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

topper75

I went down to vote yesterday and was refused. I'm only 41.

It was because... get this... I'm "Irish".

robbiezero

TheDoc wrote: »

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.

If I was from a mining town in the rust belt riddled with poverty and unemployment, it might seem a very sane decision to take a chance on something different rather than a virtually guaranteed 4 years of the same. I might take the view that no matter how bad he is, things are unlikely to get worse for me.

As for
"Through analysis and good educative forecasting is how we garnish projections and forecasts for decisions."
I doubt you have any idea how things will be for the USA in 20 even 10 years time.

Charles Babbage

tonygun wrote: »

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

People are entitled to their opinion of what to do. They are not entitled to ignorance of the factual situation.

IamtheWalrus

Presidential elections are fit deciding who leads for the next 4 years. If you are going to be alive for the next 4 years you deserve a say in your government.

zulutango

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Presidential elections are fit deciding who leads for the next 4 years. If you are going to be alive for the next 4 years you deserve a say in your government.

They have a huge influence beyond four years. We're still reeling from George W. Bush's meddling in the Middle East, for example, and his neo-liberal economic agenda too. Those aged Floridian voters that put him there are long gone, but the world and the US are still reeling from his presidency.

Chuchote

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%

Two-and-a-half million younger voters - say three million if the voting age was brought down to 16; half a million older. Assuming all voters vote according to their age (which they don't), the old would be well outvoted.

Old voters have one advantage: they get up and vote, while in the Brexit vote the sweet little youngsters stayed at home on their pretty pink arses and didn't bother to go and vote at all - then they complained that the vote hadn't gone their way.

But there's no way that older voters in general make a single voting tranche. I was canvassing before the gay marriage referendum, and heard plenty of radical statements from people with white hair and walking sticks.

saabsaab

Yes it could be a good idea but you'd have to stop those under 30 as well for balance as they don't have much experience of the world. Probably best to ban those with an IQ less that 120 as they wouldn't have the best understanding of the issues.

Gbear

You'd be a fool to not see how long-standing issues being decided by individual votes might not be fair on society as a whole.

There are massive ramifications to something like Brexit and they'll go on long after the older block of voters that were mostly in favour of it have died while a younger, anti-brexit block, will never have a chance to have their voices heard on the issue.

However, denying them the vote is moronic, undemocratic and would hopefully never come to pass.
It's their decision for now, but it's not their decision forever.

What you need is a safeguard against long term decisions that are subject to short term whims or overly subject to the current demographics and culture of the voting population.

What I would suggest for something like Brexit, abortion, divorce or what have you, would be a default position of retaining the status quo and requiring a strong majority (eg 66%) to change it.

If there's a relatively close result (eg 45%-55%) then there should automatically be another referendum required on the the issue 5 years later.
Perhaps the subsequent votes might even require less of a majority, because the point isn't to obstruct the will of the people but give the decision to a larger number of people and ensure more of those affected will have a say in it.

In that situation, you'd have the opportunity to change things that the public are strongly in favour of but if there's no truly decisive vote, then you're giving more people the chance to have their say.
If the the decision is in line with the way society progresses, then you'll get the correct decision eventually, because the scales will tip further in it's favour over time.

This does not at all apply to the US election.
That already has the generational protection sorted because the same question is asked every 4 years already.

Chuchote

Gbear wrote: »

There are massive ramifications to something like Brexit and they'll go on long after the older block of voters that were mostly in favour of it have died while a younger, anti-brexit block, will never have a chance to have their voices heard on the issue.

You know the proportion of younger voters that came out to vote for Brexit?

34%

Stop your whinging. The young had their chance. They fluffed it.

Gbear

Chuchote wrote: »

You know the proportion of younger voters that came out to vote for Brexit?

34%

Stop your whinging. The young had their chance. They fluffed it.

And it was 0% for quite a lot of young people, who will also have to deal with this.

The voting participation among the young isn't what's in question here, and as populations in the west age, this will become more pronounced whether or not they turn out in numbers.

What I proposed is to my mind measured and prudent idea to try and soften the effect of the least sensible and measured of our democratic levers and your reply to it was vapid rubbish.

Chuchote

Gbear wrote: »

And it was 0% for quite a lot of young people, who will also have to deal with this.

The voting participation among the young isn't what's in question here, and as populations in the west age, this will become more pronounced whether or not they turn out in numbers.

What I proposed is to my mind measured and prudent idea to try and soften the effect of the least sensible and measured of our democratic levers and your reply to it was vapid rubbish.

:eek:

Depriving a group whose voting trends you disapprove of, of their votes?

:eek:

Gbear

Chuchote wrote: »

:eek:

Depriving a group whose voting trends you disapprove of, of their votes?

:eek:

Who's being depriving of votes? All adults in the period will have their say.

The key is to spread the say out for issues with an extended legacy to as many as possible to ensure that the vote reflects not just a snapshot of opinion but the will of the people as it transitions.

This is baked into the process of electing TDs, MPs, or all the branches of government in the US because you're electing a person who has a limited term of office.

I'd thought about this issue long before Brexit.
The fact that a referendum was able to be passed for divorce on the basis of a half a % difference between Yes and No is farcical.
It was farcical that it had to take place to begin with, but how can you meaningfully say that it was the will of the Irish people when Yes and No were virtually identical?
On a different day of the week or even if you just counted the ballots again you might've gotten a different answer.The only reason it's not controversial today is because there's overwhelming support for divorce being legal.

Even if a matter of months or years would drastically effect the outcome of such important changes in the law of the land I think it's incredibly self-serving and ignorant to dismiss the idea that opinons and culture change and that should be taken into account for referenda, as it is for the rest of our democracy.

Capt'n Midnight

sesswhat wrote: »

Originally Posted by The_Valeyard View Post
Disenfranchise the people who fought and died for voting rights, democracy and civil rights.

Can't have that.

Thanks to the magic of electoral fraud many dead people vote regularly.

Alf Stewart.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Thanks to the magic of electoral fraud many dead people vote regularly.

Early and often.

The Wolverine

Oh you people looking for older people or what you call "morons" (aka they have a different opinion to me I want them banned!) make me laugh.

The whiff of no doubt a 3rd level degree in a specific area of one particular industry and suddenly your somehow more intelligent in every way than the normal man, whether hes done a trade or lower level degree instead. We won't mention similar educated types who vote opposite tho, they are morons too obviously don't you know.

Talking about how they haven't as long to live, people with chronic aliments are likely to die earlier let's ban them too? The obese are at a higher death risk too and might not live as long, must ban them too. Rich people live longer on average than poorer let's cut them off too while we are at it.

The snobbery and arrogance is breathtaking. Its like listening to a bunch of British imperials about the natives being too stupid to rule themselves or bunch of French aristocrats talking about the common people pre revolution

You'd no doubt be just as astounded when the peasants were leading you to the gulliontine after your what are nothing short of fascist oppression attempts would fail and that's exactly the type of **** that some are coming out with here.

Chuchote

While we're having this discussion, so apposite to the change in politics that is happening in many countries, could I add in the characteristics of fascism?

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Ferrari3600

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Great idea OP.

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

Everyone gets the right to vote, once over 16/18, regardless of their political views. That's how democracy works.

Your first argument is very poor and doesn't even make sense, not least because most old people alive now didn't, in fact, fight for 'voting rights, democracy and civil rights' etc. Also, if they died in the course of so doing, we are not, I think, in the business of giving voting rights to corpses.

In fact, many old people are greedy, narcissistic, stupid and entirely self-interested.

Does that mean that they should be banned from voting? Of course not. Many young and middle-aged people are also all of those things.

Ferrari3600

Chuchote wrote: »

While we're having this discussion, so apposite to the change in politics that is happening in many countries, could I add in the characteristics of fascism?

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

Irony alert.

Rense is itself a far right website.

A Little Pony

Democrats had 8 years in office with Obama, time to just accept that the people wanted Trump and he is now going to be President.

Chuchote

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Irony alert.

xx is itself a far right website.

Yes, so I saw when I clicked back into it. Strangely, they have those two good pieces (on the same page). The rest of it is ravening craziness. I've taken the link out of my post.

melekalikimaka

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Everyone gets the right to vote, once over 16/18, regardless of their political views. That's how democracy works.

WRONG.... this is just the type we have adopted, clearly flawed but no one cares as the morons feel everyone shoul have the right to vote and everyone should use their vote. Thats the ignorant world we live in

Ave Sodalis

Saipanne wrote:

It says a lot about modern liberals, doesn't it? Let's ban voting for people who disagree with us.

A Little Pony wrote:

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

Eh, maybe you know the OP and can justify these statements that way, but where on earth did you come to the conclusion that "don't let old people vote" is a left issue? Is every crazy idea now a crazy-liberal/SJW thing? No wonder people think the whole PC thing has got put of control when every single bit of madness anyone comes out with is associated with it, justified or not. Is it just the cool thing to say now?

wakka12

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.

Why? Why should his opinion be worth less because he was born less intelligent than you? how is this any different to saying your vote is worth more than somebody born with any other hereditary trait such as skin colour or height . All humans are equal and all deserve to have their opinions considered equal to all others. This is a pretty fundamental aspect of western society I think.

wakka12

sup_dude wrote: »

Eh, maybe you know the OP and can justify these statements that way, but where on earth did you come to the conclusion that "don't let old people vote" is a left issue? Is every crazy idea now a crazy-liberal/SJW thing? No wonder people think the whole PC thing has got put of control when every single bit of madness anyone comes out with is associated with it, justified or not. Is it just the cool thing to say now?

It is most certainly mostly left wing who propose banning the elderly from voting, their justification being that elderly people are on average more racist/sexist/homophobic due to the period they grew up in and so they shouldn't have the right to impose this mindset on our modern forward thinking society

Chuchote

Well, let's think about this. If you ban me from voting in two years, as you suggest, what options for activism and social change are open to me, as a now voteless, unrepresented, unaligned citizen without the most basic right of citizenship?

Violence is the traditional one.

zulutango

wakka12 wrote: »

It is most certainly mostly left wing who propose banning the elderly from voting, their justification being that elderly people are on average more racist/sexist/homophobic due to the period they grew up in and so they shouldn't have the right to impose this mindset on our modern forward thinking society

It's also because old people don't have to live with the consequences of their votes for a whole lot longer. They're effectively voting to decide young people's futures, and that's not considered fair.

OldNotWIse

zulutango wrote: »

It's also because old people don't have to live with the consequences of their votes for a whole lot longer. They're effectively voting to decide young people's futures, and that's not considered fair.

Define old? Someone of pension age could live another 30 years. Also while we are on the subject of deciding on other people's futures, should we allow children to vote?

wakka12

zulutango wrote: »

It's also because old people don't have to live with the consequences of their votes for a whole lot longer. They're effectively voting to decide young people's futures, and that's not considered fair.

So they should just not be allowed any further say, even an opinion, on how their lives should be run just because they'll die sooner than young people. Just seems like an extremely poor argument to me, you don't know when the old person will die, and I don't see how that should influence how valid their opinions and concerns are

jackofalltrades

zulutango wrote: »

It's also because old people don't have to live with the consequences of their votes for a whole lot longer. They're effectively voting to decide young people's futures, and that's not considered fair.

You could say the same for the terminally ill.
Would people suggest that we should take the right to vote away from them?

Citizens get to vote on each others futures all the time, I don't see why we should be looking at just stopping the elderly from doing it.
I'd usually dismiss these types of threads saying that no one would seriously suggest this.
But right after the Brexit vote came out they're was a young lady on the BBC doing just that.
It seems that some peoples belief in democracy is conditional on the vote going their way.

A Little Pony

zulutango wrote: »

wakka12 wrote: »

It is most certainly mostly left wing who propose banning the elderly from voting, their justification being that elderly people are on average more racist/sexist/homophobic due to the period they grew up in and so they shouldn't have the right to impose this mindset on our modern forward thinking society

It's also because old people don't have to live with the consequences of their votes for a whole lot longer. They're effectively voting to decide young people's futures, and that's not considered fair.

This is a nonsense. Old people are still living life and have every right to vote for what they think is in their interests. What is the big problem with that? Young people will grow up one day.