|
Limiting the franchise, for whatever reason, undermines the entire point of democratic political engagement - you have to justify your choices to yourself and others - and undermines the political legitimacy of the system. Both factors heavily outweigh whatever advantage you can theoretically get from stopping the 'wrong' people voting. So even absent questions of morality and human rights, it's actually pragmatically a bad decision. Sometimes, the process is more important than the actual outcome.
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
If you think that suppressing any votes is a good idea, you're missing the point of democracy. Any group of people 'not being good enough' is presupposing that political engagement is a privilege that can be revoked, when convenient to whatever group is in power, and not an inalienable right. Moreover, it's incredibly condescending and paternalistic to declare that someone else's belief is wrong by virtue of who they are, and that therefore their voice needs to be ignored. People aren't like that, nobody is like that, everybody has their own story or experience that leads them to think the way they do - you have to treat that seriously, and at least make an attempt at approaching it, if you want to consider yourself an empathetic person. Like even if old people in general have empirically false and absurd beliefs, it's still dumb on every level to do this - the question to ask is 'why?'. Find the root, and pull that out. Ignoring the problem only delays its resolution.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 13:50
|
|