Dangerous Idea: Democracy is Overrated

[Sigmaleph]

I think that, in theory, it would be a semi-decent idea to raise the age for both voting and political office to 45 or so; it's true that people in that age range tend to be more conservative than those younger, so progress may be slowed, but on the other hand, it would also entail convincing fewer people of the rightness of one's cause. After all, even if you're too young to vote, you can still participate in protests and strikes.

We should also deny the vote to ethnic minorities and gay people while we are at it. Y'know, in case conservatives don't win by a large enough margin.

[Canadian Mojo]

Here's my dumb idea: Raise both the voting age and the age at which people become eligible for political office. While I understand the arguments that originally led to the voting age being lowered from 21 to 18, I honestly don't think enough people in that age range have the knowledge or life experience to make good policy decisions, and I'm including myself in that assessment.

I think that, in theory, it would be a semi-decent idea to raise the age for both voting and political office to 45 or so; it's true that people in that age range tend to be more conservative than those younger, so progress may be slowed, but on the other hand, it would also entail convincing fewer people of the rightness of one's cause. After all, even if you're too young to vote, you can still participate in protests and strikes.

The only thing that troubles me about this idea is that, at least for the nonce, people 45 and up tend to be significantly more religious than others. While I don't think religion is an inherently bad thing in itself, in the political arena it tends to lead to wanting to make laws and policies based on your religious beliefs, regardless of the beliefs of others, and we've all seen how that song and dance goes.

Funny, I think we should go the other way with the voting age.

Right now the younger people don't feel like the government represents them so they don't vote. Part of that is that there aren't enough votes available to make politicians give a shit about what happens to that demographic. Enlarge the demographic and suddenly there are votes worth aiming your policies towards. That should hopefully lead to improvements in giving youth a competitive edge in the global economy (i.e. better and affordable education as well as real job creation for decent jobs), improve human rights and equality, and cut down on sending kids off to die in foreign lands willy-nilly (and fucking over the ones who come back damaged). It might even help the country focus on the future rather than the current policy of fucking the future over since they won't be around to suffer the consequences.

I'm also a big fan of a none of the above option on the ballot. Right now, a vote lost to apathy is not really viewed as a vote you could get since it is assumed that the person is too apathetic to bother voting for anyone.  Realizing that there is is a decent portion of the voters who will get off their asses to tell you that everybody sucks is a good motivator to try and figure out what people are pissed off about and do something about it.

[Sleepy]

45 sounds like a ridiculous voting age. We're denying people that basic right for a good chunk of their lives, and it's no way to ensure maturity or better educated voters.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Here's my dumb idea: Raise both the voting age and the age at which people become eligible for political office. While I understand the arguments that originally led to the voting age being lowered from 21 to 18, I honestly don't think enough people in that age range have the knowledge or life experience to make good policy decisions, and I'm including myself in that assessment.

I think that, in theory, it would be a semi-decent idea to raise the age for both voting and political office to 45 or so; it's true that people in that age range tend to be more conservative than those younger, so progress may be slowed, but on the other hand, it would also entail convincing fewer people of the rightness of one's cause. After all, even if you're too young to vote, you can still participate in protests and strikes.

The only thing that troubles me about this idea is that, at least for the nonce, people 45 and up tend to be significantly more religious than others. While I don't think religion is an inherently bad thing in itself, in the political arena it tends to lead to wanting to make laws and policies based on your religious beliefs, regardless of the beliefs of others, and we've all seen how that song and dance goes.

Funny, I think we should go the other way with the voting age.

Right now the younger people don't feel like the government represents them so they don't vote. Part of that is that there aren't enough votes available to make politicians give a shit about what happens to that demographic. Enlarge the demographic and suddenly there are votes worth aiming your policies towards. That should hopefully lead to improvements in giving youth a competitive edge in the global economy (i.e. better and affordable education as well as real job creation for decent jobs), improve human rights and equality, and cut down on sending kids off to die in foreign lands willy-nilly (and fucking over the ones who come back damaged). It might even help the country focus on the future rather than the current policy of fucking the future over since they won't be around to suffer the consequences.

I'm also a big fan of a none of the above option on the ballot. Right now, a vote lost to apathy is not really viewed as a vote you could get since it is assumed that the person is too apathetic to bother voting for anyone.  Realizing that there is is a decent portion of the voters who will get off their asses to tell you that everybody sucks is a good motivator to try and figure out what people are pissed off about and do something about it.

I agree. Society would improve if we expanded the voting age to, say, 16 or 15, because it would help with progress. More teens are progressive than any other age group, and if we opened the floodgates to hundreds of thousands of more progressives, things would change.

[Alehksunos]

MarlynMansion+NineInchNailsSongs: I like how you mentioned that the very least minimum voting age should be 15, because that was when I've thrown away (or was starting to throw away) my homophobic ideas. Another great idea that came to age was the idea that we should start using contraception more (though I forgot about birth control as "Plan-B". I still disagreed with abortion but later I would see why a woman do such, that being both Plan-A and B failed).

I can't say all folks will start wisening up at such an age, but our youth tend to almost always know better than our elders (young ones whose parents suppress them from the world and reality by homeschooling and other methods of "indoctrination" non-withstanding).

[PosthumanHeresy]

MarlynManson+NineInchNailsSongs: I like how you mentioned that the very least minimum voting age should be 15, because that was when I've thrown away (or was starting to throw away) my homophobic ideas. Another great idea that came to age was the idea that we should start using contraception more (though I forgot about birth control as "Plan-B". I still disagreed with abortion but later I would see why a woman do such, that being both Plan-A and B failed).

I can't say all folks will start wisening up at such an age, but our youth tend to almost always know better than our elders (young ones whose parents suppress them from the world and reality by homeschooling and other methods of "indoctrination" non-withstanding).

Yeah, that's the thing, the older generations are usually dead-set in their mindsets. I feel that when people being to enter the world at large, they should be able to shape it. Let's be perfectly honest, the older generations will be dead sooner, and therefore not living in this world. They should have less control over a world they won't be in as long.

[Sylvana]

Here's my dumb idea: Raise both the voting age and the age at which people become eligible for political office. While I understand the arguments that originally led to the voting age being lowered from 21 to 18, I honestly don't think enough people in that age range have the knowledge or life experience to make good policy decisions, and I'm including myself in that assessment.

Worst Idea Ever.
Your 18 to 30 age group are your most ideological age group. They are more likely to care about things being moral and right and benefiting the whole of society. One of the reasons for that is because the school of hard knocks life hasn't beaten them down and made them jaded yet. There is a reason why universities generally have lots of protests and such.

On the other hand the 45+ age group is jaded, established and unfortunately have agendas they would rather push. Right now people in business and politics who have the most say and who try their hardest to get things to swing in their favor are generally older. Similarly the set in their ways older generation is far easier to scare because someone who is comfortably established fears change. While younger people are far more open to embracing change.

The problem though is that while younger voters are more idealistic, that same idealism leads to a large degree of voter apathy. They feel as though they don't really achieve anything and stop voting until they are older. They also tend to be disgusted by the old school established parties who don't match their ideals and hence they don't vote because doing so would force them to vote for the parties they are disgusted by.

Funny, I think we should go the other way with the voting age.

Right now the younger people don't feel like the government represents them so they don't vote. Part of that is that there aren't enough votes available to make politicians give a shit about what happens to that demographic. Enlarge the demographic and suddenly there are votes worth aiming your policies towards.

The youth vote already makes up the largest portion of voters because the younger people generally outnumber the older people. (with exceptions for places like Japan) It isn't that the youth don't have the numbers, it is more that the youth don't have any power. Money and favor is the name of the game, and young people have neither to give hence politicians don't care about appealing to them because appealing to business and trade partners provides better returns. This is turn makes the youth disillusioned and apathetic at election time.

What country would voluntarily give up their right to control their own elections? And what country would push for others to surrender their control, if it means they have to do it as well?).

Well the thing is no country will give up the right to control their own elections for exactly the same reason why America wont ever change its currently very broken system, and why most democracies will never stop using first past the post elections. The system is slanted in the people who get to choose the systems favor. No country would voluntarily choose to change anything because if they actually made things more fair, they would loose their grip on power.

That is why despite this debate being fascinating, and even if we did somehow hammer out the ideal political solution, only an actual revolution will have even the slightest chance of that solution being implemented.

[Lithp]

Actually, I do think that having something in place to make sure that people at least have some idea of what they're talking about is a decent idea, I just have no idea how it could actually work in the real world without turning all racist & shit.

[whitewater]

[[/quote]

The youth vote already makes up the largest portion of voters because the younger people generally outnumber the older people. (with exceptions for places like Japan) It isn't that the youth don't have the numbers, it is more that the youth don't have any power. Money and favor is the name of the game, and young people have neither to give hence politicians don't care about appealing to them because appealing to business and trade partners provides better returns. This is turn makes the youth disillusioned and apathetic at election time.

The reason that the youth vote is barely relevant is that, despite having the numbers to actually affect change, the overwhelming majority of under-30 voters simply don't bother to vote. If the idealism of youth could be channelled, demographics would force politicians to actual "pander" to the youth vote. Currently, the only demographic that consistently votes are those over 45, who are more concerned with maintaining the status quo than with any sort of altruistic notions.
That is how so many Republicans manage to hold seats in Congress despite actually voting for bills that are not in the best interests of the majority of the electorate. If only 50-60 percent of eligible voters actually vote, and the vast majority of them are over 45, there is little wonder as to the current state of democratic politics and governance.

The only real way to make your voice heard in a democracy is to actually vote, encourage others to vote and, especially in Congressional district voting, change can be made. Imagine how congress would change if say, 85 percent of under 30 voters made their voices heard via the ballot? Hell, there may be a whole new batch of independants sitting in congress, actually voting their conscience and that of their constituents, instead of the party line.

Bitching about it and not voting and actively participating in the process is stupid.