|
There's a certain kind of thought that pops up from time to time. Especially in this forum although it's certainly not limited to here. We just need to wait for all the elderly to die before we can vote in good politicians. All old people are racist, or ignorant, or afraid, and vote for bad things. Baby Boomers are the worst generation. The Boomers are just sucking up every resource they can before they die. And other variations. But it's gone from a kind of background radiation to being pretty front and center with the Brexit vote  The elderly have less time to live with the consequences of their vote. That image has been posted a lot recently, and I think it's not too hard to see what the next step from that thinking is. Since the elderly don't have to live with the consequences of their votes, should they be allowed to vote? That's the question people seem to be tip-toeing right up to, or dancing around. But I say let's have it out. Should people over a certain age lose the right to vote?
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Can't vote if you're dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
I think so along with Mandatory voting being a thing so that young adults actually get off their rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
I think old people have an unfortunate statistical tendency towards being complete idiots in general, but no, OP, taking away people's right to vote because you don't agree with them is not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
my dad posted:I think old people have an unfortunate statistical tendency towards being complete idiots in general, but no, OP, taking away people's right to vote because you don't agree with them is not a good thing. Exactly this. Don't gently caress with voting rights. Also, the idea that old people don't have to live with their decisions only makes sense if you think that none of them have children or grandchildren that they care for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
This is just simple ageism! Someone's age has no bearing whatsoever on their faculties and fitness for various activities. That's why I think children who can reach the pedals should be allowed to drive and smoke cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Exactly this. Don't gently caress with voting rights. Also elderly people are often much more dependent on state benefits than others, meaning they can be disproportionately affected by budget cuts etc. And LOL at the idea that "they don't have to live with their decisions". They don't know when they are going to die, in the UK if an 80 year old votes and lives till they are 95 that's still 3 successive governments they will live through, not exactly 'nothing'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Absolutely. We can even make it bipartisan- tie voting rights to working. People old enough to retire have no "skin in the game," just like those who collect welfare, SS, too young to work, etc. Universal suffrage- as long as you're invested enough in the country to be contributing to the GDP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Doomtalker posted:Absolutely. We can even make it bipartisan- tie voting rights to working. People old enough to retire have no "skin in the game," just like those who collect welfare, SS, too young to work, etc. Universal suffrage- as long as you're invested enough in the country to be contributing to the GDP. I've got a better idea. Service Guarantees Citizenship. Would you like to know more?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Doomtalker posted:Absolutely. We can even make it bipartisan- tie voting rights to working. People old enough to retire have no "skin in the game," just like those who collect welfare, SS, too young to work, etc. Universal suffrage- as long as you're invested enough in the country to be contributing to the GDP. If you're welfare or pension dependent you have more "skin in the game" than anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
harold shipman did nothing wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:If you're welfare or pension dependent you have more "skin in the game" than anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
So we should stop bigotry by being bigoted against the elderly. That makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
I think voting should be for 25yos and over. Or you could tie it to national insurance contributions. 18 captures a lot of socially unproductive ppl these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Abolish elections, bring back the divine right of kings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:Abolish elections, bring back the divine right of kings. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 16:13
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Serene Republic only legitimate republic imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
I think that letting the elderly vote is a lesser evil and, while a bad thing, is less of a bad thing than taking away their right to vote. It's possible to simultaneously believe that the elderly are generally dumber than the rest of the population while also realizing that preventing them (or any other demographic) from voting causes far more problems than it solves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
What we need to do is bring back weighted voting. Divide the population into age brackets like in the graphic in the OP, and then calculate a factor for each bracket to figure out how their vote is weighted. The oldest group is defined as having a weight of 1. In this case, you end up with: Vote weight 18-24: 4.3 25-49: 3.3 50-64: 1.9 65+: 1 Applying those values to the Remain/Leave numbers above, and the total population of each bracket, you'd end up with: 59 million votes for Remain 50.9 million votes for Leave. Adjusting for turnout, Remain would still win, unless turnout among the 18-24 and 24-49 brackets dropped to around 40% while the other two were at 100%. We have thus succeeded in our objective of nullifying old farts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
we should take a page from the Inuit and give our eld to the ice But realtalk, my dad posted:I think old people have an unfortunate statistical tendency towards being complete idiots in general, but no, OP, taking away people's right to vote because you don't agree with them is not a good thing. I hare to say it, but I agree with this. Abolishing voting rights never ends well, even if there are obvious benefits in this case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:Abolish elections, bring back the divine right of kings. Mencius Moldbug alt account detected
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Youth have a lack of life experience and do not have the knowledge to make properly informed political decisions. The franchise should be exclusively limited to socially respectable property owners above the age of 50, who've made something of themselves and will have the proper disposition to soberly and responsibly guide a country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
I'm going to echo the thoughts that restricting voting rights is wrong, there's simply too much room for abuse. But I'm also going to echo the thoughts that we go full Logan's Run and start filling everyone aged 80 and above. You had a good run, grandpa, but it's time for Renewal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:start filling everyone aged 80 and above. Ewww no that's gross.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
I only have one question for people who think olds shouldn't be voting: at what age do you plan to stop voting?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Ironic that the people who have contributed the most to society should have less a say than someone who just graduated high school and MAYBE waited tables part time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Ewww no that's gross. Listen, sometimes you have to take one for the team. Just lie back and think of England.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Ironic that the people who have contributed the most to society should have less a say than someone who just graduated high school and MAYBE waited tables part time. That's not how you use the word "ironic". But otherwise yeah I agree. Their way of thinking is backward and irrelevant. And I am unconvinced that they contributed more to society than the high schooler just because they're older. That's ageism. LGD posted:Youth have a lack of life experience and do not have the knowledge to make properly informed political decisions. The franchise should be exclusively limited to socially respectable property owners above the age of 50, who've made something of themselves and will have the proper disposition to soberly and responsibly guide a country. Are you a MIGF rereg? Cause drat this is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Basement dwelling weeaboo freak stops playing his rape-themed anime card game down for long enough to identify the real obstacle in his life: Mom and Dad. And a new political movement is born.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
The real problem is that seniors have more influence in democratic systems because they're reliable voters, and young people are not. If you want to fix that, the solution is for young people to get off their loving lazy asses and exercise their right to vote, not to take it away from other people. There aren't so many seniors that they would comprise a majority in pretty much any western society, it's just that they're the ones who're actually voting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The real problem is that seniors have more influence in democratic systems because they're reliable voters, and young people are not. If you want to fix that, the solution is for young people to get off their loving lazy asses and exercise their right to vote, not to take it away from other people. There aren't so many seniors that they would comprise a majority in pretty much any western society, it's just that they're the ones who're actually voting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Alternatively, to offset the structural differences which allow older citizens to vote more regularly, divide voters into age brackets and multiply the votes in any given bracket to be equal to a 100% turnout. Oh you mean like being more likely to be poor and in ill health? Yeah, those olds sure have it made! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Alternatively, to offset the structural differences which allow older citizens to vote more regularly, divide voters into age brackets and multiply the votes in any given bracket to be equal to a 100% turnout. How about we make election days a national holiday? Or extend early voting in all states? Or have mail in voting available in all states? Basically we should expand voting rights and not be reducing anyone's votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Alternatively, to offset the structural differences which allow older citizens to vote more regularly, divide voters into age brackets and multiply the votes in any given bracket to be equal to a 100% turnout. Like maybe keeping polls open longer? But no, lets propose an easily manipulated weighting system. If you're too lazy to vote, I don't care about your opinion. Older people show up because... *gasp* they know voting matters, something they've learned in their life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
No, don't revoke anything. Just make voting mandatory. Many countries already do. More turnout is always better and balances out the old people overrepresentation you get with optional ballots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:How about we make election days a national holiday? xwing posted:Like maybe keeping polls open longer? But no, lets propose an easily manipulated weighting system. If you're too lazy to vote, I don't care about your opinion. Older people show up because... *gasp* they know voting matters, something they've learned in their life. PT6A posted:Oh you mean like being more likely to be poor and in ill health? Yeah, those olds sure have it made!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:But this system doesn't care about the opinion of the people who are too laze to vote. Rather, it takes the people who go against the trends in their age bracket and rewards them with more influence, for being good citizens who take their responsibilities seriously. Deciding to vote when half your peers decide not to clearly proves you're deserving of a greater say, while doing the same when 90% of your peers vote is not such a big deal. This system would also encourage politicians to care more about the youth vote, which in turn could make young people care more about politics, rather than decide it's just for old people because those are the only ones politicians care about. IIRC, there's also some big discrepancies in voter turnout among different races. Would your system apply to race too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
To nip this one in the bud, A Buttery Pastry's posts tend to be homages to "A Modest Proposal" Sorry for ruining the joke, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:IIRC, there's also some big discrepancies in voter turnout among different races. Would your system apply to race too? my dad posted:To nip this one in the bud, A Buttery Pastry's posts tend to be homages to "A Modest Proposal"
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Can't say I haven't sometimes defended weird-rear end ideas I wouldn't consider otherwise just because it was entertaining to participate in a debate with a handicap.  A Buttery Pastry posted:We're not all living in America dude, I'm coming up with an international solution. How about  -ing the politicians who keep pension levels just above the minimum needed to avoid starving while blaming it on everyone else, and then threaten that pensions will drop further if they're voted out of power? Doesn't entirely solve the problem, but I bet the sound of the firing squad would be enrapturing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:48
|
|