13 hours ago, CharonY said:

we should disenfranchise penises

Not penises.
We should disenfranchise 'dicks'.

Every once in a while I hear the 'Democracy would be improve if" argument.
Along with old people I've heard that ;ow IQ ,and uneducated ( general or of the issues ) people shouldn't vote, immigrants ( although they pay taxes ) shouldn't vote, visible minorities shouldn't vote, women shouldn't vote, etc.
Essentially anyone who has a difference of opinion to the person making the argument should not get a vote.

For me, the best Democracy is one where I'm the only voter.
Oh wait ... that's not Democracy; it's a dictatoeship !

16 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. (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?

I do get that you're playing DA here for stimulation of discourse, and am enjoying some of the responses. Also learning a Zimmer frame is limeyspeak for a walker, so that's a good TIL for me. I thought to explore @CharonY proposal to disenfranchise penises, but there are simply too many bad jokes crowding out other thoughts, so have to move past that. (Though it could help to solve inflation?) (Dammit. Moving. On.)

I do recognize that old voters can, even with kind intent, impose policy hardships on the younger, and I wish I saw a practical approach to this. If everyone in the USA around my age had been a treehugging flower child (like me, sort of), then our descendants would at least have us a voting bloc for renewable energy, eco cleanups, social justice, peaceful geopolitics, no or few nukes, organic farming, etc. I.e. the stuff they need more than we do. But that didn't happen, and people seem to have lost some grip on the Social Contract, in which elders are supposed to be humble and caring servants of future generations. I realize this walks me right into a social malaise rant, where I chastise my peers for selling out to late stage capitalism and having a poverty of spirit. A useless tack, since the topic is how to make better voters. Back later.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Along with old people I've heard that ;ow IQ ,and uneducated ( general or of the issues ) people shouldn't vote, immigrants ( although they pay taxes ) shouldn't vote, visible minorities shouldn't vote, women shouldn't vote, etc.
Essentially anyone who has a difference of opinion to the person making the argument should not get a vote.

For me, the best Democracy is one where I'm the only voter.

I think this is probably the lead in to the best counterargument. Each section of society has to fight for its slice of political power. And once gained, it must wield that political power to maintain it. Once in place, removal of that power becomes impossible except by force of insurrection.

Ethics doesn't come into it, it's realpolitik.

I should add that all of us, participating in this discussion, are old.
( except maybe npts2020, Dimreepr and CharonY; I have no idea of their ages )

Yet we all care about how we leave this world for our grandkids, we all value certain aspects of social co-habitation on this world above capitalistic profits, and, at least in my case, vote according to the issues, not ideologies.
And we're even all ( reasonably; I'm Italian ) white.
What we do have in common is a higher education and 'global' viewpoints.
And there are many older persons who think like us, which tends to disprove the notion that the root cause for the world's ills is old people.

I think you'll need to dig a bit deeper for the root cause of the world's deteriorating condition.

Edited March 3Mar 3 by MigL

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I think you'll need to dig a bit deeper for the root cause of the world's deteriorating condition.

My searches these days are somewhat less ambitious.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

If everyone in the USA around my age had been a treehugging flower child (like me, sort of), then our descendants would at least have us a voting bloc for renewable energy, eco cleanups, social justice, peaceful geopolitics, no or few nukes, organic farming, etc. I.e. the stuff they need more than we do. But that didn't happen, and people seem to have lost some grip on the Social Contract, in which elders are supposed to be humble and caring servants of future generations. I realize this walks me right into a social malaise rant, where I chastise my peers for selling out to late stage capitalism and having a poverty of spirit.

@TheVat gets where I'm coming from.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Not penises.
We should disenfranchise 'dicks'.

Fair, also to the other points. However, I will add that democracy as an institution is not guaranteed, while it shouldn't disenfranchise any group, there is the inherent risk that folks that are clearly anti-democratic can be voted into power. And that, too leads to dictatorship.

6 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

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. 🙂

OK, since I had to suffer through articles about it, I feel compelled to share that with you so that we can suffer together.

Essentially there is a somewhat weird movement among young men, which tries to create a new form of masculinity, which is strongly associated with right-wing, populist, anti-feminist and to various degree racist ideals. The core of the ideology is that masculinity is in crisis and feminism is to blame. That movement is propagated mostly via the internet by, what I understand, very popular influencers and podcasters. Originally a fringe movement, it has not only become mainstream, but has become part of many right and far right political movements, including MAGA, but also internationally.

For example in the UK pupils have been exposed to such influencers and female teachers have trouble teaching young boys:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/19/world/europe/andrew-tate-uk-teachers.html

In recent months, Ms. Stanton said, students have started bringing up Mr. Tate in class. They extol his wealth and fast cars. And for the first time in her 20 years of teaching, her 11- to 16-year-old students have challenged her for working and asked if she had her husband’s permission.

She has heard students talk casually about rape. “As the only woman in the room, I felt uncomfortable,” she said. Once, a student asked her if she was going to cry. At home, even her own three sons seemed to defend Mr. Tate.

“He is brainwashing a generation of boys, and it’s very frightening,” she said. “They seem to think he is right. He’s right because he’s rich.”

In the Midlands, Nathan Robertson, a specialist who works with students who need additional support, said that in the past year, he had regularly heard Mr. Tate broadcasting from students’ smartphones. Many in a class of 14- and 15-year-olds he worked with cited Mr. Tate as a role model. When the topic of abortion came up in class, boys began laughing, he said, and called feminism poisonous. Some said that women did not have any rights and that men should make decisions for them.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

the notion that the root cause for the world's ills is old people.

I think to some degree it used to be true. You mentioned higher education, but historically only few had the privilege of getting exposed to that. More commonly, older folks resisted social change, including those that could benefit the younger generation. The way to move things their way often was to wait for generational change.

I think in recent times these notions have shifted. One is the growing gender divide, that I half-jokingly mentioned, but in the Western world it has been an almost universal phenomenon. Younger folks and again, especially men, for the first time seem to become more conservative and more aligned with social ideals (such as regarding gender roles). While that it is in itself not necessarily bad, the manifestations have become increasingly toxic (as e.g. the manosphere mentioned above), but also, in conjunction with modern media consumption, just increasingly stupid.

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

OK, since I had to suffer through articles about it, I feel compelled to share that with you so that we can suffer together.

🙈🙉🙊

If @sethoflagos had said filthy rich people are ruining the world for our children, I would have agreed.
Maybe he's making the correlation that most rich people are older.

But increasingly we have young Billionaires who are devoid of morals, seek inly more wealth, and don't give a damn about anyone else.
I attribute this to younger people's increased consumption of social media, and influencers ( as you mentioned ).
Old people ( except types like us ) usually have little internet exposure.

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

If @sethoflagos had said filthy rich people are ruining the world for our children, I would have agreed.

To easy. I see no virtue in preaching to the converted.

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe he's making the correlation that most rich people are older.

Is there such a correlation? Maybe. But I'm more invested in who is enabling the wealthy to increase their political control.

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

Old people ( except types like us ) usually have little internet exposure.

In the UK at least, the legacy media is more toxic than ever.

47 minutes ago, CharonY said:

For example in the UK pupils have been exposed to such influencers and female teachers have trouble teaching young boys:

A chilling example. And one that points to the Australian model, where children below a certain age are legally blocked from social media. Let educators and parents and RW mentors reach children before the Andrew Tates do.

This actually suggests one respect in which the dotard bloc might have something to contribute, as they keenly recall the world pre-internet. Not all conservative forces are regressive, if they foster healthy distrust of bro influencers, AI slop, crypto-fascist subcultures, etc.

Now I must recover from your link and do the sensorily deprived monkeys. Phew!

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

A chilling example. And one that points to the Australian model, where children below a certain age are legally blocked from social media. Let educators and parents and RW mentors reach children before the Andrew Tates do.

This actually suggests one respect in which the dotard bloc might have something to contribute, as they keenly recall the world pre-internet. Not all conservative forces are regressive, if they foster healthy distrust of bro influencers, AI slop, crypto-fascist subcultures, etc.

Now I must recover from your link and do the sensorily deprived monkeys. Phew!

While a step in the right direction, I fear that it does not go far enough, and there have been issues regarding enforcement. Nonetheless I am looking forward to see how things develop and at minimum it shows some reaction to things.

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

Old people ( except types like us ) usually have little internet exposure.

Percentage-wise, perhaps (or at least less so than younger folks). However, quite a few are on social media (pre-pandemic data on folks over 65 was a bit less than 50%). However, it turns out that older folks (and also the younger ones, it is a bit of a biphasic distribution) are also more likely to share misinformation.

A weird thing is that folks that are GenX and Millenials are those who are the most tech savvy, and especially older as well as younger folks are more susceptible to misinformation and scams. Or rather, it is pretty much expected, due to the way tech has changed.

24 minutes ago, TheVat said:

as they keenly recall the world pre-internet. Not all conservative forces are regressive, if they foster healthy distrust of bro influencers, AI slop, crypto-fascist subcultures, etc.

It is somewhat interesting to look at perception of far-right parties among older folks in different countries. For example, the German Nazi-wannabe party (AfD) has the lowest votes among folks 70+ (10%), peaking around ages 35-44 and going down again. But folks 18-24 are voting far right with similar frequency as 45-59 year olds, but they also vote with a much larger frequency to the leftist party. I.e. the are on the extremes on both ends, whereas the oldest folks are generally more voting for center or center-right parties.

I suspect that this is related to the fact that the oldest generations still have impressions from the post-war era, whereas for many others the lessons of the past have sadly faded.

In the UK, which OP was about, the distribution is more"traditional" with the Reform Party favoured substantially more by the older segment. But many other European countries have lower support for the far right among the oldest bracket, but a peak somewhere around 35-60. I.e. folks that should fall under the more tech savvy generation. That is all to say, I suspect some of the traditional wisdom regarding age and voting behaviour has gone straight out of the window.

21 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

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.

Everyone thinks they're correct and no one really understands the consequences of their action's; like in poker, and you get pocket ace's and a fish (bad player) to catch, so you go all in knowing they call everything. We turn the card's and my grin widens, he's got 10 3 off suit (snigger, what an idiot), the flop is 3 3 3.

I previously mentioned, the well reseached, herd intelligence, for instance a herd of wildebeest (perhaps the least intelligent individual animal) is far more successful, statistically, at crossing a crocodile infested river than the more intelligent zebra.

If we want herd intelligence to work in the best interest of our society, then we need the whole herd to vote, in spite of intellectual capacity.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Everyone thinks they're correct and no one really understands the consequences of their action's; like in poker, and you get pocket ace's and a fish (bad player) to catch, so you go all in knowing they call everything. We turn the card's and my grin widens, he's got 10 3 off suit (snigger, what an idiot), the flop is 3 3 3.

Sounds like a gross and dubious generalisation supported by unintelligible babble.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I previously mentioned, the well reseached, herd intelligence, for instance a herd of wildebeest (perhaps the least intelligent individual animal) is far more successful, statistically, at crossing a crocodile infested river than the more intelligent zebra.

If we want herd intelligence to work in the best interest of our society, then we need the whole herd to vote, in spite of intellectual capacity.

The members of the herd all have a common objective, therefore this is a false analogy.

Have you spent much time with wildebeest? I have. They're not so dim.

3 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Sounds like a gross and dubious generalisation supported by unintelligible babble.

The members of the herd all have a common objective, therefore this is a false analogy.

Have you spent much time with wildebeest? I have. They're not so dim.

So, whats your argument?

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, whats your argument?

As stated previously...

On 3/3/2026 at 2:15 AM, sethoflagos said:

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...

Hence the interests of future generations (who are in large part disenfranchised), may be best served by disenfranchisement of the gerontocracy that abuses them.

3 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

As stated previously...

Hence the interests of future generations (who are in large part disenfranchised), may be best served by disenfranchisement of the gerontocracy that abuses them.

As previously stated, your argument is, old people are too stupid to vote.

All I'm saying is, toddlers are just as stupid, but will balance old stupidity with a youthful version of stupid.

I imagine the number of spoiled ballots is roughly equal...

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

As previously stated, your argument is, old people are too stupid to vote.

Straw man. I said no such thing and you know it.

Just now, sethoflagos said:

Straw man. I said no such thing and you know it.

It wasn't me that suggested we disenfranchise those we don't trust...

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It wasn't me that suggested we disenfranchise those we don't trust...

Non sequitur.

It is you, however, who is once again attempting to derail a thread with one fallacy after another.

2 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Non sequitur.

It is you, however, who is once again attempting to derail a thread with one fallacy after another.

What fallacy?

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What fallacy?

Denialism this time.

On 3/2/2026 at 8:15 PM, sethoflagos said:

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.

To the extent that they are not facing disenfranchisement barriers, the fact that the younger crowd does not turn out in greater numbers suggests that they are not willing to bear full responsibility for those consequences.

(I know they do face barriers in the US, and would be happy to vote to launch the disenfranchisers into the sun)

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It wasn't me that suggested we disenfranchise those we don't trust...

Who did? This is the only time “trust” appeared in the thread.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

To the extent that they are not facing disenfranchisement barriers, the fact that the younger crowd does not turn out in greater numbers suggests that they are not willing to bear full responsibility for those consequences.

... or apathy, disillusion etc.

12 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

... or apathy, disillusion etc.

Which are examples of abandoning the social contract.

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which are examples of abandoning the social contract.

I don't know the UK 18-40 age group well enough to comment. I think my daughter votes responsibly, but like me, my son is long-term non-resident.

Younger generations, particularly those yet to be born, obviously get a free pass on the social contract.

Isn't there a whiff of whataboutism in this line of enquiry? The OP is simply asking whether our age group, those who really should know best of all, are able to justify continuation of their voting rights with a better argument than "Snot fair!"