxes and paying into mandatory social benefits to constitute service to the state in much the same manner as military service and signing up for the draft are forms of service. We also have all these bundled into the concept of citizenship, a birthright in the United States. The elderly who are not felons, as a rule, have done more for society and the state than sixteen year olds or felons. They're adults who haven't run afoul of the law.

[Katganistan]

Yes, every adult citizen should have the right to vote, these tests will be inevitably exploited the the government in charge of making them

Agreed.

They've historically used IQ and literacy tests for voter suppression. So no.

If anyone should be able to vote, then the vote should at least be restricted to legal adults who are net taxpayers, or who pay more in taxes than they receive from the government in benefits or income.

This way the people who vote for measures are the ones who have to pay for them, while anyone with a personal interest would be barred from voting.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Nah. Legal adult citizens. Period.

Why not have a system of "one man, one vote"? There's one guy who votes, and everyone else must obey them or else.

Vetinari would agree.

[Flaxxony]

Democracy isn't about getting the best outcome. It's based on consent of the governed. If you live under the law, you should have a say in the rules. End of story.

[Katganistan]

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.

I haven't heard anything that was this big a steaming pile of manure in my life.

Only people who are my current age should be allowed to vote.

In human or dog years?

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?

He made no better ones as a young man.

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".

It's a democratic republic.

[Neu Leonstein]

That's great and all and if it truly affects them that much they can seek citizenship.

I could list various reasons for why that might not be practical sometimes, but that'd be to get bogged down in unnecessary detail. The bigger point is that society is a fluid thing. People join and leave, physically and non-physically, by choice and not by choice, all the time.

"Citizenship" is, as I said, a piece of paper. A bureaucratic invention. It correlates with, but cannot claim to be equal to, membership of a society.

If the aim of democracy is to implement the interests of all who have a stake in the functioning of the country, citizenship is hardly a good measure of that. And if the aim is to make government representative of society, then citizenship is not a good measure of that either. Anticipated future residency is.*

* Edited for clarity

[Neu Leonstein]

I would consider paying taxes and paying into mandatory social benefits to constitute service to the state in much the same manner as military service and signing up for the draft are forms of service.

So why is it a binary 'yes/no', but doesn't scale with the size of the payments one has made?

We also have all these bundled into the concept of citizenship, a birthright in the United States. The elderly who are not felons, as a rule, have done more for society and the state than sixteen year olds or felons. They're adults who haven't run afoul of the law.

That is clearly not true. Citizenship is not linked to paying taxes.. some citizens do not pay, and many non-citizens do. Nor do children or felons lack citizenship. Whatever citizenship is, it clearly is not a bundle of material contributions.

[Fahran]

So why is it a binary 'yes/no', but doesn't scale with the size of the payments one has made?

If you approach the debate believing that signing up for the draft grants the franchise to men, then the same payment has been made by all men, though that does leave women's suffrage in a tedious place. In more theoretical terms, the franchise accompanies citizenship and adulthood, with the former being a birthright. And, of course, all rights are accompanied by responsibilities and obligations. One has the obligation to pay taxes in accordance with their wages and wealth. One has the obligation to uphold the laws or risk legal penalties. And, in exchange, one is granted representation. "No taxation without representation" and all that, y'know?

That is clearly not true. Citizenship is not linked to paying taxes.. some citizens do not pay, and many non-citizens do. Nor do children or felons lack citizenship. Whatever citizenship is, it clearly is not a bundle of material contributions.

I've stated that citizenship is a birthright. Hence why residents, whether legal or illegal, do not automatically possess it. Children do not have the same responsibilities as adults relative to society and the state in most contexts and thus are not as deserving of representation. And... with regards to citizens who do not pay taxes, you're speaking of the destitute as a rule, who often do pay certain taxes. Disregarding that for a moment, if they became affluent overnight, they would see those obligations realized.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Yes.

where the hell have u been

being

[Darussalam]

Yes, and at the same time, extend the right to vote to children.

[Torisakia]

No but I do believe that the voting age should be raised significantly. What does an 18 year old actually know about politics other than being told what ideology to follow based on what's cool at the time? Exactly nothing.

[Cekoviu]

No but I do believe that the voting age should be raised significantly. What does an 18 year old actually know about politics other than being told what ideology to follow based on what's cool at the time? Exactly nothing.

That has absolutely nothing to do with being 18. That's very common.

[Totenborg]

Agreed.

They've historically used IQ and literacy tests for voter suppression. So no.

If anyone should be able to vote, then the vote should at least be restricted to legal adults who are net taxpayers, or who pay more in taxes than they receive from the government in benefits or income.

This way the people who vote for measures are the ones who have to pay for them, while anyone with a personal interest would be barred from voting.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Nah. Legal adult citizens. Period.

Why not have a system of "one man, one vote"? There's one guy who votes, and everyone else must obey them or else.

Vetinari would agree.

Wait. Did I misread something? Weren't we all agreeing that literacy tests for voting were a bad thing?

[Purpelia]

To the OP I would say quite the opposite. Old people have a very valuable role in society in that their votes keep hot blooded youngsters from ruining everything with their incessant demands for change for the sake of change. As far as I am concerned voting age should be =>30.

[The Free Joy State]

Ok.

As long as people up to the age of 30 can't vote and are not allowed to complain things.

Deal?

Sounds good. It'd make us some of the few people on NS that can vote.

Hey, I'd be still able to vote too!

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 detriment of young people who are the main or future participants in the economy and future of a country.

Do you agree with this proposition?

Ok.

As long as people up to the age of 30 can't vote and are not allowed to complain things.

Deal?

I don't know... Is that really the best way to ensure responsible voting? I'd say bar anyone under the age of forty-five and over the age of fifty and IQ test everyone of voting age to ensure voters have an IQ of 160 or higher (even though we know IQ tests are flawed, a poor way to test intelligence and highly subject to manipulation by those responsible for designing and administrating the test).

In case it's not patently obvious, I'm being sarcastic. I am opposed to anything that limits suffrage (beyond current restrictions, though I'm prepared to consider whether it may be beneficial to lower the voting age to 16), including but not limited to: IQ tests, raising the minimum voting age and restricting the upper voting age. Democratic rights don't just apply to the people that agree with me.

If you are a citizen of 18 or over, you should have the right to vote.

[Neu Leonstein]

No taxation without representation" and all that, y'know?

A curious place to take an argument that residents are somehow different from citizens when it comes to representation. Or indeed, any number of teenagers who earn taxable income.

I think you're reaching a bit here. You want to make an argument that domestically born old people have, if anything, even more of a right to vote than, say, foreign-born young people. But the only thing the oldies have going for them is that they've lived there longer. Which requires a quantitative measure.. something to add up that scales with time.

And the problem with that is that anything of that sort ends up with an inequality problem. Anything other than just "being" can be done in different amounts by different people who were born in the same place at the same time. And so they should have the right to representation to different degrees.

I've stated that citizenship is a birthright.

I've cut a lot of your post, because I think this sentence is the crux of the issue, and the remainder is mostly distraction for us. You're arguing from a nativist understanding of citizenship and therefore democratic representation. I vote because it is my right by birth, and you don't get to vote because you were not born with the same right that I was. It leaves naturalised citizens in an awfully difficult place. And by extension, anyone who might hope to become a naturalised citizen, i.e. immigrants of any sort.

It implies an extremely static idea of what a society is. One that seems to be at odds with what we actually observe in the real world.