You plan would be to block anyone that may be gullible from voting.
where did I say that? my suggestion is to not increase the proportion of gullible people, perhaps reduce it by slightly increasing the age limit (like to 20)
The question is how? Forced iq tests or level of education achieved. Maybe some demographics are more susceptible? Age, race, gender? Maybe location. Are rural communities less likely to consume propaganda? Are they more likely?
some kind of test would be ideal, but it sounds like Pandora’s box. an assumed “good” administration starts doing it, but even if it’s done fairly at the beginning, it’s too easy to change it to be used discriminatively
It seems the original argument was that if at 16 you can join the army and fight in a war, should you get a voice on if we go to war?
I think yes.
I’m confident that 16 year olds should neither have voting rights, nor be allowed to go to war.
where did I say that? my suggestion is to not increase the proportion of gullible people, perhaps reduce it by slightly increasing the age limit (like to 20
You didn’t, you took my point to the extreme when you said this:
but then just delete the age limit. lets have kindergarten aged kids vote. what could go wrong?
I was doing the same to your point to show how ridiculous it sounds when you exaggerate any of these ideas.
What I would add that got pointed out to me today is, that if we have a general election every 5 years, someone who turns 18 just after an election potentially may not be able to vote for the first time untill they almost 23.
Again, my opinion is that being able to vote for the first time between 16-20 sounds a lot better than voting for the first time between 18-22.
What I would add that got pointed out to me today is, that if we have a general election every 5 years, someone who turns 18 just after an election potentially may not be able to vote for the first time untill they almost 23.
I agree that’s unfortunate, the first vote I was eligible for was at 21. It’s not ideal. I think a better solution would be to have more (meaningful) votes (not necessarily with shorther terms)
Again, my opinion is that being able to vote for the first time between 16-20 sounds a lot better than voting for the first time between 18-22.
I’m not sure. I would rather just increase the age limit to 20, and implement a fix to have more times you can vote.
where did I say that? my suggestion is to not increase the proportion of gullible people, perhaps reduce it by slightly increasing the age limit (like to 20)
some kind of test would be ideal, but it sounds like Pandora’s box. an assumed “good” administration starts doing it, but even if it’s done fairly at the beginning, it’s too easy to change it to be used discriminatively
I’m confident that 16 year olds should neither have voting rights, nor be allowed to go to war.
You didn’t, you took my point to the extreme when you said this:
I was doing the same to your point to show how ridiculous it sounds when you exaggerate any of these ideas.
What I would add that got pointed out to me today is, that if we have a general election every 5 years, someone who turns 18 just after an election potentially may not be able to vote for the first time untill they almost 23.
Again, my opinion is that being able to vote for the first time between 16-20 sounds a lot better than voting for the first time between 18-22.
I agree that’s unfortunate, the first vote I was eligible for was at 21. It’s not ideal. I think a better solution would be to have more (meaningful) votes (not necessarily with shorther terms)
I’m not sure. I would rather just increase the age limit to 20, and implement a fix to have more times you can vote.