PDA

View Full Version : What should the voting age be?


Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 11:25 AM
Simple enough question! What should the voting age be and why?:)

I think it should be 16 because I thought me and my peers were mature enough when I was 16. At 16 people can have sex, join the military and drive at 17 but not vote? I understand these ages might be different around the world but they are working fine here so why not?

Why should 16 year old be allowed to join a country's military without trusting them to vote for the government?

It would also give a large boost to the younger demographic.

Periphery
September 3rd, 2016, 11:48 AM
Flapjack

Well your average 16 year old has no general knowledge on politics, which is enough reason not to increase it. You don't need political knowledge to have sex or to drive a car and neither of these 2 things will have an influence on the future of a country.

In my opinion 18 is a decent age, I may want to see it up to 19 or 20 but just maybe. Your average teenager has little to no political knowledge so that's enough reason not to lower it.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 11:54 AM
@Flapjack (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122060)

Well your average 16 year old has no general knowledge on politics, which is enough reason not to increase it. You don't need political knowledge to have sex or to drive a car and neither of these 2 things will have an influence on the future of a country.

In my opinion 18 is a decent age, I may want to see it up to 19 or 20 but just maybe. Your average teenager has little to no political knowledge so that's enough reason not to lower it.
I deffo wouldn't want to raise it as older voters tend to be more right-wing, bigoted and stuck in their ways.

I would also argue the average 30 year old has no general knowledge of politics. They may know a few leaders and policies but I doubt they look into it with much detail.

I am not sure whether it should be lowered but I certainly don't want it raised :)

Periphery
September 3rd, 2016, 11:57 AM
I deffo wouldn't want to raise it as older voters tend to be more right-wing, bigoted and stuck in their ways.

I would also argue the average 30 year old has no general knowledge of politics. They may know a few leaders and policies but I doubt they look into it with much detail.

I am not sure whether it should be lowered but I certainly don't want it raised :)

Not every older person is far right though. The thing is that at the age of 16 a political party can easily win votes of the younger age group by just saying some random things that they like even though they may never happen. The reasoning behind their votes would be less well constructed in my opinion.

mattsmith48
September 3rd, 2016, 12:02 PM
I think 18 is a good age to be able to vote, 18 is the age in most countries that you are responsable enough to start to legally drink and gamble, and that you officially become an adult.

Dalcourt
September 3rd, 2016, 12:59 PM
When I judge from answers of people I read here in the ROTW threads I'd say at least 20, lol. There are so many appallingly immature notions I see here that I would not want these people to vote for anything at all no offence.

Seriously 18 is a good age.. I personally wouldn't go below that.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 01:02 PM
When I judge from answers of people I read here in the ROTW threads I'd say at least 20, lol. There are so many appallingly immature notions I see here that I would not want these people to vote for anything at all no offence.

Seriously 18 is a good age.. I personally wouldn't go below that.
I imagine it would be similar if we had a ROTW section populated with those aged between 20 and 30. 40% of the US is supporting Trump for god sakes, I don't trust them much more xD

Endeavour
September 3rd, 2016, 01:15 PM
18 is a good age. I remember they dropped it to 16 for the Scottish Independence referendum a few years back. I do agree that it is slightly ridiculous that you can join the army but perhaps not have a say in how it is run when you are 16. But one person joining the army won't have a direct impact on the entire future of the country. Some people might say the same thing about the USA's drinking age of 21. Young people might just be too easily brought over to one side, like when the Lib Dems promised that there would be no more tuition fee rises, but when they joined the coalition what happened, they rose to 9000. My opinions are so mixed, but overall I think 18 is a good age when the majority of people tend to be mature enough to know who they are voting for.

Periphery
September 3rd, 2016, 02:38 PM
I imagine it would be similar if we had a ROTW section populated with those aged between 20 and 30. 40% of the US is supporting Trump for god sakes, I don't trust them much more xD

Does that mean that 20-30 years old are unable to make political decisions? Because well, they'll be the same people as they were when 16, the problem here is that the 16 years need to gain that extra bit of maturity to vote, if they wanna fuck up at 18 let them but give them time to learn what they are voting for.

Porpoise101
September 3rd, 2016, 02:58 PM
I am supportive of people being able to vote at 18.

Drewboyy
September 3rd, 2016, 03:19 PM
16 year olds have no idea what it actually means to live and have no idea what money is. They have been under their parents wing their whole life and will jump on anyone who promise make their life seem easier as they go into college. If anything, raising the voting age to an age where people know the world around them is better than lowering it. The drinking age should def be 18 though, I have no idea what US is so strict about that.

mattsmith48
September 3rd, 2016, 03:26 PM
I imagine it would be similar if we had a ROTW section populated with those aged between 20 and 30. 40% of the US is supporting Trump for god sakes, I don't trust them much more xD

Thats because of misinformed voters and for the Trump thing you can add the legalization of the corruption of politicians and a political party promoting racism and xenophobia

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 05:36 PM
Does that mean that 20-30 years old are unable to make political decisions? Because well, they'll be the same people as they were when 16, the problem here is that the 16 years need to gain that extra bit of maturity to vote, if they wanna fuck up at 18 let them but give them time to learn what they are voting for.
True :)

I do however find it annoying when the older generation votes for something terrible out of hatred and it is the younger generation that has to deal with it. Cough brexit cough. That is why I would like to give younger voters more of an influence over our politics.

jamie_n5
September 3rd, 2016, 09:05 PM
I think it should stay at 18. 16 year olds aren't mature enough and don't follow politics much either. I am not sure if 16 year olds can join the military either. They need to finish high school.

Canadian Dream
September 3rd, 2016, 09:51 PM
True :)

I do however find it annoying when the older generation votes for something terrible out of hatred and it is the younger generation that has to deal with it. Cough brexit cough. That is why I would like to give younger voters more of an influence over our politics.

Although I completely agree on your position that older people tend to vote for things centered around hatred you're basically saying hey let's change democracy so younger people get what they want no that's not how it works democracy works in favour of the entire population, not just the young or the old ones. You can tell me older people may just be as clueless as people that are 16 or 17 but the fact is most 16 year olds don't know anything about politics much less than most 20-30 year olds. You're basically asking to give the power to an age group that mostly doesn't care about who's running their country and that could have disastrous consequences if that power isn't handled wisely. It could end up being disastrous because at this point most people don't have their reasoning extremely straight forward yet. It's just a privilege that has so much influence on so many people I don't think it should be allowed to those who don't know what the hell they're doing.

eric2001
September 3rd, 2016, 10:43 PM
ok 17 then

Periphery
September 4th, 2016, 05:39 AM
True :)

I do however find it annoying when the older generation votes for something terrible out of hatred and it is the younger generation that has to deal with it. Cough brexit cough. That is why I would like to give younger voters more of an influence over our politics.

Well what happened in brexit was not your average vote and even allot of young people had no idea what they were voting for. In this case though it was different since you weren't exactly voting for a political party, just to leave or stay.

Political parties can easily gain a ton of votes by just saying stupid stuff like "make school days shorter" and there would be instant voters in this younger age group who have no idea what they are voting for which is a bad thing.

Bull
September 4th, 2016, 05:50 AM
If you are old enough to die for your country you are old enough to vote. imo

Flapjack
September 4th, 2016, 06:00 AM
Well what happened in brexit was not your average vote and even allot of young people had no idea what they were voting for. In this case though it was different since you weren't exactly voting for a political party, just to leave or stay.

Political parties can easily gain a ton of votes by just saying stupid stuff like "make school days shorter" and there would be instant voters in this younger age group who have no idea what they are voting for which is a bad thing.
You are right about brexit buddy although I do not believe younger voters would be that dense xD I cannot imagine anyone my age falling cheap political promises to get votes and those without a interest in politics wouldn't vote.

The voting age in Scotland is 16 and you don't see any of the problems you have listed, at least on a large scale :)

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 06:41 AM
21.

But I also amn't a democrat in he conventional sense, so.

At 16 people can have sex, join the military and drive at 17 but not vote?
Voting is comparatively different.

Being able to have 'sex, join the military and drive' constitutes rule over the self whilst granting someone the right to vote signifies entrance into the polis and the right to rule over others.

I deffo wouldn't want to raise it as older voters tend to be more right-wing, bigoted and stuck in their ways.
You think that younger people haven't been socialised into a certain sort of living too?

But at least you're frank that your preference is for a certain demographic voting on the grounds they agree with you.

I cannot imagine anyone my age falling cheap political promises to get votes
Do people grow more ignorant with age, generally - or is it just a quality of the previous generation?

Brieftime
September 4th, 2016, 07:34 AM
Flapjack

Well your average 16 year old has no general knowledge on politics, which is enough reason not to increase it. You don't need political knowledge to have sex or to drive a car and neither of these 2 things will have an influence on the future of a country.

In my opinion 18 is a decent age, I may want to see it up to 19 or 20 but just maybe. Your average teenager has little to no political knowledge so that's enough reason not to lower it.

In my country so many people don't even vote and they are over 18. What knowledge should you have before having sex? What and how std's are spread, able to afford to raise a baby while your so young, knowledge of birth control? If you drive a car should you know how to fix it? What stupid stuff could happen because you wanted to have a little bit of fun?

Paraxiom
September 4th, 2016, 04:56 PM
Simple enough question! What should the voting age be and why?:)

Even though I see the age requirements for things to be arbitrary, that is small enough to be ignored at least most times. For voting, I'll go for at or between 18 and 21.


I think it should be 16 because I thought me and my peers were mature enough when I was 16. At 16 people can have sex, join the military and drive at 17 but not vote? I understand these ages might be different around the world but they are working fine here so why not?

Without me being difficult, having sex and viewpoints on politics don't intersect in topics enough to necessitate at all at having the same minimal age.


Why should 16 year old be allowed to join a country's military without trusting them to vote for the government?

That's why I'm against minimal military joining age being below that of minimal voting age.



It would also give a large boost to the younger demographic.

Do you mean incentive to vote?



In my opinion 18 is a decent age, I may want to see it up to 19 or 20 but just maybe. Your average teenager has little to no political knowledge so that's enough reason not to lower it.

I got with Flapjack in that trends of political knowledge isn't the way to determine minimal voting age.


I deffo wouldn't want to raise it as older voters tend to be more right-wing, bigoted and stuck in their ways.


I speculate as to if the ways of 'our' generation will be perceived as the same by the young people in e.g. 2066, of course presuming that the socio-political realm will resemble ours enough to have left/right-wing politics analogous to ours.


[...] I think 18 is a good age when the majority of people tend to be mature enough to know who they are voting for.

Ideally maturity would entail sufficient knowledge of political candidates, yes...


[...] 20-30 years old are [...] the same people as they were when 16 [...]

I disagree but off-topic so nevermind. :D


16 year olds have no idea what it actually means to live and have no idea what money is. They have been under their parents wing their whole life and will jump on anyone who promise make their life seem easier as they go into college. If anything, raising the voting age to an age where people know the world around them is better than lowering it.

Maybe arguably a major proportion of 16yo people are, I wouldn't say all though.



I do however find it annoying when the older generation votes for something terrible out of hatred and it is the younger generation that has to deal with it. Cough brexit cough. That is why I would like to give younger voters more of an influence over our politics.

The voting system of the state would need to be changed to have the value of each vote be determined by the age of the voter who cast it, then. That would need a thread itself to speculate how that would be worked out (I suggest!).

I'm not for that voting system though (I'm not settled with the 'normal democratic' voting system either though, too).

Endeavour
September 4th, 2016, 05:03 PM
The voting system of the state would need to be changed to have the value of each vote be determined by the age of the voter who cast it, then. That would need a thread itself to speculate how that would be worked out (I suggest!).

I'm not for that voting system though (I'm not settled with the 'normal democratic' voting system either though, too).

I'm pretty sure we briefly discussed this around Brexit time. Here is a quote from it: This brings up the question of whether certain votes could/should have more value than others (a potentially rich debating field).

Paraxiom
September 4th, 2016, 05:15 PM
I'm pretty sure we briefly discussed this around Brexit time. Here is a quote from it:

We did yes, not to the level of a thread though. Nice to know that I was coherent with my want of a question then and now too :D .

Flapjack
September 4th, 2016, 05:30 PM
I speculate as to if the ways of 'our' generation will be perceived as the same by the young people in e.g. 2066, of course presuming that the socio-political realm will resemble ours enough to have left/right-wing politics analogous to ours.
As usual I agree with everything xD I should state I am not a die-hard supporter of having 16 be the voting age, just thought it would be an interesting topic :P

Nooo this is spooky I was thinking about this earlier xD

I think over time we will get more progressive and so in 50 years or so today's progressive will be their centrist if that makes sense? :P

Vlerchan
September 4th, 2016, 05:34 PM
I think over time we will get more progressive and so in 50 years or so today's progressive will be their centrist if that makes sense?
Perhaps on social issues - Even then, with the current level of backlash against globalisation, we might become harder on national-identity issues - but on economics issues there has been a definitive turn to the right in the last three decades, and outside of trade - because, again, identity - that looks set to continue.

Paraxiom
September 4th, 2016, 06:46 PM
As usual I agree with everything xD I should state I am not a die-hard supporter of having 16 be the voting age, just thought it would be an interesting topic :P

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, by the way :P ;by that I mean that disagreement for reasons A, B, C... may not be fine with me, but the perception of disagreement itself is fine.



Nooo this is spooky I was thinking about this earlier xD

I've been practicing my cyber-telepathy recently.



I think over time we will get more progressive and so in 50 years or so today's progressive will be their centrist if that makes sense? :P

Perhaps on social issues - Even then, with the current level of backlash against globalisation, we might become harder on national-identity issues - but on economics issues there has been a definitive turn to the right in the last three decades, and outside of trade - because, again, identity - that looks set to continue.

Even assuming that the economic realm stays the same and that climate change along with resource depletion don't magnify in threat to society and politics as we know it (an assumption I don't hold), it's a huge speculation field, worth tens of ROTW threads.

I've not thought much about how society and its culture will be, apart from general trends of more technology and internet. As one example that might appear odd, I expect mental health in younger people in general to get quite worse, perhaps even to become a major phenomenon that politics gets influenced by in itself.

Drewboyy
September 4th, 2016, 08:59 PM
Paraxiom

"Maybe arguably a major proportion of 16yo people are, I wouldn't say all though."

Yeah definitely not all, but a democracy is all about the majority so if all high schoolers were aloud to vote the winner would be whoever promises the most for them, and them only since they make a huge portion.

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 11:47 AM
Paraxiom

"Maybe arguably a major proportion of 16yo people are, I wouldn't say all though."

Yeah definitely not all, but a democracy is all about the majority so if all high schoolers were aloud to vote the winner would be whoever promises the most for them, and them only since they make a huge portion.

Point taken, yes.

Taryn98
September 8th, 2016, 10:50 AM
I think it's more important that people know the issues and where people stand before they vote rather than just voting along party lines. Most people my age have little understanding of what's going on and then vote for stupid reasons.
I'd rather people have to pass a test showing they know something before they vote than just setting a specific age limit.

Arkansasguy
September 8th, 2016, 03:16 PM
If there's to be voting, it should be restricted to 30+ year old white husbands/widowers who meet a minimum property qualification and lack criminal records.

Of course we're better off without elections anyway.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2016, 03:37 PM
[...] white [...]
Why specifically white?

Paraxiom
September 8th, 2016, 04:04 PM
If there's to be voting, it should be restricted to 30+ year old white husbands/widowers who meet a minimum property qualification and lack criminal records.

Why do you see it to be restricted to only

males

with comparatively low melanin levels in their skin

of 30+ years of age

who are married, or ex-married from husband/wife dying

with no criminal records of any kind (not even shoplifting/etc)

?


Of course we're better off without elections anyway.

You're in favour of a non-democratic government system then, correct? What govt system do you favour as an alternative?

Arkansasguy
September 8th, 2016, 04:17 PM
Why specifically white?

In our actual society, racial minorities are more likely to vote for policies that are harmful to the common good (e.g. The welfare state), but aid them (in the immediate sense anyway).

I'm not definitely claiming it, but the same is probably true generally as well.

Arkansasguy
September 8th, 2016, 04:19 PM
Why do you see it to be restricted to only

males

with comparatively low melanin levels in their skin

of 30+ years of age

who are married, or ex-married from husband/wife dying

with no criminal records of any kind (not even shoplifting/etc)

?




You're in favour of a non-democratic government system then, correct? What govt system do you favour as an alternative?

All of those minimize irresponsible voting, to the extent that that's possible.

Monarchy.

Paraxiom
September 8th, 2016, 04:37 PM
In our actual society, racial minorities are more likely to vote for policies that are harmful to the common good (e.g. The welfare state), but aid them (in the immediate sense anyway).

It is not the fault of the voter that certain policies are considered for use, if these policies may harm the welfare of the state. It is the fault of those who promote the policies in the first place.

Anyhow, how much 'irresponsible voting' is skewed toward minority groups?

Let me say that I am a black person (I'm not, but hypothesise), and I have exactly the same frame of mind. I'm automatically not eligible to vote.

Is it not unjustifiably harsh that a system is barring certain people from voting, because they are considered similar in skin colour enough to those who tend to 'vote irresponsibly'?


All of those minimize irresponsible voting, to the extent that that's possible.


Could you give specific reasons why people aged 29 and under, unmarried people, all non-caucasian people, and all people who committed any crimes, should not be allowed to vote?



Monarchy.

Do you have any certain 'starting royal family' in mind?

Arkansasguy
September 8th, 2016, 09:30 PM
Is it not unjustifiably harsh that a system is barring certain people from voting, because they are considered similar in skin colour enough to those who tend to 'vote irresponsibly'?

First of all, speaking of race as just a matter of skin color is a major way that pseudointellectuals try to avoid substantive points. No one gives a crap about skin color (e.g. black albinos are still black), the topic is race.

Second of all, the answer is no, it's not "harsh" because no one has a right to vote in the first place.

Could you give specific reasons why people aged 29 and under, unmarried people, all non-caucasian people, and all people who committed any crimes, should not be allowed to vote?

Are you actually disputing that youth, bachelors, and criminals are more likely to vote irresponsibly?

Do you have any certain 'starting royal family' in mind?

No.

Paraxiom
September 12th, 2016, 04:47 AM
First of all, speaking of race as just a matter of skin color is a major way that pseudointellectuals try to avoid substantive points. No one gives a crap about skin color (e.g. black albinos are still black), the topic is race.

How do you define race?

You do seem to be giving some craps about skin colour, if you are quantifying someone's racial identity by how light/dark their skin colour is.


Second of all, the answer is no, it's not "harsh" because no one has a right to vote in the first place.

Right...


Are you actually disputing that youth, bachelors, and criminals are more likely to vote irresponsibly?

I'm disputing that everyone less than the arbitrary age of 30 years, bachelors, and criminals of any degree are more likely to vote irresponsibly.

Why unmarried people specifically?

Why everyone less than 30 years of age?


No.

Ok.

Arkansasguy
September 12th, 2016, 02:25 PM
How do you define race?

You do seem to be giving some craps about skin colour, if you are quantifying someone's racial identity by how light/dark their skin colour is.




Right...




I'm disputing that everyone less than the arbitrary age of 30 years, bachelors, and criminals of any degree are more likely to vote irresponsibly.

Why unmarried people specifically?

Why everyone less than 30 years of age?




Ok.

If you don't understand that settled family men are usually more responsible then young bachelors, then I'm not sure how much more can really be said.

Paraxiom
September 13th, 2016, 05:42 AM
If you don't understand that settled family men are usually more responsible then young bachelors, then I'm not sure how much more can really be said.

'Usually more responsible'? That can mean many things.

Responsibility to look after one's family is not in any necessary conjunction with sufficient education on politics and economics. Someone can be an excellent family guy, but be really ignorant on matters relevant to elections, and the vice-versa is just as realistic.

I could now ask you what it is about females that shows them to be neither responsible in family, or educated in politics/economics.

Bloo
September 15th, 2016, 04:46 AM
I think the voting age should he 18-65. I think at 65, you are supposedly retired, and to be quite frank, out of touch. Most people who are 65+ are retired, and often are out of touch with current events and trends, and their beliefs/political views tend to be incredibly outdated. (That said, I also thing anyone over 500's beliefs tend to be outdated, but 65 seemed fitting because it is the general retirement age, and is a smaller demographic.)

Jthompson
September 15th, 2016, 06:14 AM
Simple enough question! What should the voting age be and why?:)

I think it should be 16 because I thought me and my peers were mature enough when I was 16. At 16 people can have sex, join the military and drive at 17 but not vote? I understand these ages might be different around the world but they are working fine here so why not?

Why should 16 year old be allowed to join a country's military without trusting them to vote for the government?

It would also give a large boost to the younger demographic.


1. You and your peers aren't a fair group to determine if the WHOLE of America should vote at 16. You're a small part of very sprixfic group of people in America.
Anyone can have sex at any age. You can only join the military at 18, and a full license in MOST states is at 18 too.

Furthermore, introducing 16 year olds into the fold won't widen the demographic. It's not like there aren't enough 18 year olds that can vote. It's that they literally won't go out to vote. Furthermore, what makes anyone at 16 any more likely to vote?

Lastly, the issues that a presidential candidate, or any federal candidate, deals with are issues that only really effect adults. 16 year olds are still protected under their parents. Which means allowing 16 year olds and 17 year olds to vote literally allows a group of people to vote on issues that WILL NOT have a direct effect on them for another two years. Is that fair to the rest of the adults ?

PlasmaHam
September 15th, 2016, 09:14 AM
I think the voting age should he 18-65. I think at 65, you are supposedly retired, and to be quite frank, out of touch. Most people who are 65+ are retired, and often are out of touch with current events and trends, and their beliefs/political views tend to be incredibly outdated. (That said, I also thing anyone over 500's beliefs tend to be outdated, but 65 seemed fitting because it is the general retirement age, and is a smaller demographic.)
Is there something wrong with having older views? Freedom of speech is about 250 years old, do you consider that outdated? There are many things that don't change because of time. And do you really know anyone 65+? There are hundreds if not thousands of politicians that have been voted into office above that age, and they were generally seen in a good light. Ronald Reagan, often regarded as one of the greatest presidents, was 70 years old when he was voted in, and stayed in office for 8 years afterwards. To say the 65+ demographic, which is actually growing very fast, should be banned from voting is not true equality.

Porpoise101
September 15th, 2016, 06:04 PM
The elderly deserve as much of a voice as the youth.

To all Leftist types:
It is the elderly who will fight for disability rights, social security, and government medical care.
To those who support the military/vets:
Many veterans tend to be older, and any reform in a democratic system will be driven by them. That means the political motivation to actually change the VA will come from them.
To everyone:
Many on the don't understand that the "racist, old bigots" still get more attention and power for a reason. Older people vote! That's why Social Security is "untouchable" in American politics. In the US, the younger crowd does not vote. That is why politicians neglect their issues.

Bloo
September 15th, 2016, 10:30 PM
Is there something wrong with having older views? Freedom of speech is about 250 years old, do you consider that outdated? There are many things that don't change because of time. And do you really know anyone 65+? There are hundreds if not thousands of politicians that have been voted into office above that age, and they were generally seen in a good light. Ronald Reagan, often regarded as one of the greatest presidents, was 70 years old when he was voted in, and stayed in office for 8 years afterwards. To say the 65+ demographic, which is actually growing very fast, should be banned from voting is not true equality.


I'm not proposing going equality. Perhaps 65 is a bit young, 70-75 may be more fitting in an age where the average lifespan is increasing. But I think no matter of what they believe I stand by it. Whether they are moderate, conservative, or liberal. The majority of their life is gone to put it bluntly, and their voting now will affect the generations below them with little effect on their own. I know it's callus or careless to count them out but I think there is a certain point where once you reach a certain age you aren't voting for yourself anymore, when happens 10-20 years from now has little effect on them.

Paraxiom
September 16th, 2016, 05:12 AM
I'm not proposing going equality. Perhaps 65 is a bit young, 70-75 may be more fitting in an age where the average lifespan is increasing. But I think no matter of what they believe I stand by it. Whether they are moderate, conservative, or liberal. The majority of their life is gone to put it bluntly, and their voting now will affect the generations below them with little effect on their own. I know it's callus or careless to count them out but I think there is a certain point where once you reach a certain age you aren't voting for yourself anymore, when happens 10-20 years from now has little effect on them.

So what about younger people intending to leave their original country? Their time in it is expected to be shorter than most, so their vote should be either greatly reduced in value, or with no value at all.


Took the following quote from the Should a value of a vote differ depending on how old you are? thread:


The argument being offered in favour for age-affected vote values is that younger people are expected to live in a state longer than older people, that younger people will interact more with the state. They will be affected more by it.

Is it significant enough how much people interact with the state they are participating in voting in? Suddenly this thread may intersect with Vlerchan 's Give me Liberty or...? thread (arguably, by me).

If someone is going to interact less with a state and consequently get less out of it, then should their vote be worth less than others who interact more? The backing reasoning is the same as the reasoning for the argument for age-affected vote values, least I see it as such, by the amount of dependency the voter has on the state.


The argument is that younger people are expected to live in this certain state longer then older people, but what happens when there are younger people who want to emigrate? They cease to be within the state and so are not living within it, so any age-affected votes case by them should perhaps in fact be stay duration - affected votes instead.

Rather than it being the age of a person that determines their vote, it should be amount of time the person is expected to stay within this state (and/or how long they have spent in this state). It's hardly then a topic on age; age is only the trend that is mistaken with the core topic at hand.

I know you are for either 'full' voting or no voting depending on age rather than a varying vote value, but it's still relevant.