Old people shouldn't vote

Voting should have an age limit... Upward.

If nobody over age 60 could vote, social conservatives would never win, and people would be left the Hell alone.

Unfortunatelly, we'd have leftie naive Granola Girl government instead. Not too good either

edited 4th Jul '11 8:58:03 AM by nzm1536

The problem is not that they vote, it's that they vote disproportionately.

Get more of everybody else to vote.

Far from ideal, but better than the moral guardians.

In the interest of personal liberty, social conservatives must be excluded from policymaking. The most feasible way to achieve it is to bar the elderly from voting.

edited 4th Jul '11 9:02:00 AM by SavageHeathen

Also not all olds folk vote the same my grandma votes Democrat.Actually all family votes Democrate,I am the only Republican in my family.And I am very consevative but I try to be very nice to others unless they are very obnoxious.

People you don't like shouldn't be allowed to vote?

That's a dangerous road, Savage. I'm sure the other side would love to turn around and raise the voting age limit to 30.

Disinfranchisement is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. It's an easy way to turn an otherwise functional democracy into a true oligarchy.

Not really. They are often as much of Moral Guardians as rightists, just progressive instead of conservative

No, everyone in a democracy gets equal right to vote, otherwise it's defeating its own purpose, which is to go with the popular idea and popularity counts everyone.

@deathjavu: If the moral guardians win, democracy ain't working and it's time for other solutions.

@jazzflozer: I do respect my elders' opinion. I hear it, and give it careful consideration... Then I keep to my own business. They're entitled to make their voice heard (and perhaps listened to, if their younger folks are in the mood for it), but they're not entitled to making decisions over other people's lives.

edited 4th Jul '11 9:07:52 AM by SavageHeathen

If the moral guardians win, that means moral guardians are in the majority.

I suppose the intent is... sort of admirable? The problem is Unfortunate Implications. Firstly, you're telling them, "ok, so you think differently than us, so, too bad, you have no say in government anymore. Ever." Which, from a certain, very Values Dissonance-laden standpoint, sort of makes sense, since they'll be leaving soon, anyhow, except that these days, in First World Nations, if you cut them off at 60 they won't be voting for 15-20 years.

Second, if we start saying, "you can't vote because you're old," it'll rapidly devolve into shit like the Deep South used to be with segregation, where people the government doesn't like won't be allowed to vote. Then what, will we be a 1984-esque hell like George Orwell said we would be?

Democracy is a means to an end, that end being liberty.

If democracy doesn't secure liberty, it ain't working. If a particular democracy steers towards social conservatism and authoritarianism, everything is fair game: Fraud, gerrymandering, disfranchisement, overthrowal.

Disfranchising social conservatives is a way to do it, and it's much more humane than the physical extermination of the Moral Guardians. And either of those two options are better than letting the Moral Guardians rule over us.

edited 4th Jul '11 9:13:14 AM by SavageHeathen

Whenever you vote your making a decision that will affect the rest of the country and saying the elderly shouldn't isn't right.Also that's kinda silencing a opinion as well.

Democracy is a means to an end, the end being whatever the people want. That's a mix of liberty and security, Savage, and how people decide to handle those two things is really up to them as a group to vote on.

How is depriving a group of people the right to vote securing their liberty?

Why is your liberty more valuable than theirs>?

edited 4th Jul '11 9:14:57 AM by deathjavu

Your sounding not so different from some extreme conservatives.I think this is a case of he who fights monsters.I am conservative myself but I wouldn't ban liberals from voting.

If they're using their vote to destroy your liberty, to a certain way of thinking, they are abusing their vote.

It's really not that hard to follow the logic, even if you don't agree.

My liberty to rule my own life as I see fit (or yours, or theirs for that matter) is vastly more important than anybody's right (that nobody legitimately has at all) to restrict other people's freedom.

edited 4th Jul '11 9:17:01 AM by SavageHeathen

Savage Heathen, we're now bordering on Insane Troll Logic, you're taking away rights to secure rights to avoid having someone take away rights.

In my experience, older people tend to be a heck of a lot wiser than me when it comes to politics. My parents (well into their 50's) still thrash me round the ears (metaphorically) in arguments relating to politics. And I'm 20.

It's removing authority from socially conservative people in the interest of preserving everybody's personal liberty.

edited 4th Jul '11 9:20:03 AM by SavageHeathen

Everyone except the people you don't like, which is not quite everyone, especially since I'm sitting democrat over here and I still have the right to vote, along with my democrat grandmother and grandfather who still vote to this day.

Really? My experience is different, that older people mouth things they've been told for decades, and don't even understand why what they're saying is wrong, or just plain silly.

I'm sure there are different perspectives, but I can't put them on a pedestal.

edited 4th Jul '11 9:21:58 AM by blueharp

Savage, you don't get to remove a portion of the populations political liberties because they don't match your views. Thats the very authoritarianism you're trying to avoid.