Now that I'm of pensionable age, I've had time to look at the actions of my generation and their predecessors in public office; their actions as corporate stakeholders; their typical voting tendencies; and come to the inescapable conclusion that their attentions for the limited remainder of their time here would be better focused elsewhere. Gardening or reading shallow, rose-tinted recollections of the good old days.

Let's face it, their performance in these areas has been woeful and one cannot help but come to the conclusion that their declining mental faculties and limited personal investment in anything but the immediate future may be the root cause.

So if I felt sufficiently deserving of a vote, it would be to ban us all from public and military office, corporate directorships, and permanently remove our political and share holder voting rights.

Our interests should still be protected out of self-preservation by those approaching retirement age, and there would be some incentive to curry favour with the remainder by breaking the mould and actually being pleasant to others. Don't you agree?...

... Donald?

8 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Now that I'm of pensionable age, I've had time to look at the actions of my generation and their predecessors in public office; their actions as corporate stakeholders; their typical voting tendencies; and come to the inescapable conclusion that their attentions for the limited remainder of their time here would be better focused elsewhere. Gardening or reading shallow, rose-tinted recollections of the good old days.

Let's face it, their performance in these areas has been woeful and one cannot help but come to the conclusion that their declining mental faculties and limited personal investment in anything but the immediate future may be the root cause.

So if I felt sufficiently deserving of a vote, it would be to ban us all from public and military office, corporate directorships, and permanently remove our political and share holder voting rights.

Our interests should still be protected out of self-preservation by those approaching retirement age, and there would be some incentive to curry favour with the remainder by breaking the mould and actually being pleasant to others. Don't you agree?...

... Donald?

Except for the judges, at least in Britain.

However, if you look at demographic polling data, you'll notice that younger people got us into the current mess

2024 Post-Election Survey: Gender and Age Analysis of 2024 Election Results

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

However, if you look at demographic polling data, you'll notice that younger people got us into the current mess

2024 Post-Election Survey: Gender and Age Analysis of 2024 Election Results

How do you make that out? Your link shows that a significantly higher proportion of elderly voters chose Trump than those in the 28-44 age group, both men and women.

Perhaps it's the way we use representative democracy that causes the problem of advancing age within it. If our elected officials were more like a committee instead of individuals, we'd benefit from older, wiser heads while still having input from younger representatives with a more vested interest in progressive change. So many of our processes are rooted in misogyny and Christian hierarchies that glorify the individual rather than the group. We keep asking for a great leader instead of demanding fair representation of all our views.

I also think capitalist strategies favor conservatism, but only after a company has a good model in place and therefore doesn't want the applecart upset. Then they start looking for older politicians to support, with the idea of keeping things just the way they are. Perhaps a more socialist strategy could enjoy the benefits of "git wisdom" without simply putting us all out to pasture?

“Older, wiser heads” seem to be quite susceptible to manipulation - by scammers, and lies from propaganda machines. And as we get older we seem to be more set in our ways and more prone to be in denial about our condition. We decide that the young aren’t capable of informed decisions, which is backed up by science, so I think there’s an argument for doing it for the aged if there’s similar science to support it.

Voting age ranges sounds like one of those political hot potatoes that people would fight over for a long time. While I can understand the theoretical basis, disenfranchisement has not had a happy history. I also note the way it strongly punishes wise, savvy and alert octogenarians for the mental sclerosis of their peers. We've fought so long and hard to get the vote for every adult, I feel any attempts to start clawing back voting rights could go to some really bad places. Especially if it removes people from the voter rolls who have spent their lives developing better ability to judge character - old folks may lose their mental math skills and knowing where they left their keys or remembering names, but that doesn't mean they will also lose powers of judgment - and often they gain in such wisdom.

If our elected officials were more like a committee instead of individuals, we'd benefit from older, wiser heads while still having input from younger representatives with a more vested interest in progressive change.

... @Phi for All

Intentionally, I put no ban on younger heads having eminence gris advisors. Just - given an equal footing there was a saying

The strength and enthusiasm of youth is no match for the guile and treachery of old age.

Edited March 2Mar 2 by sethoflagos

It seems to me the biggest problem is ignorance rather than age. It amazes me how many people can't tell you what the parties and candidates they are voting for want to do when they get into office. Current occupant of the Oval Office is a prime example, I don't see why anyone is surprised by the things being done...

Afterthought:

The fact that 54% of voters over 50 went for Turnip in 2024, has more to do with the demographics of older Americans than a particular impairment of mind. And it's also worth noting that the 46% of older voters who voted Harris were key in states which did go for Harris. The primary increase in votes for Trump came from voters UNDER 50, not over.

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The primary increase in votes for Trump came from voters UNDER 50, not over.

The swing only reduced the differential. It got nowhere near reversing it.

13 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The swing only reduced the differential. It got nowhere near reversing it.

My point was that, had under-50 voters voted as they did in 2020, then Harris would have won. The over-50 vote didn't change much, so those in that demographic who saw through Trump still did so. Or to put it another way, younger voters greater facility for switching sides isn't always an indication of mental sharpness or openness to change: those who changed in fact were won over by an appeal to very old-school bigotries and fears.

And again, it's demographics at work: rural people tend to vote for Republicans regardless of age. And rural states have older populations. So you simply have more old folks in rural areas, because younger people have tended (until quite recently) to leave for urban areas to seek careers and further education. So when the electoral college system favors smaller population rural states, this favors Republicans. Rural people favor Trump because of rural priorities and traditions, not because they're old.

Edited March 2Mar 2 by TheVat
Hyphen, baby!

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

How do you make that out? Your link shows that a significantly higher proportion of elderly voters chose Trump than those in the 28-44 age group, both men and women.

I won't copy the charts; just the headings ...

"Harris Lost the Most Ground Relative to Biden Among the Youngest Men, Followed by the Youngest Women"

"Younger Men and Women Most Disapproved of Biden's Job Performance and Handling of the Economy"

"Younger Men Both Were More Favorable to Trump and Approved of the Job He Did as President"

IOW, it was the changes from 2020 that handed D Trump the Presidency in 2024.

X-posted with @TheVat

Edited March 2Mar 2 by MigL

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

I won't copy the charts; just the headings ...

"Harris Lost the Most Ground Relative to Biden Among the Youngest Men, Followed by the Youngest Women"

"Younger Men and Women Most Disapproved of Biden's Job Performance and Handling of the Economy"

"Younger Men Both Were More Favorable to Trump and Approved of the Job He Did as President"

IOW, it was the changes from 2020 that handed D Trump the Presidency in 2024.

X-posted with @TheVat

Same misinterpretation as @TheVat too.

The swing value for a group is specific to one election and independent of the group's typical voting characteristic.

The justification for my proposition is based on typical characteristics, not random statistical noise.

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

The swing value for a group is specific to one election and independent of the group's typical voting characteristic.

The justification for my proposition is based on typical characteristics, not random statistical noise.

TBH, I may not be as well versed in the stats as I'd like, but I was trying to address deeper characteristics here:

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

And again, it's demographics at work: rural people tend to vote for Republicans regardless of age. And rural states have older populations. So you simply have more old folks in rural areas, because younger people have tended (until quite recently) to leave for urban areas to seek careers and further education. So when the electoral college system favors smaller population rural states, this favors Republicans. Rural people favor Trump because of rural priorities and traditions, not because they're old.

Am I saying that being younger doesn't correlate with fresh ideas or openness or less rigid partisanship? Not at all. But your environment can really influence your priorities and how you define "fresh." Rural people often feel the federal government is distant, doesn't care about them, doesn't understand their apprehension about regulations or social change imposed from far away, etc. So even moderately bright people, of any age, will get sucked into the group belief that a populist candidate who's a flawed vessel (i.e. Turnip) at least sees and hears them and doesn't bring an entourage of urban elites who dismiss them as "flyover country."

One reason Harris chose Tim Walz as her VP was precisely because of that rural thihg: she hoped that his being rooted in, and understanding of, flyover country would help her ticket. And she wasn't wrong, but it just wasn't enough that year for a variety of complex reasons.

29 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Rural people often feel the federal government is distant, doesn't care about them, doesn't understand their apprehension about regulations or social change imposed from far away, etc. So even moderately bright people, of any age, will get sucked into the group belief that a populist candidate who's a flawed vessel (i.e. Turnip) at least sees and hears them and doesn't bring an entourage of urban elites who dismiss them as "flyover country."

I don't dispute this at all. But it would take a brave fellow indeed to suggest disenfranchising rural populations in general. Even if they are largely uneducated halfwits. I understand why you limit voting rights of the institutionalised mentally challenged (and the imprisoned?), but doing so for just being a bit dim is pushing it.

My OP was not specifically about the USA, it was more driven by Brexit and the rise of Reform - widely seen as being down to the uneducated and the elderly.

For me the right to vote should be matched by a willingness and ability to bear full responsibility for the consequences. (I have another similar issue with men exercising their ''rights'' to an equal voice on specifically women's issues etc.). The elderly are not in a position to meet that condition, yet in the uk at least, they nevertheless turn out in numbers and inflict hardship and financial burdens on the young out of spite.

I hope you understand that I''m playing devil's advocate to a certain extent here. I'm interested in hearing the counterarguments.

Besides the Republicans have been gerrymandering your side of the pond forever. How exactly do you intend to undo that without doing more of the same?

Edited March 3Mar 3 by sethoflagos
some issue with the quote key

If we look at voting behavior of Trump as an indicator of making a mess, the clearest differential is between men and women. Trump was 10 points up among men and Harris 10 points up among women.

Looking at Brexit data, men were 10 percent up for leave, whereas women were 2% for remain (https://www.statista.com/statistics/567922/brexit-votes-by-gender/ I do believe the age differential was higher here).

For the Reform party, 12.9% of young men voted for Reform, compared to 5.9% of young women (https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/gender-gap-strongest-at-opposite-ends-of-political-spectrum-in-the-2024-general-election.)

In Germany, AFD was at 22% with men, compared to 16% with women.

So clearly, we should disenfranchise penises until they settle down and make rational decisions.

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So clearly, we should disenfranchise penises until they settle down and make rational decisions.

Again, a brave move. I would prefer my angry pursuing mobs to be slowed by Zimmer frames.

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If we look at voting behavior of Trump as an indicator of making a mess, the clearest differential is between men and women. Trump was 10 points up among men and Harris 10 points up among women.

Looking at Brexit data, men were 10 percent up for leave, whereas women were 2% for remain (https://www.statista.com/statistics/567922/brexit-votes-by-gender/ I do believe the age differential was higher here).

For the Reform party, 12.9% of young men voted for Reform, compared to 5.9% of young women (https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/gender-gap-strongest-at-opposite-ends-of-political-spectrum-in-the-2024-general-election.)

And again more of a swing effect than a long term characteristic. I'd be tempted to put this down to the failure of the major progressive parties in both the US and UK to offer candidates with charisma and strong leadership qualities (compare Obama, Blair). Definite shortcomings on the testicular front.

4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

For me the right to vote should be matched by a willingness and ability to bear full responsibility for the consequences ... The elderly are not in a position to meet that condition

Given that electoral terms are only a few years, and even old people expect to be still alive after the one they're voting in has completed, to suggest that old people no longer have a stake in the outcome of an election is wrong. A fundamental problem with democracy is that the majority don't always act in the interest of minorities and often act contrary to that interest, so to disenfranchise a minority only exacerbates that problem.

4 hours ago, KJW said:

Given that electoral terms are only a few years, and even old people expect to be still alive after the one they're voting in has completed, to suggest that old people no longer have a stake in the outcome of an election is wrong.

Cycle times vary, but most serious policy initiatives (eg housing, public health, educational standards) are generational in their impact. The elderly are going to be spared the full burden of climate change. But their grandchildren will be paying the price.

4 hours ago, KJW said:

A fundamental problem with democracy is that the majority don't always act in the interest of minorities and often act contrary to that interest, so to disenfranchise a minority only exacerbates that problem.

The logic of this one escapes me. Minorities will always be reliant on the good will of the majority (unless they control the military). Are we looking to give toddlers the vote here?

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps it's the way we use representative democracy that causes the problem of advancing age within it. If our elected officials were more like a committee instead of individuals, we'd benefit from older, wiser heads while still having input from younger representatives with a more vested interest in progressive change. So many of our processes are rooted in misogyny and Christian hierarchies that glorify the individual rather than the group. We keep asking for a great leader instead of demanding fair representation of all our views.

I also think capitalist strategies favor conservatism, but only after a company has a good model in place and therefore doesn't want the applecart upset. Then they start looking for older politicians to support, with the idea of keeping things just the way they are. Perhaps a more socialist strategy could enjoy the benefits of "git wisdom" without simply putting us all out to pasture?

Societies tend to follow the same ageing pattern, as we get older we become more fearful of losing what we've got bc we're comfortable with what we've got and can't imagine life without <insert imagined/emotional need>.

+1 BTW

@sethoflagos Disenfranchiseing in a democracy is always a bad idea, it's one step further down the wrong path.

What we need, is legislation to prevent this happening.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

The logic of this one escapes me. Minorities will always be reliant on the good will of the majority (unless they control the military). Are we looking to give toddlers the vote here?

We should be, if we want a fair democracy, logically.

Statistically, the herd is more, intelligent/often right than the expert.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Cycle times vary, but most serious policy initiatives (eg housing, public health, educational standards) are generational in their impact.

I think that's as much about class as anything else, although there is the "first in, best dressed" aspect as well. Bear in mind that the life of the elderly wasn't easy when they were young, either.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

The elderly are going to be spared the full burden of climate change. But their grandchildren will be paying the price.

That's not a reason to deny the elderly the vote for the short time they have left.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Minorities will always be reliant on the good will of the majority

That's why I said it was a fundamental problem. Although minorities having a vote doesn't prevent their interests from being trampled on, at least a vote gives them some sort of voice which would be silenced if they were disenfranchised.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Are we looking to give toddlers the vote here?

No, I'm looking to stop the disenfranchisement of the elderly.

49 minutes ago, KJW said:

I think that's as much about class as anything else, although there is the "first in, best dressed" aspect as well. Bear in mind that the life of the elderly wasn't easy when they were young, either.

That's not a reason to deny the elderly the vote for the short time they have left.

That's why I said it was a fundamental problem. Although minorities having a vote doesn't prevent their interests from being trampled on, at least a vote gives them some sort of voice which would be silenced if they were disenfranchised.

No, I'm looking to stop the disenfranchisement of the elderly.

So, what's wrong with giving toddlers a vote?

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

And again more of a swing effect than a long term characteristic. I'd be tempted to put this down to the failure of the major progressive parties in both the US and UK to offer candidates with charisma and strong leadership qualities (compare Obama, Blair).

There is a worrying trend regarding the influence of the manosphere. Especially the right has utilized these worldviews and its surrounding media system to big political effect. What I am wondering about is whether that is just a short-term swing or potentially a long-term development. The tea party was a weird swing, until it became a fixture and seed for something worse, for example.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

@sethoflagos Disenfranchiseing in a democracy is always a bad idea, it's one step further down the wrong path.

What we need, is legislation to prevent this happening.

Three statements, all presented without a shred of supporting jjustification. What do you expect me to say?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, what's wrong with giving toddlers a vote? o

A ravenous horde demanding a continuous supply of free cake? Not really in society's best interests I think. They would fail to recognise or understand the consequences of their actions.

3 hours ago, KJW said:

I think that's as much about class as anything else, although there is the "first in, best dressed" aspect as well. Bear in mind that the life of the elderly wasn't easy when they were young, either.

Being one of them, I remember it quite well. Free health care, free primary/secondary/tertiary education, and the genuine prospect of stable permanent employment. My, how we suffered!

3 hours ago, KJW said:

  4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

The elderly are going to be spared the full burden of climate change. But their grandchildren will be paying the price.

That's not a reason to deny the elderly the vote for the short time they have left.

Those future generations are denied a vote in the matter. My proposal is very much in line with protecting their best interests.

3 hours ago, KJW said:

No, I'm looking to stop the disenfranchisement of the elderly.

See earlier comment regarding "A ravenous horde demanding a continuous supply of free cake".

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is a worrying trend regarding the influence of the manosphere. Especially the right has utilized these worldviews and its surrounding media system to big political effect. What I am wondering about is whether that is just a short-term swing or potentially a long-term development. The tea party was a weird swing, until it became a fixture and seed for something worse, for example.

Fortunately (I think), I have no understanding of what you are referring to here. There are some things I'm happy to remain blissfully unaware of. 🙂