Tbh, if you’re over 70 you should probably lose your right to have a say about things that will only come to pass after you’re dead. Just one opinion, ymmv.
I semi-seriously believe that you should get more votes if you’re younger, or a more heavily weighted vote, based on the average expected number of decades you have left to live. Like, e.g., an eighteen year-old ought to live for roughly another six decades, so their vote should be weighted to take that into account. And I say this as a thirty-[mumble] year-old! Eighteen year-olds should have more of a say than I do, because they’re going to be affected by the decisions made now for much longer than I am.
As it is young people do not turn up to vote, so giving an under experienced and fickle group additional voting power is wrong.
One person, one vote. Should people who contribute more taxes get more votes, after all they give more to the state. Should the unemployed not get a vote?
I wasn’t making an argument based on contribution. Ironically, you are making an argument based on contribution by citing experience as a criterion for valuing voters. My argument was virtually the opposite, in fact: consequences, rather than contribution.
I’m not sure if young people are more fickle with their votes or not, but either way this is not a criterion we can use to judge the relative value of voters. Being allowed to change your vote at different elections - being fickle - is a foundation of representative democracy.
I dont have a problem with being fickle I have a problem with valuing someone’s vote over another. My argument was that consequences or contribution it should not matter, everyone gets one vote and that is it.
That’s fair enough. As I said at the start, I was only semi-serious in my argument. I just didn’t think the reasons you gave against it were particularly good!
I’ve been saying that each country should disenfranchise the elderly by the national average life expectancy minus the same number of years you have to be to register to vote. We accept that young people aren’t fully developed and shouldn’t be allowed to participate until they reach a minimum age. Time to do the same with people who are at higher risk of dementia and who won’t have to live with the consequences of long-term changes.
I realize that this will unfairly disenfranchise able-minded people. They still shouldn’t get a say in our long-term future.
Tbh, if you’re over 70 you should probably lose your right to have a say about things that will only come to pass after you’re dead. Just one opinion, ymmv.
Some people live to 90-100, you should be allowed to vote when you’re going to live for that much longer.
Cut voting eligibility when you reach the age of life expectancy for your country.
It is less arbitrary than voting at 18.
Fun fact, the current USA president is far older than the average life expectancy of people in the USA.
If only your idea actually had any legs
Yeah like everything in American politics, it is best to actively do the opposite
I semi-seriously believe that you should get more votes if you’re younger, or a more heavily weighted vote, based on the average expected number of decades you have left to live. Like, e.g., an eighteen year-old ought to live for roughly another six decades, so their vote should be weighted to take that into account. And I say this as a thirty-[mumble] year-old! Eighteen year-olds should have more of a say than I do, because they’re going to be affected by the decisions made now for much longer than I am.
As it is young people do not turn up to vote, so giving an under experienced and fickle group additional voting power is wrong.
One person, one vote. Should people who contribute more taxes get more votes, after all they give more to the state. Should the unemployed not get a vote?
I wasn’t making an argument based on contribution. Ironically, you are making an argument based on contribution by citing experience as a criterion for valuing voters. My argument was virtually the opposite, in fact: consequences, rather than contribution.
I’m not sure if young people are more fickle with their votes or not, but either way this is not a criterion we can use to judge the relative value of voters. Being allowed to change your vote at different elections - being fickle - is a foundation of representative democracy.
I dont have a problem with being fickle I have a problem with valuing someone’s vote over another. My argument was that consequences or contribution it should not matter, everyone gets one vote and that is it.
That’s fair enough. As I said at the start, I was only semi-serious in my argument. I just didn’t think the reasons you gave against it were particularly good!
I’ve been saying that each country should disenfranchise the elderly by the national average life expectancy minus the same number of years you have to be to register to vote. We accept that young people aren’t fully developed and shouldn’t be allowed to participate until they reach a minimum age. Time to do the same with people who are at higher risk of dementia and who won’t have to live with the consequences of long-term changes.
I realize that this will unfairly disenfranchise able-minded people. They still shouldn’t get a say in our long-term future.
Just average life expectancy minus half the minimum age imo, seems more fair considering it’s an average.
Minimum voting age also disenfranchises able-minded people so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯