nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should Old People Be Banned from Voting?

Rezident

Under 18’s can’t vote yet, which is fair enough. But once people have retired and sailed off into the sunset, or past the age of say, 70, are they still the best people to be deciding the future for everyone else? Previously, I would have thought they were, due to their experience and by virtue of the fact that they have paid their dues and contributed to society (most of them anyway) but I’m not so sure anymore.

While some are invaluable for their experience, many are disgruntled and out of touch with young and even middle aged people (the majority). The world has changed utterly over the last couple of decades, with so much uncertainty and volatility in the world these days (that is not going away, even the FT has reported that perhaps Volatility is simply here to stay now) and the rapid pace of change, are old people no longer the best at deciding the future? Older doesn’t necessarily seem to mean wiser anymore.

And I am not having a go at old people, as I am becoming one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

biko

Au contraire OP, old people have the wherewithal and intelligence to do proper research before making decisions.
Young people are just voting with their emotions and too easily swayed by spin doctors.

Old people vote in accordance with the interests of their children.
Do you believe young people vote in the interests of their parents?

talking_walnut

Maybe it's not the old people that are the problem. Maybe it's the young people that don't vote.

talking_walnut

biko wrote: »

Au contraire OP, old people have the wherewithal and intelligence to do proper research before making decisions.
Young people are just voting with their emotions and too easily swayed by spin doctors.

Old people vote in accordance with the interests of their children.
Do you believe young people vote in the interests of their parents?

Not really true. People get more conservative as they age so expect them to vote conservatively. Young people don't bother voting at all so you can discount most of them from the voting population.

TheDoc

Saipanne wrote: »

The reaction of the middle class/educated cohort of society to both Brexit and Trump has been sad to witness. In both cases, the typical responses have been:

"This is what happens when uneducated people are allowed to vote..."

"People who voted for Trump/Brexit are stupid..."

And so on. What this suggests to me is that middle class people came to assume that somehow democracy belonged to them. That they, and they alone get to decide the outcome of elections.

I guess this explains the reactions we have been observing, but it really should come as no surprise to allegedly educated people that the working class are capable of resisting and overthrowing the wishes of the establishment - especially when they feel let down by said establishment - and that wanting this outcome does not make them ignorant or stupid, even if their decision may seem misguided to you.

Ironically, the only people who look ignorant in this are the ones throwing such accusations around. Expect more such results across the Western World, and more middle class bewilderment and snobbery.

And as someone from the "middle class" here, squeezed year on year, the lower class in receipt of various assistance and benefits while paying typically **** ALL to the tax base, will continue to experience my questions and astonishment.

When the basis of the issues, are baseless, then don't expect everyone else propping them up to toe in behind.

People who voted for Trump, Brexit and various TD's here are stupid. There is no two ways around it. Them using their vote as a protest to stick two fingers up at the establishment, doesn't remove it being a stupid thing to do.

We all appreciate and are aware that most of the people voting this way don't fully support the idea or person, or even understand it, we know it's a "protest" vote, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic. The stupidity being an expectation something "new" will fix the problems they have.

gctest50

biko wrote: »

Au contraire OP, old people have the wherewithal and intelligence to do proper research before making decisions.
........

Some do that, the rest :

Jericho Caine

Ted111 wrote: »

That is your perception and obviously subjective. Also information (to be informed) or raw data is insufficient of itself. You must have discernment. Wisdom even. And as for intelligence, there isn't even an agreed upon definition of it, never mind a metric. And because you say you are well informed I know you won't mention IQ tests.

And if we had this meritocracy of yours how would you feel if you were given no say because someone else felt they were more intelligent than you. Or do you think that you are the most intelligent person in the world.

This is all a bit extraneous anyway as the people you are looking down in in this incidence are probably much better informed and smarter than you.

Socrates wrote of acknowledging the limits of ones own intelligence, something I do almost daily. I am well aware that there is at least half a planet of people who would destroy me intellectually. I am more than willing to admit when I reach the limits of my cognitive ability but I cannot be dissuaded from the opinion that what we witnessed today was wrong and stems from an uneducated, stupid population (48% of it anyway). I am trying to be reflective and I am entertaining the notion that I am incorrect. I can't. Anyone who can vote for a man who is sexually predatory (by his own admission), an open racist, a xenophobe, a demagogue and a tax dodger has not been voted in by a thoughtful or morally competent populace.
Then again, Reagan was elected twice.

learn_more

Old people should make the f*cking rules.

tonycascarino

It is always ban this people and ban that people when the result doesn't go the way one wants...

robbiezero

TheDoc wrote: »

And as someone from the "middle class" here, squeezed year on year, the lower class in receipt of various assistance and benefits while paying typically **** ALL to the tax base, will continue to experience my questions and astonishment.

When the basis of the issues, are baseless, then don't expect everyone else propping them up to toe in behind.

People who voted for Trump, Brexit and various TD's here are stupid. There is no two ways around it. Them using their vote as a protest to stick two fingers up at the establishment, doesn't remove it being a stupid thing to do.

We all appreciate and are aware that most of the people voting this way don't fully support the idea or person, or even understand it, we know it's a "protest" vote, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic. The stupidity being an expectation something "new" will fix the problems they have.

How do you know?
Who knows what the long term implications of the Brexit and Trump will be. Could be disastrous or could be a great thing in the long term for people destroyed by globalisation.

Ted111

Jericho Caine wrote: »

a man who is sexually predatory (by his own admission), an open racist, a xenophobe, a demagogue and a tax dodger has not been voted in by a thoughtful or morally competent populace.

That's putting quite a spin on things.
You could alternatively say that a non professional politician from a
business back ground is taking up a role that he will probably do very well
at.

The non alignment of the white house and the houses often stagnates progress. I would predict an active and energetic governance as the president, senate and house agree upon and implement a cohesive program.

Lux23

No, but yea maybe the voting age should be decreased marginally.

Snakeweasel

As long as they are mentally competent they should be allowed to vote. Who is to say who will be affected by the results of an election. An 80 year old could live for another 20 years, I could be hit by a bus tomorrow.

nhunter100

Your Face wrote:

Or perhaps get a vote when you start paying taxes.

Tax on sweets young children buy sweets, should a ten year old get to vote?

Jericho Caine

Ted111 wrote: »

That's putting quite a spin on things.
You could alternatively say that a non professional politician from a
business back ground is taking up a role that he will probably do very well
at.

The non alignment of the white house and the houses often stagnates progress. I would predict an active and energetic governance as the president, senate and house agree upon and implement a cohesive program.

Progress may be slightly less bogged down but at what cost? Racist. Sexually predatory. Demagogue. Provably dishonest on almost every subject. No grasp of specific policies with the exception of ''it's gonna be terrific''. Would you have no qualms associating with a person like that, let alone have him in command of the most dangerous military on earth?

I'm not going to argue this point with you, I'm more than willing to acknowledge my own moral or intellectual limitations but on this subject, I will not be told I am wrong. I just won't have it. I also resent the idea I'm putting a spin on the man's character, I am basing my comment on the behaviour he has displayed.

A Little Pony

Jeeze and you have some folk on the left who call the right fascists.

nhunter100

Jericho Caine wrote:

I'm watching Trump supporters being interviewed all night and this morning and I'm sorry, they just don't seem to be informed or intelligent.

Hopefully they're not arrogant either. ;-)

nhunter100

TheDoc wrote:

We all appreciate and are aware that most of the people voting this way don't fully support the idea or person, or even understand it, we know it's a "protest" vote, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic. The stupidity being an expectation something "new" will fix the problems they have.

Thankfully you decided not to make a sweeping generalisation. Hate that.

9or10

xzanti wrote: »

I think there should be some sort of basic intelligence test for people before they are granted the right to vote.

The only people allowed to vote should be people like me.:)

zulutango

The_Valeyard wrote:

Disenfranchise the people who fought and died for voting rights, democracy and civil rights.

If they died they wouldn't be disenfranchised!

Ted111

Jericho Caine wrote: »

I also resent the idea I'm putting a spin on the man's character, I am basing my comment on the behaviour he has displayed.

I don't think you're being objective or balanced. That's just my opinion.
I think you will be surprised or disappointed that not a whole lot of what you think is going to happen will happen. It will be fairly boring. He has no interest in foreign conflict. Will probably make some simple, common sense business decisions unlike most of the career politicians/amateurs that usually fill the slot(no pun intended)
Whilst he expresses protectionist views on trade, enough of this may be negotiating positioning. It's to everyone's advantage to trade openly and I think u.s will stay largely in that game.

TheDoc

robbiezero wrote: »

How do you know?
Who knows what the long term implications of the Brexit and Trump will be. Could be disastrous or could be a great thing in the long term for people destroyed by globalisation.

Through analysis and good educative forecasting is how we garnish projections and forecasts for decisions.

Are you for real? Do you just vote for stuff to "see how it pans out"?

I never made comment on whether those things will be good or bad. I made comment on the decision process being stupid, as a poster referred to those who question people who vote in this way as "snobbish".

Look at the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, large percentages of those who voted in favour now regretting that decision or admitting they didn't understand the consequences or the nuances.

Like I always say though if we Irish put half the effort into our own domestic voting and elections as we do having running commentary on America or the UK we wouldn't get consecutive garbage governments.

Jericho Caine

Ted111 wrote: »

I don't think you're being objective or balanced. That's just my opinion.
I think you will be surprised or disappointed that not a whole lot of what you think is going to happen will happen. It will be fairly boring. He has no interest in foreign conflict. Will probably make some simple, common sense business decisions unlike most of the career politicians/amateurs that usually fill the slot(no pun intended)
Whilst he expresses protectionist views on trade, enough of this may be negotiating positioning. It's to everyone's advantage to trade openly and I think u.s will stay largely in that game.

I am being as balanced and objective as I can be. You can gloss over Trump's character traits as much as you like but the man is unfit to be the President of a golf club, never mind a country.

I hope it will be boring and that he does a good job. Honestly, I want to be surprised by this guy but he was laughably poor in the debates. George W. looks like a genius when paired against Trump. If his ineptitude is not obvious to people, I don't know what to tell you.

MeatTwoVeg

A minimum threshold in IQ and general knowledge should be a prerequisite before people are allowed vote.
If that isn't palatable then at the very least, weightings should be applied to votes.
It's not fair that a moron's vote should be worth the same as mine.

Cienciano

diomed wrote: »

Population by age group, Census of Population 2011

Age Group .........Both sexes
0 - 14 years ...... 979,590
15 - 24 years ..... 580,250
25 - 44 years ... 1,450,140
45 - 64 years ... 1,042,879
65 years+ ........... 535,393

OAPs are not such a big group, about 12%

They have a much higher percentage turnout than the other groups.

GreenFolder2

Rezident wrote: »

And I am not having a go at old people, as I am becoming one.]

Really?

Certainly sounds like a go is being had.

Maximus Alexander

Old people seem to have a lot of political views that I wouldn't agree with, but that's their prerogative. Sort of defeating the entire point if we start trying to exclude people because we don't like how they vote.

Your Face

elefant wrote: »

So, pretty much everyone from the age of around 4?

Didas

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

A minimum threshold in IQ and general knowledge should be a prerequisite before people are allowed vote.
If that isn't palatable then at the very least, weightings should be applied to votes.
It's not fair that a moron's vote should be worth the same as mine.

People's definition of a moron can be fairly subjective.

dissed doc

Banning groups of your population from voting?

Why not. Fascism comes in many forms.

Ban anyone who disagrees. Call them old stupid racist whatevers.

And your plan has been working right?

Because ignoring the deplorable disenfranchised has resulted a massive tide of true democracy to counter the groupthink of the young, naive and inexperienced.

Keep banning. The more you alienate, the larger the group on the other side grows.

Ban whoever who like. It always fails.

Your Face

nhunter100 wrote: »

Tax on sweets young children buy sweets, should a ten year old get to vote?

Hello Mr. Brunel.
I admire your feats in engineering.
No doubt you're a bit shaken after time-traveling from Victorian Britain.
I feel it imperative to inform you that due to progress in Western society, we no longer put children to work.