Why are so many people in the US in positions of power so old?

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Property. Wealth. Assets. Anyone under 18 doesn't have a stake in the country, the same way someone over 18 does. They have a personal stake beyond simply living there, in that they've accumulated assets that should be protected and which contribute towards the overall structure of the nation. The vast majority of those under 18 are supported by parents/guardians or the state.. whereas those above 18, will be contributing to the state, through employment (past/present), ownership, and in turn, taxation.

So if property, assets and wealth are the criteria then are you also proposing we strip old people of the vote of they don't have property, assets or wealth?

P.s. I think that's not a good set of criteria for being allowed to vote and I doubt you'll stand over them if you give the some scrutiny.

Blush_01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Compared to our youthful 79 year old president?

Our President is a figure head. Michéal Martin is 60, Leo Varadkar is 41, and Eamon Ryan is 57. Our political landscape generally has a mix of age groups, and while it may take newer political candidates a few years to build their profile, our youngest councillor nationally is 19 or 20 (Ben Dalton O'Sullivan, if I'm not mistaken) and our youngest TD is 22 (James O'Connor).

IMHO the money reason was on the nose. The wealthy octogenarians are "self made" and will pay handsomely to keep anyone who might challenge their financial excesses under the boot. They're paying their peers to maintain a status quo, while those at the bottom of the pile (largely POC, poor, less educated, fewer opportunities to succeed and excel, older but sick) grow more numerous and get squashed. Keeping the poor poor means they control their means of survival, and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

The likes of AOC are denigrated for being too aspirational, but a bit of balance would benefit everyone. It's possible for people to collaborate and for everything to not always be a war, but only if the parties involved are both open to meeting in the middle. Unfortunately it seems like anger is fuelling the world at the moment rather than any sense of intention or aspiration to do good in the world, and that usually stems from self-serving politicians.

The healthcare system there is the biggest scam and travesty I've ever seen. It beggars belief, and anything that can make the HSE look good is woeful.

My mother is a pensioner and works part time. She grouses about it, but she loves it. She's working 8 hours a week. It keeps her active and structures her week, but it's also specialised in the area she trained in, so she can do it relatively easily. My dad is also retired, was self employed, has had bad health for years, and still helps my brother every day with bits for the business. Yes, there are lots of things pensioners can and do do. But the obligation to punish yourself with stress until you die isn't something that we should aspire to. There's nothing wrong with a bit of balance and being able to enjoy your life as you get older too, otherwise what are we wasting our 20s, 30s and 40s building towards?

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

If they don't have dementia and they are perfectly capable of making sensible decisions, why do you want to take the vote from them or deminish their vote?

It doesn't make sense to take or deminish an old person's vote if they are mentally sound so your idea is unworkable because you can't identify which old people are mentally sound.



Someone under 18 is not considered mature enough to make important decisions. Examples being the purchase of cigarettes and alcohol, entering into a contract etc. 18 is a good age to allow people to vote as you are legally an adult and entitled to make decisions for yourself.



Yep, that's democracy. You don't have to be interested in politics to vote. I personally believe that someone senile shouldn't be allowed to vote but I'm not in charge. If the law allows them to vote, then so be it. Campaign and get the law changed.

But here's your problem. How the fcuk do you know they are senile? How do you prove it? And how do you do that for hundreds of thousands of older people? Here's a hint, it's not possible. So you just have to put up with it for now unless you want to go into politics yourself and get it changed.



Yep, I'm perfectly fine with a 6 month old baby not having a vote. I'm also perfectly fine with a 5 year old not having a vote. And I'm also perfectly fine with a 16 year old not having a vote. Actually, for clarity, I'm perfectly fine with anybody under 18 not having a vote.

Everone over 18 can vote if they bother so that's good enough for me.



Dude, we are certainly not agreed.

You do t think we can tell which people are experiencing dementia. We can. We don't even try to use it as a criteria for voting.

And likewise we don't even attempt to tell which young people are good candidates for voting which is absolutely contradictory. If you think there's a good age for voting, then that's fine but it implies there's a cut off criteria too. And if you're not willing to even consider that, then you're not fully engaged in the discussion.

I agree that 6month old and 5year old should not have the vote. But why? I think it's because they're not engaged with the discussions and don't grasp the issues at stake. And I think that also applies to older people.

Why do you think a politically engaged 16 year old should not have the vote but a totally disengaged old person should have the vote?

One crucial difference between our positions is that I think older people should be given more voting power than you think a politically engaged 16 year old should have. Riddle me that.

BattleCorp

I'm rapidly getting tired of this.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You do t think we can tell which people are experiencing dementia. We can. We don't even try to use it as a criteria for voting.

Tell me, before each vote, how do you determine what percentage of the population are experiencing dementia? In Ireland in 2016 there was 637,000 + people over the age of 65. How do you test all of them to ensure that they aren't senile? It can't be done.

If you think there's a good age for voting, then that's fine but it implies there's a cut off criteria too. And if you're not willing to even consider that, then you're not fully engaged in the discussion.

Just because there is a lower age limit for voting doesn't mean there has to be an upper age limit for voting. We don't allow people to buy cigarettes and alcohol when they are under 18, nor do we allow them to enter into contracts etc. Are you suggesting we should should stop old people from buying cigarettes and alcohol and from entering into contracts when they reach a certain age?

I agree that 6month old and 5year old should not have the vote. But why? I think it's because they're not engaged with the discussions and don't grasp the issues at stake. And I think that also applies to older people.

Now I know you are acting the b0llix. You want me to explain why a 6 month old and a 5 year old should not have a vote? Get ta fcuk.

One crucial difference between our positions is that I think older people should be given more voting power than you think a politically engaged 16 year old should have. Riddle me that.

That's not a riddle. That's a difference of opinion.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So if property, assets and wealth are the criteria then are you also proposing we strip old people of the vote of they don't have property, assets or wealth?

Did I say we should? Nope. My response was directed towards the piece I quoted.

P.s. I think that's not a good set of criteria for being allowed to vote and I doubt you'll stand over them if you give the some scrutiny.

In general, people over 18 contribute far more to a nation than minors, whose contributions come about through their guardians. I wouldn't change the voting restrictions at all. Anyone 18 or over should be able to vote.

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm rapidly getting tired of this.



Tell me, before each vote, how do you determine what percentage of the population are experiencing dementia? In Ireland in 2016 there was 637,000 + people over the age of 65. How do you test all of them to ensure that they aren't senile? It can't be done.



Just because there is a lower age limit for voting doesn't mean there has to be an upper age limit for voting. We don't allow people to buy cigarettes and alcohol when they are under 18, nor do we allow them to enter into contracts etc. Are you suggesting we should should stop old people from buying cigarettes and alcohol and from entering into contracts when they reach a certain age?



Now I know you are acting the b0llix. You want me to explain why a 6 month old and a 5 year old should not have a vote? Get ta fcuk.



That's not a riddle. That's a difference of opinion.

Look, if you have an argument for why a 5year old should not have a vote, then just say so. It should be an easy argument to make and I did so in a couple of lines. I think the reason you are reluctant to articulate your argument is because it would be the exact basis I'm proposing for diminishing old people's votes.

I haven't proposed testing all old people (like I didn suggest all old people should vote for Kanye or all old people are senile, now who's trolling?).

I haven't proposed testing all young people or middle aged people for capacity to vote either. We can test for dementia and it's a pretty routine procedure but I haven't suggested we actually do it as a test for voting so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up to be honest.

We actually do stop people from managing their own money if they're senile. It's also a routine practice with people with advanced dementia and people with profound learning disabilities (do you not know these things about gerontology or are you just pretending they don't happen for the sake of your argument?). We still allow people without capacity to make minor purchases such as shopping and necessaries, but they would not be trusted to make important decisions. I consider voting to be an important decision. Don't you?

I wouldn't mind of young people were given a vote similar to the old people at half the value of a full vote.

Say what you like, but if you can't articulate an argument for something you think is a simple concept, then I think you've underestimated how difficult the concept actually is. See if you can make a consistent arguements for why a 16 year old should have absolutely zero voteing power but a 90 year old should have a full vote.

conorhal

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why do you think a politically engaged 16 year old should not have the vote but a totally disengaged old person should have the vote?

One crucial difference between our positions is that I think older people should be given more voting power than you think a politically engaged 16 year old should have. Riddle me that.

Simple, emerging science about brain development suggests that most people don't reach full maturity until the age 25.
Naturally I don't think soft brained teenagers that lack cognitive maturity and an understanding of risk should be allowed anywhere near a ballot box.
If you don't think the vote of old people with cognitive degeneration should have the same weight at the ballot box, then surely you should also be campaigning to raise the voting age to 25 also?

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Look, if you have an argument for why a 5year old should not have a vote, then just say so. It should be an easy argument to make and I did so in a couple of lines. I think the reason you are reluctant to articulate your argument is because it would be the exact basis I'm proposing for diminishing old people's votes.

Young people, i.e. 5 year olds don't have the mental capacity to vote. You pretty much said similar yourself. 12 year olds don't have the mental capacity to vote either as they wouldn't fully understand the ramifications of their actions. In fact nearly all children (U18's) would be considered not mature enough to understand the ramifications of their actions so that's why they are not allowed to vote.

I haven't proposed testing all old people (like I didn suggest all old people should vote for Kanye or all old people are senile, now who's trolling?).

Your argument for not allowing old people to vote/deminish their vote is because of a reduced mental capacity (senile/dementia etc.). How do you determine who is senile or has dimentia if you aren't doing testing? Are you suggesting a blanket policy for people over a certain age whether or not they have dementia/senile etc.? That kind of blows your 'they shouldn't vote because of senility' argument out of the water. What about the majority of old people who aren't senile?

I haven't proposed testing all young people or middle aged people for capacity to vote either. We can test for dementia and it's a pretty routine procedure but I haven't suggested we actually do it as a test for voting so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up to be honest.

See argument for previous paragraph. If you don't test, how can you say that they are senile and should't be allowed to vote?

We actually do stop people from managing their own money if they're senile. It's also a routine practice with people with advanced dementia and people with profound learning disabilities (do you not know these things about gerontology or are you just pretending they don't happen for the sake of your argument?). We still allow people without capacity to make minor purchases such as shopping and necessaries, but they would not be trusted to make important decisions. I consider voting to be an important decision. Don't you?

We don't automatically stop old people from managing their money. Usually they have to be mentally or physically incapable of doing this for themselves. Normally doctors and the legal profession are involved in things like this. It's not done willy-nilly and it certainly isn't done on a blanket basis. What you are suggesting is a blanket ban/reduction of someone's vote based on their age, and not their mental capacity.

Say what you like, but if you can't articulate an argument for something you think is a simple concept, then I think you've underestimated how difficult the concept actually is. See if you can make a consistent arguements for why a 16 year old should have absolutely zero voteing power but a 90 year old should have a full vote.

I'm putting forward a cogent argument. You just aren't understanding it or you are acting the b0llix. I'm not sure which to be honest.

There are reasons why the age of majority is 18 in pretty much all of the world. U18's are considered to lack the maturity needed to be in control of all aspects of their lives, including voting.

Anyway, I'm just repeating the same things so I'm out. I'll leave the last word to you if it makes you happy.

El_Duderino 09

conorhal wrote: »

Simple, emerging science about brain development suggests that most people don't reach full maturity until the age 25.
Naturally I don't think soft brained teenagers that lack cognitive maturity and an understanding of risk should be allowed anywhere near a ballot box.
If you don't think the vote of old people with cognitive degeneration should have the same weight at the ballot box, then surely you should also be campaigning to raise the voting age to 25 also?

OK. If you're using cognitive abilities as the benchmark, then you'd surely be also suggest taking the vote from loads of older people who have signs of cognitive decline. Is that true?

I actually haven't suggested using cognitive ability to prevent anyone from voting. But you're proposing disenfranchising an even bigger group of people based on cognitive ability. I think if older people are allowed to vote regardless of cognitive ability (which is the situation we currently have) then cognitive ability is already thrown out as a criteria for voting.

But in reality we have a situation where cognitive ability is only used to prevent all young people (under 18) from voting and it's not even considered for old people.

I've asked the other poster if they can make a consistent argument for both young and old. Can you make a consistent argument for both young and old?

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

Young people, i.e. 5 year olds don't have the mental capacity to vote. You pretty much said similar yourself. 12 year olds don't have the mental capacity to vote either as they wouldn't fully understand the ramifications of their actions. In fact nearly all children (U18's) would be considered not mature enough to understand the ramifications of their actions so that's why they are not allowed to vote.



Your argument for not allowing old people to vote/deminish their vote is because of a reduced mental capacity (senile/dementia etc.). How do you determine who is senile or has dimentia if you aren't doing testing? Are you suggesting a blanket policy for people over a certain age whether or not they have dementia/senile etc.? That kind of blows your 'they shouldn't vote because of senility' argument out of the water. What about the majority of old people who aren't senile?



See argument for previous paragraph. If you don't test, how can you say that they are senile and should't be allowed to vote?



We don't automatically stop old people from managing their money. Usually they have to be mentally or physically incapable of doing this for themselves. Normally doctors and the legal profession are involved in things like this. It's not done willy-nilly and it certainly isn't done on a blanket basis. What you are suggesting is a blanket ban/reduction of someone's vote based on their age, and not their mental capacity.



I'm putting forward a cogent argument. You just aren't understanding it or you are acting the b0llix. I'm not sure which to be honest.

There are reasons why the age of majority is 18 in pretty much all of the world. U18's are considered to lack the maturity needed to be in control of all aspects of their lives, including voting.

Anyway, I'm just repeating the same things so I'm out. I'll leave the last word to you if it makes you happy.

In the first paragraph you set capacity to vote and understanding the ramifications of their actions as criteria to vote and to blanket ban people under 18 from voting. Can you admit there is absolutely no such criteria placed on whether old people should have the vote and set out a consistent argument for not even considering thise criteria got some people and using tgat criteria yo blanket ban other groups from voting?

The paragraph in bold is very disappointing to read, to be honest. You've continuously misrepresented my point even though I've corrected you on it a few times.
1 You keep coming back to senility and dementia as the core of my argument - it isn't the core of my argument and I keep telling you I'm not suggesting testing anyone for dementia as a criteria for voting. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring this point.

The central point of my argument is that old people have mush less stake in the future than young people and they're less engaged with the needs of the medium and long term future of the country.
2 I haven't once suggested banning old people from voting. That's a complete fabrication on your part.
3 the answer to your question about old people (I didn't dustinguish between senile and not senile because it's not necessary for my argument It seems to be you who keeps bringing it is as if it's central tomy argument) was summed up in my first post, and many more posts on the topic . Old people should have reduced voting power.

Since you seem to have not grasped the argument thus far, I'll lay it out simply now:
1 there is huge inequality in how we allow citizens to vote. We completely ban young people from voting based on criteria that we don't apply to old people or anyone else above 18.
2 old people are less engaged in the modern world than young people and They have far less interest in the long term future of the country.
3 old people live longer and longer and vote more times than at any point in history so the effect is growing.
4 this results in far less political focus on the future, less ambition to address problems that affect the young and the future of the country.
5 old people's votes should be geared down as they age to counteract this effect.
6 young people should have the opposite gearing up of their vote until they have a full vote at age 18.

Note I didn't reference dementia or banning old people from voting.

El_Duderino 09

Fascinating discussion on age of parliaments and age of voters here. He goes back to the original democracies and discusses that people were afraid of the old wealthy rulers being outnumbered by the poor, the uneducated and the young.

Turns out that almost all parliaments have an average age of 50. The more democratic they are the younger the average age, the less democratic they are the older the average age. E.g. The House of Lords in the UK is not very democratic and has much older average age then the House of Commons which is voted by the public.

Podcast link here.
https://overcast.fm/+ES61oNaDQ

This fear of young peope taking over Parliament, if young people can vote, is completely unfounded. Maybe people really love the state of politics as it is right now and are loathe to change it. I think it could do with some basic changes and I think reducing old people's voting power and increasing young people's voting power would be two prime places to look at.

fly_agaric

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fascinating discussion on age of parliaments and age of voters here. He goes back to the original democracies and discusses that people were afraid of the old wealthy rulers being outnumbered by the poor, the uneducated and the young.

Turns out that almost all parliaments have an average age of 50. The more democratic they are the younger the average age, the less democratic they are the older the average age. E.g. The House of Lords in the UK is not very democratic and has much older average age then the House of Commons which is voted by the public.

Podcast link here.
https://overcast.fm/+ES61oNaDQ

This fear of young peope taking over Parliament, if young people can vote, is completely unfounded. Maybe people really love the state of politics as it is right now and are loathe to change it. I think it could do with some basic changes and I think reducing old people's voting power and increasing young people's voting power would be two prime places to look at.

I suppose you might be having a laugh with your posts (given alot of what is posted here is ridiculous) or engaging in a theoretical argument for diversion, but I do have to ask - do you not see the issues with establishing a concept of weighting of votes (1 man, perhaps 0.5 votes, or 0.8 votes etc. depending on criteria)?

So you agree with age as a weighting factor in a citizen's vote and think that is a good thing that will improve democracy. Okay.

What about wealth?
Educational attainment?
Intelligence?
Marital status?
How many kids you have?
Where you live in the country?
Origin of citizenship or how long a person has been a citizen?
Gender perhaps?
Race?

It all starts to emit a bit of a foul smell and erodes a key principle of democracy IMO.

El_Duderino 09

fly_agaric wrote: »

I suppose you might be having a laugh with your posts (given alot of what is posted here is ridiculous) or engaging in a theoretical argument for diversion, but I do have to ask - do you not see the issues with establishing a concept of weighting of votes (1 man, perhaps 0.5 votes, or 0.8 votes etc. depending on criteria)?

So you agree with age as a weighting factor in a citizen's vote and think that is a good thing that will improve democracy. Okay.

What about wealth?
Educational attainment?
Intelligence?
Marital status?
How many kids you have?
Where you live in the country?
Origin of citizenship or how long a person has been a citizen?
Gender perhaps?
Race?

It all starts to emit a bit of a foul smell and erodes a key principle of democracy IMO.

Better than calling my posts ridiculous, try to refute them. If you have better arguments it should be no bother to you.
I certainly see an issue with a whole swathe of the country having absolutely no vote. Particularly when it's based on criteria that we don't apply to other sections of the population.

We already weight voting ability according to age (under 18s have no vote at all). I have set out an argument for amending that method of weighting votes according to age. But I haven't suggested weighting votes according to any of the criteria in your list. Feel free to make an argument for those things if you think they should be considered. If you don't think they should be considered then neither of us think they should be considered.

fly_agaric

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Better than calling my posts ridiculous, try to refute them. If you have better arguments it should be no bother to you.
I certainly see an issue with a whole swathe of the country having absolutely no vote. Particularly when it's based on criteria that we don't apply to other sections of the population.

We already weight voting ability according to age (under 18s have no vote at all). I have set out an argument for amending that method of weighting votes according to age. But I haven't suggested weighting votes according to any of the criteria in your list. Feel free to make an argument for those things if you think they should be considered. If you don't think they should be considered then neither of us think they should be considered.

Sorry - I meant alot of what is posted in this forum (Current Affairs) is ridiculous...not your post specifically.
Just felt you are probably engaging in a thought experiment & not very serious.

Have already said (twice) why I think it is bad idea.
The whole idea of weighting a citizen's vote in elections based on demographic criteria decided by the govt. is flawed and offensive to democracy.
I'm not going to waste time making the arguments for the fairly arbitrary criteria (roughly ordered by offensiveness) I suggested.
I'm sure as a debating man you can come up with a few.

As for "already weighting people's votes" - no we don't really do that.
What we do is we don't give people all their rights and responsibilities as citizens until they are 18...(and, as regards voting, we don't withdraw or reduce them after that based on age).
Maybe that threshold should be set at a different (lower) age but that is different to what you are arguing for IMO.

Jump_In_Jack

fly_agaric wrote: »

Sorry - I meant alot of what is posted in this forum (Current Affairs) is ridiculous...not your post specifically.
Just felt you are probably engaging in a thought experiment & not very serious.

Have already said (twice) why I think it is bad idea.
The whole idea of weighting a citizen's vote in elections based on demographic criteria decided by the govt. is flawed and offensive to democracy.
I'm not going to waste time making the arguments for the fairly arbitrary criteria (roughly ordered by offensiveness) I suggested.
I'm sure as a debating man you can come up with a few.

As for "already weighting people's votes" - no we don't really do that.
What we do is we don't give people all their rights and responsibilities as citizens until they are 18...(and, as regards voting, we don't withdraw or reduce them after that based on age).
Maybe that threshold should be set at a different (lower) age but that is different to what you are arguing for IMO.

Why is the voting age 18 in this country?
Is there any reason that could not be reduced to 16 or even lower?
That might frighten a few politicians into thinking more about the future they are creating for the youth of today.

El_Duderino 09

fly_agaric wrote: »

Sorry - I meant alot of what is posted in this forum (Current Affairs) is ridiculous...not your post specifically.
Just felt you are probably engaging in a thought experiment & not very serious.

Have already said (twice) why I think it is bad idea.
The whole idea of weighting a citizen's vote in elections based on demographic criteria decided by the govt. is flawed and offensive to democracy.
I'm not going to waste time making the arguments for the fairly arbitrary criteria (roughly ordered by offensiveness) I suggested.
I'm sure as a debating man you can come up with a few.

As for "already weighting people's votes" - no we don't really do that.
What we do is we don't give people all their rights and responsibilities as citizens until they are 18...(and, as regards voting, we don't withdraw or reduce them after that based on age).
Maybe that threshold should be set at a different (lower) age but that is different to what you are arguing for IMO.

Right, so neither of us are suggesting any of the criteria on your list should be used to weight votes. That's that dealt with.

You're acting as if weighting people's ability to vote based on age is a new idea. We totally disenfranchise some people based on age and you seem to completely overlook it.

I think that IF you conclude that age is a good criteria for voting then there should be good reasons that build up to that conclusion (such as cognitive ability or engagement in the issues). But if you introduce any of those concepts as criteria for having the vote then you need to apply them to older people and not just young people.

I think that old people should be allowed to vote just like any other citizen but i think their votes should be geared down. Likewise i think young people should be allowed to vote and their votes should be geared up. This is all based on the principle that we already use that age should be a factor in deciding whether people should be allowed to vote. My proposed system is considerably more generous than the current system and reduces the offence to democracy that banning young people from voting currently presents.

I am also arguing that the voting age should be lowered so that's not different to what I'm arguing for.

listermint

NSAman wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with age.

I actually find the lack of older people in Europe to be ageist.

Lack of experience, huge egos and over placed confidence is my current bug-bear in Europe. OK ability to be energetic and stamina might be offset, but experience trumps most of that, unless the individual is very bright and a fast learner.

Allow me to say a little story. Quite a few years ago, we were looking for someone for the office in the States. Many young people applied, honestly, I could not have taken any of them, lack of skillsets, bad communication, in some cases just to "woke" and opinionated and just would not fit in with everyone else. I kept putting off one application what was from a retired man. Yes agesit I know. Eventually, I had to interview him. He wanted the job simply to maintain his healthcare for himself and his aging wife.

Little did I know when I interviewed him, what an absolute asset he would be!

He had the experience, he had the knowledge, he had the way with people and most of all he was just a fantastic human being.

Needless to say, a man of 65 became my right hand man, my confidante and most of all my friend.

All of our clients loved him, his sense of humour, he warmth and forthrightness, endeared him to anyone he met.

We lost him to cancer quickly 7 years ago. He asked me to make one promise to him and that was to look after his daughter. Needless to say, that promise has been kept and is being kept.

Never overlook those who maybe older.... they too have gifts to share!!

No offence and appreciate the sentiment and the promise.

But do you think people in their 70s want to be out working in there twilight years when they want to be winding down and enjoying what is left.


This is not a testament to America it's a sad endictment of the utter hollowing out of a healthcare system and social fabric. There's no real assistance for people . It's actually hilarious that someone would be so brain washed by the dog eat dog society in America that they think people working into their 70s in Walmart is great.....

fly_agaric

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Right, so neither of us are suggesting any of the criteria on your list should be used to weight votes. That's that dealt with.

Heh, they are in same category as your idea.
You know perfectly logical reasons can be crafted for adopting several of them.
You just rule them out of hand because you personally find them offensive.
It is a bit arbitrary and based on your own morality and beliefs isn't it (a sense of injustice that the young are being shafted currently) ?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're acting as if weighting people's ability to vote based on age is a new idea. We totally disenfranchise some people based on age and you seem to completely overlook it.

Yes, it is a new idea. You either have a vote or not in a given election.
1 citizen 1 vote. Not, if you're over 65, 0.5 votes for you!

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think that IF you conclude that age is a good criteria for voting then there should be good reasons that build up to that conclusion (such as cognitive ability or engagement in the issues). But if you introduce any of those concepts as criteria for having the vote then you need to apply them to older people and not just young people.

Yes, the reason is (effectively) division between being a child an adult really. It is a very arbitrary line I admit, but we also have hard cutoffs for people < 18 years of age from doing plenty of other things which have potential to harm themselves or others.

I admit you are correct that there are many older people who probably should not be voting. However, taking rights away from people is again quite different and more difficult to granting them. There's also a lot of older people driving who probably (strictly) shouldn't be.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is all based on the principle that we already use that age should be a factor in deciding whether people should be allowed to vote.

It is based on a new principle of some citizens' votes being intrinsically worth more than other ones depending on their age (...one of the govt.'s 9 equality grounds no less) which is a funny way to operate democracy.
As I said, a very slippery slope so take care!

NSAman

listermint wrote: »

No offence and appreciate the sentiment and the promise.

But do you think people in their 70s want to be out working in there twilight years when they want to be winding down and enjoying what is left.


This is not a testament to America it's a sad endictment of the utter hollowing out of a healthcare system and social fabric. There's no real assistance for people . It's actually hilarious that someone would be so brain washed by the dog eat dog society in America that they think people working into their 70s in Walmart is great.....

Each to their own. Yes I agree, if you want to retire there should be a fall back. That is what social security in the US is supposed to be about.

Personally, if I make it to retirement age I do NOT want to retire. I think a forced retirement is equally as bad as forced work....

Some people retire and boredom seeps in.

Yes I agree that America has some MAJOR issues in relation to those who want to retire and do not. There are also other major issues of those (normally government workers) who actually earn more on their pensions from the State/Government than they did when they were working..... hence why many states have massive pension issues ......

No place is perfect (even any European country) that is what planning is for, alas when you do not earn enough planning is difficult. (same everywhere)

El_Duderino 09

fly_agaric wrote: »

Heh, they are in same category as your idea.
You know perfectly logical reasons can be crafted for adopting several of them.
You just rule them out of hand because you personally find them offensive.
It is a bit arbitrary and based on your own morality and beliefs isn't it (a sense of injustice that the young are being shafted currently) ?



Yes, it is a new idea. You either have a vote or not in a given election.
1 citizen 1 vote. Not, if you're over 65, 0.5 votes for you!



Yes, the reason is (effectively) division between being a child an adult really. It is a very arbitrary line I admit, but we also have hard cutoffs for people < 18 years of age from doing plenty of other things which have potential to harm themselves or others.

I admit you are correct that there are many older people who probably should not be voting. However, taking rights away from people is again quite different and more difficult to granting them. There's also a lot of older people driving who probably (strictly) shouldn't be.



It is based on a new principle of some citizens' votes being intrinsically worth more than other ones depending on their age (...one of the govt.'s 9 equality grounds no less) which is a funny way to operate democracy.
As I said, a very slippery slope so take care!

You're expecting me to make an argument for something that neither of us support. Very strange approach to discussion. Rest assured that i wont ask you to make an argument for anything that you don't support. Let's just leave your list of things that neither of us support. If someone want's to ,make an argument for the, they can.

This isn't a new idea at all. we give zero voting power to people based on their age. I'm not proposing giving older people zero voting power but you're happy to give young people no voting power so you're already supporting the more radical position. And we agree that there are loads of people voting who probably ought not really be voting, but we only apply rules to ban young people from voting. I think you could balance out that effect by allowing young people to vote. In my suggestion there is far more democracy as it doesn't bar voting or take the vote from anyone where you support a system which bans loads of people from voting.

Your last point references taking away rights from people. I haven't suggested taking away any rights from people while you advocate banning people from voting. Banning people from voting is a pretty radical departure from the principle of what you probably think you're supporting. You mention 1 citizen 1 vote as if it's a simple approach and as if you actually believe it. In reality you don't believe in 1 citizen 1 vote as you support banning people from voting based on age.

ranto_boy

It's the same across the board in the US. Look at some of their news anchors, absolutely ancient!

El_Duderino 09

ranto_boy wrote: »

It's the same across the board in the US. Look at some of their news anchors, absolutely ancient!

Not sure if news reader age is a huge problem but voting power of old people is a problem. To be fair, mostly old people get their news from the scheduled tv news in 2020. Most people use news apps.

People' personality tend to solidify in about their 30s and they settle on issues such as what hobbies they have, what career they do, and also political views (leaving loads of room for individual difference but still a fairly well established observation of human behavior). In reality people tend to lose themselves off to new idea rom that point on (hence wide use of expressions such as "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Again, remember individual difference). From that point on people increasingly tend towards seeing the world as going in the wrong direction, and tend to reject new ideas.

In the past people would live for another 25ish years. but now those people will live or far longer as people who are reluctant to embrace new ideas and more time as people who reject new ideas and engage less with the what's needed to address the issues o the present and even less with what's needed to engage with the issues of the future.

It's just gone out of whack. Old people outvote young people and there are more and more old people every election cycle so the problem is getting worse. The lack of ambition in politics is incredible right now and I can't blame the politicians. The electorate wouldn't reward them from being ambitious about solving the problems or building for the future because the old people won't vote for them for talking about the medium to long term future an old people are too numerous.