I thought it might be fun to start this new series of weekly posts with something not necessarily finance related, but something we're all sure to have some thoughts on.
However you feel about the recent Brexit vote, one aspect of it really stood out: the disparity between older and younger voters. In the case of the Brexit, young people voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU; older voters went in the opposite direction.
Whomever is ultimately proven the wiser, here’s why that’s a problem: if you’re 25 years old and living in Britain, you’re going to be dealing with the fallout of that vote for the next several decades. If you’re 70…well…you don’t really have to worry about that, do you?
We have the same problem here in America. AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. Why? Older voters scare easily and fall into lockstep at the polls at the mere hint of a benefits cut (or when given the opportunity to make a value judgment about someone’s alternative lifestyle choices). It’s probably the most reliable voting block in America, save for maybe the gun nuts.
Look, we have a minimum voting age for a reason, and that reason is diminished capacity. You wouldn’t expect a nine year old to understand everything that is at stake in a national (or even municipal) election. What you would expect is a vote in favor of everyone in America getting an Xbox.
The same holds true for the elderly. You don’t expect someone in their 70s to understand things like Net Neutrality, but it wouldn’t surprise you a bit to see every Social Security and Medicare increase pass in a landslide.
Taxpayer subsidized Viagra is to an octogenarian what an Xbox is to a child. The difference is nobody’s getting an Xbox.
I get why they vote the way they do. I’m only 48 and I already feel the pull of how much better I used to be in every possible way. Nostalgia is powerful. Once you reach a certain age, you view everything through the lens of the good old days. But that’s just not the world we live in anymore.
It’s high time for a maximum voting age.
If we don’t allow people under 18 to vote because of diminished capacity, why doesn’t the same standard apply to those within 18 years of the average life expectancy? In the U.S. the average life expectancy is currently 79. I think it’s fair to say that those 61 and under have the greatest stake in the future direction of the country.
I’m not suggesting setting the elderly adrift on ice floes. Nor am I saying the elderly cannot or should not serve in advisory capacities. But it seems reasonable to me that the future of the country should be left in the hands of those who…well…have a future in the country.
And while we’re fixing things, why don’t we have a maximum age for the presidency? We have a minimum age, established in the Constitution (it’s 35). In an era where the next president will likely be faced with issues as complex as artificial intelligence, interplanetary travel, and social issues comprised of basic human rights that were illegal when the current crop of candidates came of age, is it really wise to hand the reins to our grandparents?
The major candidates in our upcoming presidential election are decidedly long in the tooth. Donald Trump is 70, and Hillary Clinton will be 69 on election day. Jill Stein is 66. Gary Johnson is the comparative youngster at 63.
Compare them to Barack Obama, who was 47 when elected. After eight years in office, he’ll still only be 55 when he leaves. Or George W. Bush, who was 54 when elected and 62 after 8 years in office. Or Bill Clinton, who was 46 when elected and 54 after 8 years in office. They were our last three presidents. Why on Earth are we going backwards?
I can hear some of you already. “My old man is in his 70s and he’s still sharp as a whip.” “My grandmother is pushing 90 and still lives on her own and gets herself to church every week.” I get it, there are edge cases.
But democracy isn’t about edge cases. It’s about the average. The vast majority of people in their 70s and older have already lived their lives and made whatever impact they were able to make. They have no business impacting future generations of a country they won’t be around to see.
So what do you guys think? Am I way off base for suggesting the disenfranchisement of the largest voting block in America? Is anyone else as concerned as I am that very soon elderly people are going to be running the most technologically advanced society in human history? If you agree that there should be a maximum voting age, how should it be determined? Should there be an age limit for presidential candidates and, if so, what should it be?
Wow. Some very interesting points here. A great first topic for your initiative.
I'm much more in favor of a basic IQ test requirement. You really don't even have to set it very high, maybe 95-100. This would weed out your basic dummies, as well as the elderly who have diminished mental capacities.
If not that, you get to vote in proportion to how much you pay in federal income taxes. This eliminates the incentive of offering freebies as a way to get elected.
To your first point, I've often had the same thought myself but have serious doubts that it would lead to positive outcomes. It's generally accepted (and most likely correct) that higher intelligence correlates with a more progressive world view. My concern with that is that the less intelligent (and, by extension, more conservative) voters currently function as speed bumps to progressivism run amok. The other major problem is how to measure IQ, because to my knowledge there is no reliable way to do it today (without encountering legitimate bias).
To your second point, that's kinda what the Founders had in mind by only allowing landowners to vote. By creating a taxation means test, however, you inadvertently open up another way to game the system a la Citizens United. Theoretically there's no limit to the amount you can pay in taxes. You're required to pay what you owe, but there's certainly nothing stopping you from paying more. If the strength of your influence were dependent upon how much you pay in taxes, then the incentive is there to just pay more and then run shit the way you see fit.
Given the enormity of federal taxation, even if someone like Warren Buffet paid his entire wealth to try to buy an election, he wouldn't be able to do it himself. If a group of billionaires got together and voted someone in with their money, it would almost certainly be a more reasonable candidate than the two clowns we have now.
I viewed the land owner requirement to be more related to having skin in the game so to speak. Property rights are quite fundamental and we're strictly enforced back in the day. In essence, if you didn't own property you should not have a say or "a vote", in the laws that govern property rights.
In proportion to how much you pay in taxes? So you're saying that Bill Gates would basically have his own delegates.
Funny you say that, as something similar was on my mind. I wouldn't side with an IQ test, but I would side with a general test. For elections, you should have to pass an exam on what the candidates stand for in order to show that you are knowledgeable about who and what you are voting for. That should weed out millions who are voting for frivolous reasons (e.g., for the sake of having the nation's first woman president).
Similarly, elderly should have to pass driving exams. There are far too many elderly who should not be driving.
IQ tests are based upon a somewhat normal distribution with a mean of 100. 95-100 in incredibly high.
A quick google search puts the average IQ in our armed forces at around 105. Are you suggesting that ~40-50% of our military population shouldn't be allowed to vote? IQ tests are also known to exhibit significant bias against minorities (as in, classifying people at a lower score that aren't really lower intelligence).
Voting by taxation level undermines the very idea of equality (which I assume is your point). Public service, including (again) the military come to mind. Do you really think that a high school history teacher/marine deserves 1/3 or less of the vote of a good life insurance salesman (or a successful porn star)?
I think it was George Carlin who stated something like the following, "Have you ever met an average person? Now just think, half the people are dumber than that."
Scary thought indeed.
I think the difficulty would be in where to set the bar. On the lower end of the age spectrum, while some 18 year olds are more mature or in tune with politics than others, they are all relatively similar as far as their capacity is concerned. On the higher end, however, that isn't the case at all. You brush this off as "edge cases" but I think it's really the heart of the problem.
Using a personal anecdote, I'm lucky enough to have all four of my grandparents still alive and they're all between the ages of 79 and 82. My mom's dad has broken his neck twice, has cancer, and can only see using his peripheral vision. My mom's mom falls and injures herself sadly every couple months and maybe weighs 90 pounds. They don't have cell phones, drive 20-30 year old vehicles, get 6 channels, and live in a 250 year old farm house. They probably won't be around much longer, as you say.
My dad's mom on the other hand volunteers two days a week, does the trim with the push mower as my grandfather mows the lawn in the riding mower (what a deal that guy made), texts me articles she finds interesting from her iPhone, and travels out of the country multiple times a year. My dad's dad just won a weight lifting competition at his gym in the 55+ category at 81 years old, bowls 3 nights a week, manages his own rental properties and does all of the maintenance, and runs his church finances by saving Excel spreadsheets to Dropbox. Now, anything can happen of course, but these two seem like they have quite some time left, and at the very least have full mental capacity to make rational decisions.
Should my dad's parents not be able to influence the direction of the country simply because they're old? They're arguably far more engaged and alive than plenty of 50-60 year olds I know. And with 61 as your suggested cut off point, that means this would be the last presidential election my parents would even get to vote in. It seems far too young of a cut off to me given the variation between people and your point that all of our current candidates are over 61 inadvertently points that out as well.
I could get behind DickFuld 's voter IQ test though, and if not his "votes proportionate to taxes" proposal, I could definitely support a "you don't get a vote UNLESS you pay taxes" requirement as long as each person still has only one vote. I also wouldn't mind a Heinlein-esque situation in where you have to earn the right to vote through service, either government or military, but that's not particularly realistic. All that said, an upper cutoff seems too arbitrary to be effective.
I would absolutely get behind the idea that you get one vote if you pay taxes. However, there would still need to be stipulations. People pay taxes on social security. If that is the only tax you're paying, that doesn't count. You have to be a net contributor. Also, I wouldn't want someone just to be able to pay a penny and walk right into the voting booth and get the same vote as someone who has paid millions in taxes. Basically, you would get a voting card when you file your taxes and meet some minimum threshold.
Everyone pays sales taxes when they buy things. Does that mean that if they don't pay federal income taxes, they can only vote in their state? If so, can they still vote for their representative or senator?
I read the age thing the other way. It's telling to me that the only people who have experience with the EU and OUT of the EU all feel the same way. Also, the older people are MORE at risk if Brexit goes poorly, as they are the most vulnerable population (living off retirement funds tied to market, unable to find jobs, pension tied to government success). If Brexit turns Britain into Greece, guess who can't just leave or make it up over time? That's right, the old people
This is an illiberal, ageist, and asinine idea that is a poorly-veiled attempt at the same sort of thing one would accuse Republicans of when they attempt to impose voter ID laws. The argument rests on the premise that one should only be able to make a decision that contributes to an affect likely to directly impact them. The conclusion becomes that, failing that standard, one should not be able to contribute to the decision.
First of all, you can never verify ahead of time how long a person will be around to see or be affected by the decisions they make. None of us know for sure how we'll die. That means at best your argument is imposing a rule of thumb onto the fundamental exercise of democratic civic engagement, and at worst, it's completely arbitrary. Does this mean that young people with terminal cancer shouldn't be able to vote?
Second, like I said, this is an attempt at silencing opposition akin to when people advocate for stricter voter ID laws, poll taxes, etc. You wouldn't really be arguing this if "old people" had voted your way; you only care because they didn't, and you don't like the outcome. Tough fucking luck- that's how democracy works.
Third, it is a false equivalence to compare this to a voting age minimum. See my point above- you can't verify how long it will be until someone dies, but you can verify how long it is since someone has been born (assuming we have institutions to keep track of such things, like birth certificates).
Fourth, this is an overly-individualistic idea. It takes into consideration that people only have their self-interests in mind and that consideration for the common good is irrelevant. I'd say old people are probably more engaged with such a calculus than young people, as they tend to be more family-oriented and have had their successes and failures largely behind them. I'd argue that they may actually have the common good in mind more than younger voters, whose incentives actually bend them more toward self-interest. But, unlike you, I'm not arguing that only old people should vote.
Fifth, IQ tests are also stupid, because IQ is an imperfect assessment of intelligence, intelligence does not perfectly correlate with good decision-making, and it would require the government have control over such tests and cutoff points, which leads to all sorts of potential for abuse.
In short, your arguments are bad, and you should feel bad. Go read the Federalist Papers as a defense of republicanism and think about what you've done.
This literally made me laugh out loud, so SB for you sir.
You bring up some good points. Some are the obvious weaknesses in the argument. I think you're missing the overall point, however, and that's my fault not yours.
That the elderly vote is the most reliable and predictable is not controversial in the least. It's not about my side losing (I didn't have a dog in the Brexit fight, and I was at least morbidly entertained by the outcome, so I guess I could even call that a win).
So, if we are to have a maximum voting age (just accept for the moment that that's the thesis knowing it will never happen in reality) meant to mitigate diminished capacity, what is the most fair way to accomplish that? My thought is that it's based on average life expectancy, knowing full well that there is inherent bias in that as well, as the average life expectancy for whites is considerably higher than that for African Americans. I'm just not sure how you'd equitably correct for that.
The answer is to not discriminate against and disenfranchise people who have an arbitrarily-defined "diminished capacity." The only "equitable" solution is voting equality. If you're really concerned about interest groups, because you're basically characterizing the elderly as such, affecting politics, there are other means by which you can counter that. Just because one similar subset of a population votes one way much of the time, that doesn't mean we have any just cause to disenfranchise them. Blacks vote overwhelmingly one way much more than the elderly. Does that mean we would make the same arguments about them? You are inferring diminished capacity from voting in a more conservative fashion and in doing so are assuming that the opposite opinion (presumably progressivism) is correct, which is utter bullshit. These are eternal debates in political philosophy that have no verifiable "right" answer, and starting down the dark path of voter disenfranchisement assures that we lose what little true progress we make over the ages.
Not really a comment on your thoughts (which I don't know if I agree with) but it irritates me when people MS on well thought out posts just because they don't agree with the underlying belief.
If I can rack up an equal number of SB and MS, then I've done my job. People are thinking.
eddie comin in hot!
I disagree with the age thing, I think there should be an IQ/cognitive test to vote. diminished capacity? just get out everyone who doesn't understand what they're voting for. I have several family members who are commies, but they're educated about it. if you want to vote for bernie sanders because of a well thought out argument, I'll disagree with you to the ends of the earth but that's your right. if you want to vote for him because he gives you a free xbox paid for by "taxing the rich" (when really it's just families with MAGI >200k), your vote is revoked.
reason being I think wisdom can help in judgment, and also your life expectancy figures, while accurate, will change (as they always do) due to modern science. 61 might've been a fine cutoff in FDR's presidency, but I think it's probably more like 80-85 now, and because there's such a high degree of variability, I think a cognitive test is more effective.
all of that being said, if the gummint develops the test, it'll probably be terrible, so my utopian fantasy won't ever happen.
IQ tests is an equally bad idea as age limits, and since I'm tired of having to make what seem like obvious points to counter it, I'll just drop a couple of links instead:
https://mic.com/articles/15182/voter-suppression-laws-political-iq-test…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test#United_States
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-fl…
like I said, it's a utopian fantasy: where dumb people don't affect my life and I can still make a living. it's fine to dream breh.
here's another idea: what if it was a requirement to pass the same test nationalized citizens have to pass in order to maintain your voter registration?
Also let's play with hypotheticals. If we assumed that intelligence perfectly correlates with good decision-making, and we assume that we had a perfect test that could measure intelligence in a quantitative and ordinal way, the most rational thing to do would be to just make the person with the highest intelligence our god-emperor. I think that even in that scenario, we'd probably have trouble stomaching our own disenfranchisement, and since those assumptions do not hold up in real life, arguments that rest on them (or even a weaker version of them) don't hold up to scrutiny, in my humble opinion.
God Emperor Elon would give us a ton of cool shit though. I'd give up the right to vote if I didn't have to sit in traffic and I could vacation on the moon, man.
To your point, some of the most intelligent people I know are avowed Marxists. How does one square incredibly high IQ with breathtaking stupidity?
Waiting for the day to come when you vote online using your SS# and some pertinent information from your federal tax filing. I'm tired of standing in 2 hour lines at my local community center/library to push buttons while looking at a screen, I can do that from my phone anywhere.
That being said, I've often pondered a world in which a potential voter is awarded the right to vote based on a display of essential comprehension and reasoning capabilities. Not an IQ test and certainly not a test controlled by or created by any government body or affiliate. However, can you truly have an objective test regardless of who proctors or creates it? I honestly don't know but I don't think there will come a point in our nation's history where the aggregate population rises to a collective level of understanding and, what's more, agreement on what will make our country best-of-breed across the board again based on the current status-quo.
Lastly, and this is more tangential to certain aspects of the topic posed, but I do not believe the way to re-build our nation so to speak comes through focusing on and legislating around the averaged whole. We as a whole are made of individuals and it is individual responsibility that will collectively give rise to greatness, not the other way around.
I'm actually involved in an effort to leverage blockchain technology to this very end. If the disenfranchisement I describe in this post isn't the answer (and it isn't), I think radical democracy is. By that I mean everyone having a vote with zero barriers to casting said vote (driving somewhere, waiting in line, all the other bullshit required to cast a vote).
An interesting extension of the idea is that Congress would no longer have to "go" somewhere to legislate. An ancillary benefit of a fully distributed Congress is that lobbyists would no longer have them captive in one place, and it would be exponentially more expensive for them to buy influence.
I think it would be an interesting step forward, however I don't think "everyone" has the right the to vote and I may catch some flack for that, but voting is a right/privilege of a citizen which is why I caveat-ed with SS# and federal tax filing. However, I think those two points are less "discriminatory" than other current efforts in place.
Best of luck with the efforts! If I can file my taxes electronically now why can't I vote in a similar fashion?
on the last point: spot on. if you play to the majority/averages, there's still 49% of the population pissed off
Throwing it there, the whole ''young people voted overwhelmingly to remain'' is a blatant lie.
36% of young people voted and of that 36% the majority voted to remain. The conclusion is that young people overwhelmingly did not vote.
It doesn't take a genius to see that those who voted and voted remain were upper class kids, while the lower class kids didn't vote. This is one of those times where media pick a side and start spouting utter lies hoping to control the rethoric.
Very few legit political commentators were brave enough to point out that there's a class conflict in both Europe and the US. The upper classes that gain from globalization and are the drivers of it, and the lower classes that are losing from it.
All the other arguments ''omgz Brexit voters are racists/ignorant/elders'' are merely butthurt of those who can't digest they lost a referendum.
I was thinking about this the other day. I think you shouldn't be able to vote for a candidate, but instead take a multiple choice test to decide who you vote for similar to this, https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz. Have the test randomized so that it would be harder to cheat. Your password would be your social security number, so you don't need an id. Hell, don't even tell the people who they voted for until after the election so they don't go batshit crazy, just email/mail the results after. I'm sure there would be lots of problems with this idea but at least you would actually vote based upon what you think, and not what your told to believe.
Diminished capacity is different than setting an age of majority. People under 18 can't vote because we've decided that they aren't adults, which entails much more than not having the right to vote. You can't make that comparison directly.
What does everyone on here think about having stricter voter ID laws?
I constantly hear that implementing stricter voter ID laws places a "burden" on some minority voters. But what I can't wrap my head around is these minority voters need IDs to: buy liquor, drive cars, open a bank account, apply for welfare, pick up a prescription, etc. (I know I'm leaving out many other things btw).
So if someone needs to present their ID when they are buying a 6-pack of beer, why should they not need to present their ID to vote - considering their vote could potentially influence who will be in office for the next 4 years?
Was thinking about this topic because of http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-northdakota-idUSL1N1AJ0BT
I have to agree here. It's also a filter of sorts. If you really want to vote and know what you're voting for, you will (or at least should) put some effort into acquiring the necessary identification to vote. Especially if this identification is required in a myriad other situations, as noted above.
If more of the younger generation had bothered to turn out for Brexit we could be in a a very different situation, and I believe turnout is low due to lack of engagement in politics in the younger generation, stemming from a lack of education.
I managed to go through 14 or so years of school without even touching a drop of politics, so did a lot of people I know, it's hardly a surprise young people don't turn out to vote is it?
Summed up purposely by someone in their early 20's I share a house with (not in the finance industry): "I voted out just to go against everyone else that was voting in - I never actually thought we'd end up out of the EU".
Lots of confirmation bias in what I've said there but I reckon education is the key to people making informed decisions.
younger people can recover and have the future to look forward to. Older people don't have anything, just let em vote.
i noticed after they dropped the property ownership requirement things went to shit.
I forgot why I disliked Eddie so much.
My eyes started glazing over when you said that the old don't understand net neutrality. THE YOUNG DON'T UNDERSTAND NET NEUTRALITY! Young people, middle-aged, elderly, etc. know almost nothing about everything, especially young people. If anything, we should raise the voting age to 25.
Harsh, lol.
It's a fair point about the min age. Our brains don't develop rational thinking capability until 25 years of age.
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=…
I very much disagree. I applaud the discussion, but I side against you. We can't gauge someone's intelligence or decision making purely on age. Especially when you get into the 60-75 realm, one's mental health can range from perfectly normal to complete dementia.
What I do support is some sort of reasoning test every 4 years. My father's ex wife was one of those white trash, loves Nascar, die hard Republican types. Refused to ever vote for no "black person" (you can guess what she really said). But if you sat her down and asked her about the issues she sided pretty heavily democrat. You could say "Oh, George Bush supports gun restrictions" and she's love it. But tell her Obama wants to make government smaller, she's suddenly livid.
I have a lot of friends in the south who practically beg for a minimum wage increase and education grant extensions, yet vote republican every year. My girlfriend on the other hand is pretty anti-drug, anti-minimum wage increase, and pro small government, but keeps voting democrat. A lot of the country votes based off which 30 second commercial they liked better, who their parents vote for, or the party they've always been in and it's not healthy. People should show they know the issues before being given a say.
In contrast I'd rather have mandatory voting like many countries have. I think it'd really change the power dynamics with lobbying / special interests / etc. if you had everyone voting. Imagine how much the youth vote could shake things up, if the youth actually voted.
Mandatory voting? Yeah, that crazy thing called freedom be damned.
Why do you assume a bunch of uninformed and uninspired people who can't be bothered to vote being forced to vote would have a positive impact? If anything, it would be a disaster.
First of all, this thread is a thread is a thought exercise. Yes, who knows what the result would be but it would be interesting to observe. Thinking positively, maybe it would force citizens to actually pay attention to the political process/issues if they knew they were accountable. Maybe politicians would place greater emphasis on issues facing the everyday man, instead of special interest groups. Of course there is potential for there being unintended negative outcomes. Over 20 countries have mandatory voting, if it was such a massive disaster my hunch would be the requirement would have been lifted. VaTech's comment about freedom is such a straw man argument - its not like we don't have other laws/regulations, sheesh.
My $0.02
While probably impossible to implement for a number of reasons, and I can see your argument for a minimum IQ - that said, I think it is a very steep and slippery slope; I could easily foresee the minimum IQ threshold starting at 95, but being bumped 5-10 points a few times until we effectively have an elite-intelligent ruling class calling the shots for the whole country. While I can see how many people would view that as a positive (as we have theoretically removed the unintelligent from influencing our decisions), I'd argue that deciding who is and who is not allowed to have a say in the direction of their country is a very dangerous game that begins to stray meaningfully from democracy. I'll admit that I haven't taken a proper history course in quite some time, but in the past, I believe that sort of thing has always led to revolution...
Additionally, I think that a maximum voting age is a similarly dangerous game, based on a couple unproven assumptions. The idea behind procreating is to make a better idea for our children, grandchildren, and so forth. To assume that elderly people are voting exclusively in their own best interests, and not in what they believe to be the best interest of future generations, is quite a leap. Many grandparents would, in an entirely self-sacrificing manner, rather ensure what they believe to be a better future for their offspring than collect 100% of the social security that they have been promised. Furthermore, the notion that they are unfit to vote because we are facing modern day issues that many of them don't fully comprehend doesn't give them credit for life experience. You have effectively implied that a deeper familiarly with an issue, but only 18 years worth of life experience, is more worthy of casting a vote than limited familiarity with an issue and 70 years of life experience. Personally, I find the life experiences of people who have lived through the Great Depression, WWII, The Holocaust, countless wars, decades of politics, technological advances, etc. to be invaluable - to discount those experiences because they are still getting used to their iPhone touchscreen, to me, seems unjustified
Relevant to those in favor of IQ testing for voter eligibility:
Who You Hate Depends on How Smart You Are, Study Finds
Interesting article, but I closed the tab and discredited the entire thing when I read the line "Donald trump's stupid plan". I'm not saying the plan isn't stupid, but this is supposed to be a reporting of findings of a scientific study, not pushing political viewpoints
Yeah, the article states that people with lower IQs are against people with "low choice" in their social groups, like those who are gay or black (i.e. you don't choose to be gay or black). But then they use prejudice against Muslims as an example of those "low choice" groups. The author is either implying that Muslims are a race or that Muslims have little or no choice in being apart of their own religion (which is actually sort of true globally (honor killings, apostate killings), although a little less so in the U.S.).
Ironically, the article is so poorly written that one might assume the author is on the lower end of the IQ range.
this tag below your article has me pegged
"Read More: Narcissists and Psychopaths Love to Stay Friends with Their Exes"
Throwing it there, second part. Before the Nurnberg trials, they had the heads of the Nazi party take IQ tests and they ranged from 120 to 140. Let's say we allow only people with an IQ of >120 to vote, nothing says we won't end up with something similar.
If we try to switch the IQ cut off with another one, say having obtained a degree, history still says there's no guarantee whatsoever that you won't end up with a disastrous government. Intellectuals aren't immune to ideological bias and they have often pick the ideological choice over the one dictated by numbers, rationality or plain common sense. The latest IMF report admitting the economic welfare of (Southern) Europe has been sacrificed in the name of ideology (European integration - the Euro) speaks volumes in that regard.
Intellectuals that are unapologetic when it comes to their own mistakes are just as bad as illiterate farmers.
Speaking of illiterates and giving a final look even further to history, Charlemagne was illiterate, and so was Basil the Macedonian. They still proved to be far more successful and valuable statesmen that many educated leaders that followed them.
Devil's advocate off.
on the flip side of the coin, say we have a popularity contest where one can vote to appropriate others' property without any skin in the game. who wins homecoming king/queen then?
"However you feel about the recent Brexit vote, one aspect of it really stood out: the disparity between older and younger voters. In the case of the Brexit, young people voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU; older voters went in the opposite direction."
No. Only 1/3 millenials voted for EU. Most did not vote. Just like America.
Whilst we're throwing around mad ideas, how about votes weighted by net tax contribution? (As opposed to a binary option) That way the spongers, youth and elderly (receiving a state pension and NHS treatment) don't have their voices heard quite so loudly at the expense of the struggling middle class. There's also an incentive for the super rich to actually pay tax.
You could even have those who are net beneficiaries of the state given a negative vote... just put it in the small print.
Edit:
Something I'm very in favour of is making it increasingly more difficult to vote. It certainly shouldn't be done over the Internet like in Sweden. Make it as inconvenient as possible so that only people who really care bother to do it.
You didn't read the thread before posting, did you?
Correct.
this is called lobbying, and is the current reason why our system sucks. we desperately need congressional term limits, electronic voting, and some sort of campaign reform.
All for the idea of old ppl. having less power in politics but efforts should probably go into getting young people to actually vote rather than stopping old people from voting. Your Brexit analogy is spot on, how was that a vote on economics/jobs when old people, the least likely to need jobs, were the ones to vote Brexit and young people, the ones most likely to need jobs, were the ones to reject it? It was a vote for xenophobia plain and simple. Anyone who says differently is lying to themselves.
p.s. I especially understand your point in the context of social security reform, which is imperative but will never happen due to AARP
Are you from the UK?
The analogy is "spot on" because you disagreed with the vote, not because it's actually spot on. Maybe the older people were around in the 1970's when the promises made about the European Union were one thing (economic free trade) and then morphed over the course decades (into a super-state that was making most of a nation's laws)? Maybe intelligent people, like you like to think you are, think about issues with nuance?
Eddie, I see your points and have seen them made elsewhere, especially by those disappointed with the result Brexit. However, this is a discriminatory idea supported with questionable evidence and logic.
"However you feel about the recent Brexit vote, one aspect of it really stood out: the disparity between older and younger voters. In the case of the Brexit, young people voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU; older voters went in the opposite direction."
Voters age 18 - 24, 27% voted leave Voters age 25 - 34, 38% voted leave Voters age 35 - 44, 48% voted leave Voter age blocks 45+, 56%+ voted leave
Sure, younger voters (or at least the ones who decided to show up to vote, dismal 36% turnout for voters age 18 - 24 compared to 72%+ for ages 35+) tended to vote remain. I'd also add that the media was portraying the leave vote as being driven by racism, nationalism, and hatred, which was false.
Are university students and fresh grads who still don't have a firm grasp on the implications of their vote the demographic you want making a disproportionate impact on the future by banning older citizens from voting? I'd like a mix of the young and the older and wiser.
"In the U.S. the average life expectancy is currently 79. I think it's fair to say that those 61 and under have the greatest stake in the future direction of the country."
It's not only about having a stake in the outcome. It's about having experience and wisdom to know better than those younger than you. Yes, the younger you are, the more time you will have to live under the policies you voted into place. But it's also about decision making and having the experience to guide you.
"But it seems reasonable to me that the future of the country should be left in the hands of those who...well...have a future in the country."
Again, it is discriminatory to say, "you only have X years left in this country, you don't get to vote."
"Compare them to Barack Obama, who was 47 when elected. After eight years in office, he'll still only be 55 when he leaves. Or George W. Bush, who was 54 when elected and 62 after 8 years in office. Or Bill Clinton, who was 46 when elected and 54 after 8 years in office. They were our last three presidents. Why on Earth are we going backwards?"
Age is not the be-all end-all proxy for determining ability to lead a country. I do not want to rule someone out of the Presidency who may be the best candidate because they happen to be a certain age.
"But democracy isn't about edge cases. It's about the average. The vast majority of people in their 70s and older have already lived their lives and made whatever impact they were able to make. They have no business impacting future generations of a country they won't be around to see."
Democracy is not about the average, socialism is about the average. Democracy is about all the country's citizens. Reaching a certain age does not end your ability to contribute to society or to help make the right decision for your country.
"So what do you guys think? Am I way off base for suggesting the disenfranchisement of the largest voting block in America?"
Yes, you are completely off base for suggesting a discriminatory practice.
"Is anyone else as concerned as I am that very soon elderly people are going to be running the most technologically advanced society in human history?"
Almost certainly not the only one, but wise leaders will know when to listen to subject matter experts and make the right decisions based on principles that do not change with time. A young leader who thinks they know more than they actually do... Perhaps dangerous.
"If you agree that there should be a maximum voting age, how should it be determined? Should there be an age limit for presidential candidates and, if so, what should it be?"
No, there should never be a maximum voting age. A hard and fast rule like that would certainly bar perfectly capable, mentally sound folks from voting. I would not be entirely opposed to some type of mental capacity requirement for all voters. However, that is a slippery slope which should be ventured down with extreme caution.
Also, there should never be a maximum age for the Presidency. In the extremely unlikely event a mentally unstable person is elected President, we have checks and balances of power, including the power of impeachment.
Suggestion for next column: downfalls of electoral college and our current election structure which leaves us gridlocked in a two-party system.
+1 SB.
Don't even get me started on the electoral college.
One thing you mentioned that gave me good laugh:
"Also, there should never be a maximum age for the Presidency. In the extremely unlikely event a mentally unstable person is elected President, we have checks and balances of power, including the power of impeachment."
To that I present you this counterpoint:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/watch-scarborough-tell-a-story-on-how…
"...the system is designed for speed and decisiveness, it's not designed to debate the decision."
Checks and balances are great until you elect a fuckwit who wants to nuke the world.
Yeah when I wrote that I thought, "I bet he's going to bring up Trump and some over the top comment he's made recently."
I would very much enjoy a thorough rant on and dissection of the electoral college. Looking forward to your next piece.
Voter suppression for the opening topic? Coming back strong haha
I'm sure this is mentioned somewhere, but having ages and interests of all various types is what makes the whole damn thing work.
I think your other problem is life expectancy. At some point, we are going to see a monumental increase. I'm thinking the average being pushed 20 years higher, and folks suddenly far outliving the norm. The challenge is that we've had multiple generations that have lived for themselves at the expense of future generations. My generation, millennials, are not going to buck that trend despite what we might hope for. Besides, older people and younger people are not that dissimilar. We might over react because we believe we know everything without having seen it all, where as older folks will under react because they have seen it all or are scared to change. Therefore, it generally works out by pushing things to the middle and ideally the more pragmatic solution; and piles upon piles of debt because we just can't help ourselves.
If anything, we need to ensure that all the people who are eligible to vote actually end up voting. It's incredible to me how low turnout rates generally are. That disinterest is frightening. If you don't vote after X number of elections, revoked. Should go into a pool and get put into a lottery to be redistributed to someone else who will value it more highly.
Agree with some of what has been said on here regarding a basic exam (though in public this would get ripped to shreds by the media and the left-wing). If an individual cannot answer basic questions (who is the current President, name the two major party candidates running, what is the capital of the country, etc) then they should not have a say in the nation's elections.
Further, I would also institute a contribution "test." The principal is thus, one has to effectively earn the right to vote. They do that via one of two avenues:
First, via service. If you serve in the U.S. military (or Peace Corps, TFA, etc) for four years and are honorably discharged (or the equivalent for service scheme, such as not being sent home early / being fired) then you earn the right to vote. In addition to filling critical needs, this also address a lack of shared experiences among citizens and could work to bring the country back towards the center from the two extremes.
The second way is via contribution. We are getting closer to the earnings Rubicon (less than half the country being net federal tax contributors among working age people 18-65), and if we do cross that river so to speak, it is pretty much game over. It would then become tyranny of majority and result in spiralling taxes and capital flight. Thus to prevent this and make certain voters have more skin in the game, you could also earn the right to vote by being a net contributor that fiscal year or if you are older and say retired, if you were a net contributor over the course of your working career.
Thoughts?
It is a slippery slope......one day your too old to vote, the next you are too stupid to vote, next your are too religious to vote, next your too poor to vote, and so on and so on. This is democracy..... you complain but its a god given right to vote and be free...you don't like it move some where else....I hear Saudia Arabia is a excellent place to vote if you meet their requirements. Here is another perspective the politicians who wanted to stay did a shitty job in convincing/ laying out their arguments for staying. Elderly people tend to be more involved and listen to the arguments from both sides especially the independents.As a pervious user said you wouldn't be complaining if they voted in your favor. As for your age req for the presidency look at Barack he is 47 but has ravaged the United States because of his stupidity. Being stupid comes in all ages, genders, races...... and when in politics its easier to find stupid in young people...For example voting for hillary since she has female parts is like drinking anti freeze since it looks like gatorade. This is the typical reason a 22 year old liberal brainwashed person in the US would give to vote.....As for that test I can that the age group of 18-29 would not pass in todays day and age in the US. Look up Watters World on youtube and cringe.
I'm immediately dismissive of pablum like this, but I'm still curious. How has Obama ravaged the United States? I moved to France the day after he was elected, and I didn't return until last year. I can tell you with the utmost certainty that the United States is in far better shape today than it was when I left in 2008.
So you're either a moron, which I doubt because you're on this site, or you know something the rest of us don't. I live in arguably the most 3rd world state in the US (Louisiana), and even here things have improved a bit (notwithstanding our recent move to #50 in education). So what is your evidence that the country has been ravaged?
IRS targets Obama’s enemies
Benghazi
Spying on the AP
The ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme
Sebelius demands payment
The Pigford Agriculture Department Scandal
The General Services Administration Las Vegas Spending Spree.
Veterans Affairs in Disney World and neglecting vets
Solyndra
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation
The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer
Obama’s LIES about the Affordable Care Act
“I’ll Pass My Own Laws”
NSA Spying on American People
Foreign Policy
Lack of solidarity with Israel
Disaster with the Arab Spring
Crimea
Leaving Iraq too soon and letting ISIS take over
Handling of Syrian Red Line
Calling ISIS “JV”
Failing to Recognize ISIS as a Radical (or Devout) Muslim Movement
Returning the bust of Churchill to the Brits
Lack of Confidence by NATO nations
Signing a Disastrous Nuclear Deal with the Mullahs of Ira
Paid $5 Billion & Released 5 Taliban Prisoners For Deserter Bergdahl
Waging war by attacking Libya without Congressional approval
Domestic Policy
Failure to secure the Border
Illegals bringing guns, drug and diseases through the southern border
Bowe Bergdahl swap
Passing on the keystone pipeline
9 Trillion dollars more in debt
Vast expansion of government
Racial Division at all-time high
Inviting Bomb Boy Ahmed to White House
Disrespect for Cops
Failed economic stimulus plan
Constant disregard for the Constitution and tyrannical rule
China overtook America as world’s largest economy
Double Downgrade
Housing policies failed to stop foreclosures
Price of healthcare has drastically risen for those purchasing it
Education policies failed to curb college costs
Highest percentage of Americans on Food Stamps and Medicaid
Record 92,898,000 Americans over 16 years not working
Lowest Labor Force participation rate of 62.7%
Denying the notion of American Exceptionalism
Naming numerous Communists/Socialists/Progressives to Czar Positions
Mismanagement and cover up of Terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, California
Mismanagement of Gulf Oil Spill
Disastrous Vetting Process of “Immigrants” from Muslim Nations
Eddie I understand for a select few these past 8 years have been a major improvement. However, for most hardworking individuals/families it has been a absolute nightmare. Now I won't speak for others but in my view he has severely damaged the core of America. From any standpoint you pick his Obama care, foreign policy, war on cops,welfare state, taxation on the middle class, etc etc etc.......We went from being a nation that put a man on the moon, striving to accomplish great feats, working hard, refusing to take any handouts, where 19 and 20 years old jumped from planes, stormed beaches to certain death......to where we are now a generation that needs safe spaces because words hurt and somebody disagrees with them, are confused as to which bathroom to use, expect everything to be handed to them......... in short we are a generation of pussies.
(Back the the original question) Now we can turn this argument the op backwards that younger people shouldn't vote (before you throw the monkey shit listen out) The younger population has time after time shown that they are not really interested in whats going on, or are not truly informed of the situation on hand. For example in the Brexit case it has been estimated that only 36 per cent of people in the 18 – 24 year old category voted in the EU referendum. That means 64 per cent of young people did not bother to take themselves down to the polling station and cast their ballot. So why are they now bitching and crying if they did not even place a vote. It is the same here in the United States. Overwhelmingly the majority of that same age group supported Bernie Sanders...if so how come he didn't win the nomination, or come close to winning in certain states. Its easy to support a cause simply because your friends are doing it without really knowing whats going.Of that % that voted to stay did they really understand both sides of the argument and then made the decision on their own. Secondly this age group has not experienced life yet from the ups to the downs paying taxes, losing jobs, owning homes, moving to a higher income bracket etc. Older people have and tend to be more interested in politics since they view it as directly impacting them.
In short the way it is now in terms of age req of voting it is fine. I do agree with a test however for all people who want to vote. Basic questions about things like the roles of the 3 branches of government are not enough but should be included. There should also be a Current Issues test. The prospective voter should have to pick 5 issues from a list, and 2 of the candidates for office and their proposals. THIS SHOULD BE DONE IN ENGLISH ONLY. How are we letting people vote that don't understand a word of english?? But thats another topic.
Would be a good idea if you're a Democrat. I say we raise the voting age to 30 so we don't have to deal with 4 years of The Witch. I say 4 and not 8 because she's going to be even worse than Obozo, who is in the same breath as James Buchanan.
Well this was a high effort comment
$20T in debt Added more to the national debt than the previous 43 presidents combined (even controlling for inflation) 1.2% economic growth (unless you're in NYC or Silicon Valley, things are not exactly rosy) Nearly the weakest labor force participation rate of all-time (expanded welfare state so) Higher poverty rates for minorities 50M people in poverty, 45M on Food Stamps, nearly 100M people out of the labor force Any semblance of a half-ass economy propped up by unsustainable 0%/0.25% interest rates Pays $50B to Iran Weak on terrorists and calls ISIS the JV team despite attacks seemingly every week or two on US or allies territory Directly created ISIS by prematurely leaving Iraq, allowing them to fund their operation through the oil fields the US once controlled Lies about the Benghazi episode to as a political cover-up to help him win re-election Pays another $400M to Iran for ransom Sides with the BLM hate mob, which accomplishes nothing (I'm half black and think they're worthless) Too much regulation, too many taxes, too much Federal spending (hence the pathetic economic growth)
And what does The Witch propose to do? Be a third Obabbler term, no pro-growth measures, raise taxes, just with more communist-friendly measures to appeal to Bernie's supporters. Like Obimbo said in 2008, the witch will say everything and change nothing. She will be a total disaster.
.
If we know things which pertain to age group we belong its fair enough, so why not vote
The sheer volume of activity in this thread may crash WSO's servers.
Here is what I think.
You aren't making this argument because you actually care. It's also monumentally stupid. How often have you called up someone who is massively senior to you to try to learn about a company or a job you are interested in? My suggestion, in keeping with your logic, would be that you don't because they have already lived their lives and have no business impacting your career.
But here is the real crux of the matter.
The only reason you are suggesting this is because they voted in a way that you don't like. Fantasizing about how banning their votes would make the causes you like to win is somewhat cathartic.
It probably wouldn't go the way you like. The more likely result is that you would get someone like Bernie Sanders in office and you wouldn't get the pro status-quo results that you seek.
There is no one massively senior to me.
Gee, I wonder why it's a bad idea to elect old people to the presidency...
Eddie, seriously putting a cap on voting age is a bad idea. Think about it, what happens when you are getting up there in years and some people come along and change the rules and suddenly you can no longer vote?
In my particular case, I move the needle way further by the things I do than by my vote. I'm honestly so disengaged from the American political system (aside from its entertainment value) that I wouldn't miss voting if I were no longer allowed. I have way more influence on public policy (locally, of course) through my local startup community than I ever had in a voting booth.
Also, I'm far more interested in age limits on candidates than I am on voters. It is fucking mind boggling to me that we're about to put a 70-year old in the White House. This is an utter failure as a country.
I agree with you there, and I'm not saying that your idea of a voting age limit is a bad idea. I just feel that anytime something like this is tried it tends to constantly change and fluxuate with the whims of the mass of those who are in the in group.
Middle school reading comprehension test. If you pass, you can vote.
A friend of mine went and took the test to become a police officer a few months ago right after graduation. There was a guy in there who forgot his waiver for the obstacle course. The administrator gave him a new one and asked him to sign it. He says: 'What does all this say? I cant read too good.' He then asks; "What does RE-SEED mean?' It was the fucking word reside, the guy doesn't even know how to communicate where he or someone else lives.... The guy passes the test and passes the obstacle course and joins the academy in September, meanwhile my friend gets DQ'd because of his eyesight is over 20/40 uncorrected and is required to get LASIK before he can join.
Not only are they letting guys like this vote, they are letting them enforce laws they cant even fucking read...
There's your problem.
This is amazingly accurate!!!!!!!! You have to be a real idiot to fail those exams. Someone I know asked me for help about taking them and it was completely ridiculous how easy it is to take. The math and english are both something a 10 year old could do. Sad thing is that people actually fail. The physical section is extremely easy as well and you will pass as long as you aren't 300 pounds.
Consequatur rerum qui rerum. Blanditiis illum perferendis laudantium est dolor. Quibusdam quo ullam excepturi veniam cum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quaerat sint voluptate distinctio quibusdam veritatis et explicabo quia. Et inventore eius quod qui atque quaerat autem dolor. Placeat omnis iure dolore sed aperiam aut. Et aut quae nam vero sit quia. Dolor sed deserunt voluptatem accusantium. Porro pariatur eum quo ut itaque.
Possimus repudiandae culpa cumque eum minus fuga. Rem est temporibus soluta nam exercitationem sunt. Quos ea necessitatibus quae et temporibus sit. Officiis suscipit quaerat voluptates tempora ipsum.
Qui sequi earum est voluptas quo est magnam saepe. Et soluta vero molestiae suscipit consequatur qui in. Id quia deleniti sint exercitationem. Aut provident incidunt deleniti ipsum. Occaecati voluptatem ducimus id unde rerum ad. Magni praesentium recusandae sed nobis doloremque. Voluptatum sed sit officiis soluta quo beatae cupiditate.
Quibusdam id ipsum accusamus explicabo in. Voluptates in omnis ipsa sint nostrum molestiae non expedita. Vel est aut dolor explicabo. Occaecati nobis perspiciatis consequatur. Quia dolorem autem rerum et atque dolores deserunt. Velit aliquam expedita ut. Vel velit non accusamus error facere veritatis totam ut.
Blanditiis distinctio sint impedit est dolorem eos. Aut dolorem autem iusto rerum.
Voluptatem nam sapiente quia tempora alias. Eveniet suscipit quia laboriosam et perspiciatis libero eius. Omnis et consequuntur aut odio velit voluptas hic.
Aliquid delectus est dolor deserunt. Consequatur ullam sed vel et. Voluptas eveniet sit sunt odio dolores. Nihil reiciendis eum qui sapiente repudiandae voluptatibus voluptatem. Sit expedita voluptatem perspiciatis odio molestiae. Libero reprehenderit nemo itaque molestiae. Distinctio illum molestiae placeat pariatur deleniti assumenda.
Ducimus qui assumenda rem deserunt exercitationem et. Velit pariatur praesentium molestiae facilis sint neque accusamus. Omnis repellendus quo esse inventore qui fugit dolores. Autem eum quaerat culpa soluta. Fuga et ut doloribus esse ipsum vel accusantium placeat. Et laudantium saepe vel fugit quo.
Exercitationem cupiditate dolorem itaque cumque est iure assumenda. Beatae id dolor sit magni velit voluptatem. Eum provident non voluptate vero at. Dolorem ipsam doloremque ut et rerum.
Debitis est enim ab. Magni doloribus laboriosam non cumque et. Mollitia amet neque quaerat recusandae dolor libero dicta temporibus.