• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Voting Age 16?

You know you've got a winning argument about teenagers having the right to vote when you're pulling an argument to absurdity that involves giving toddlers guns and alcohol.
I used your own argument about gatekeeping. If you think it's stupid, then I'd ask why you used it.
If you consider that somehow "teenagers" are different from "infants", then please tell us how you differentiate between them and how it's not gatekeeping, and how it's different than to differentiate between "teenagers" and "adults".
 
I used your own argument about gatekeeping. If you think it's stupid, then I'd ask why you used it.
If you consider that somehow "teenagers" are different from "infants", then please tell us how you differentiate between them and how it's not gatekeeping, and how it's different than to differentiate between "teenagers" and "adults".

I took your point to mean in principal we probably agree some age restrictions are fine in concept.

The devil is in the details.
 
I used your own argument about gatekeeping. If you think it's stupid, then I'd ask why you used it.
If you consider that somehow "teenagers" are different from "infants", then please tell us how you differentiate between them and how it's not gatekeeping, and how it's different than to differentiate between "teenagers" and "adults".
You took my argument about one thing and changed it completely to mean another. It's like saying "let's ban all forum users" because somebody supports the existence of forum moderation. It's nonsensical, bad faith, and I've spent too long wasting my time on that kind of stuff. So no thanks. Either put in the work to debate honestly, or don't bother :)

EDIT

That was harsh, it's not really nonsensical. I understand why you're arriving at this conclusion. But it's still bad faith, unless you literally can't work out why toddlers with guns isn't analogous to lowering the voting age by a couple of years.
 
I took your point to mean in principal we probably agree some age restrictions are fine in concept.

The devil is in the details.
We all obviously agree that people can be too young to be responsible, and as such some age limit need to be implemented that we collectively consider adequate for benefitting from rights and duties.
And in fact we already have several age limits for several aspects in society (for example, here we have sexual majority at 15, voting rights at 18, but you can only drive a full motorbike at 21).
I just think it would be better to rationalize it in three broad categories rather than a flurry of different cases, just as I think having a single point where you're considered as fully irresponsible before and then fully responsible after simply doesn't fit how humans work.
You took my argument about one thing and changed it completely to mean another. It's like saying "let's ban all forum users" because somebody supports the existence of forum moderation. It's nonsensical, bad faith, and I've spent too long wasting my time on that kind of stuff. So no thanks. Either put in the work to debate honestly, or don't bother :)
You stole my lines here, maybe apply your own lessons before trying to lecture about them.
 
Last edited:
You stole my lines here, maybe apply your own lessons before trying to lecture about them.
Nice deflection, but no, I didn't. I appreciate this is your go-to defensive reaction but I'm kind of tired of it these days, so let's break it down.

You cited some generally-known research on brain development, segmented adults and young adults into rough stages of development, and ended with the conclusion of "It's clearly a bad idea to lower even more majority age" (your exact words). I replied saying that gatekeeping (in the context of voting, as the sentence literally talks about voting, and not something like gun rights that I might just maybe have a different opinion on) can be abused. Even with noble intentions (i.e. yours or anyone else who thinks there is a fair and logical argument to not lowering the age).

Your arguments against 16 year olds voting applies equally to anyone under an average age (based on brain development, general education, political biases, and so on). And they will be applied that way, unless you suddenly trust all political parties to always act in your best interests (and the fact we generally favour a subset of political parties and their direction for our respective countries - even if we're picking the least bad - suggests we don't trust all political parties to not abuse this).

But beyond the abuse, it's simply unfair to suggest that a 40 year old far-right conspiracy theorist is more entitled to a vote than a 16 year old going through higher education. You're repeating arguments already made and countered in this very thread - that the limit is acceptable because kids basically aren't smart enough / don't know the right things in order to vote properly. This is something humanity suffers from. Should there ultimately be a lower limit on the voting age? Sure. But the thread is generally discussing lowering the voting age from 18 (generally) to 16 (generally). I wasn't saying "toddlers should vote", which is exactly why your line of attack here is bad faith. You didn't stop to even bother to consider a rational argument. You assumed a strawman and took it from there.

Enjoy the lecture! I'm tired of your bad faith dismissive attitude whenever people challenge your arguments. You know I've spent more than enough time understanding your point of view, and the fact you continually at the drop of a hat resort to these silly exaggerations of my arguments (and those of others) suggests you have no interest in doing the same.

EDIT

It gets better!
Some people just play dumb about it.
No, the phrase you're looking for is "people disagree". No wonder I'm not getting through to you, if you wander in here assuming people disagreeing over a good minimum age for voting are just "playing dumb".

Everybody knows toddlers shouldn't play with knifes (or have sex, or drink alcohol, or ride motorbikes). We're not discussing toddlers playing with knives (or whatever). For someone who spends half the Ukraine thread calling out deflection and other stuff (that does happen, I agree with you), it's wild to see you diving headfirst into it here. If you honestly think people are "playing dumb", then you're just not putting the work in to honestly understand peoples' positions. And that's a you problem, not anyone elses'.

EDIT2 - ah, you released your mistake and took that "play dumb" line back. Fair enough, even if you didn't make it obvious.
 
Last edited:
You cited some generally-known research on brain development, segmented adults and young adults into rough stages of development, and ended with the conclusion of "It's clearly a bad idea to lower even more majority age" (your exact words). I replied saying that gatekeeping (in the context of voting, as the sentence literally talks about voting, and not something like gun rights that I might just maybe have a different opinion on) can be abused. Even with noble intentions (i.e. yours or anyone else who thinks there is a fair and logical argument to not lowering the age).

Your arguments against 16 year olds voting applies equally to anyone under an average age (based on brain development, general education, political biases, and so on). And they will be applied that way, unless you suddenly trust all political parties to always act in your best interests (and the fact we generally favour a subset of political parties and their direction for our respective countries - even if we're picking the least bad - suggests we don't trust all political parties to not abuse this).

But beyond the abuse, it's simply unfair to suggest that a 40 year old far-right conspiracy theorist is more entitled to a vote than a 16 year old going through higher education. You're repeating arguments already made and countered in this very thread - that the limit is acceptable because kids basically aren't smart enough / don't know the right things in order to vote properly. This is something humanity suffers from.
Yes, humanity as a whole suffers from this (or I wouldn't be so f-ing tired that I have little to no patience left to argue), but regardless we still overall agree that :
Should there ultimately be a lower limit on the voting age? Sure.
At which point the whole "gatekeeping" sounds pretty hollow, because your own sentence recognizes that YES, kids on the whole aren't smart/mature/knowledgeable enough to be entrusted with rights and duties. So okay, how do you synthethize the first and the second quote ?

Also the thing is, lower age limits ARE gatekeeping in themselves. That's the whole point. Gatekeeping is not necessarily wrong.
But the thread is generally discussing lowering the voting age from 18 (generally) to 16 (generally). I wasn't saying "toddlers should vote", which is exactly why your line of attack here is bad faith. You didn't stop to even bother to consider a rational argument. You assumed a strawman and took it from there.
You argued that gatekeeping can be abused and that anyone can be badly informed or taking bad decision at any stage of life. Both are arguments against the idea of age limit itself, but you nevertheless agree that some lower age limit is self-evident. What exactly was the rational argument provided then ? Because frankly, from my PoV, you were just being contrarian for the sake of it.

And speaking of strawmen, you were the one comparing my points about maturity and age limit with preventing people to vote because smoking, so again, spare me the lecture from the glass house.
Everybody knows toddlers shouldn't play with knifes (or have sex, or drink alcohol, or ride motorbikes). We're not discussing toddlers playing with knives (or whatever).
At which point I'd say :
1) "everybody knows" also that teenagers are immature. If we can hold as self-evident that toddlers shouldn't play with knifes because they don't realize they can hurt themselves, why wouldn't we also hold as self-evident that teenagers shouldn't vote because they don't have the maturity to make informed decisions ?

2) At some point, you hold self-evident that a toddler will grow up, get some more awareness and then should be able to use a knife without hurting himself. The same reasoning can also be held for a teenager about voting. But you seem to consider the first obvious, and the second "gatekeeping". Why ?
 
At which point the whole "gatekeeping" sounds pretty hollow, because your own sentence recognizes that YES, kids on the whole aren't smart/mature/knowledgeable enough to be entrusted with rights and duties. So okay, how do you synthethize the first and the second quote ?

Also the thing is, lower age limits ARE gatekeeping in themselves. That's the whole point. Gatekeeping is not necessarily wrong.
Right, but in the context specifically of lowing the voting age from 18 to 16 (as per the thread title and the vast majority of the discussion)? That's the difference.

Again, it's like saying I support giving toddlers knives when I'm suggesting that 16 year olds should get kitchen training (hypothetical, but whatever). One is not the same as the other. Opposing gatekeeping in-context is not the same as saying that anyone of any age can vote.
You argued that gatekeeping can be abused and that anyone can be badly informed or taking bad decision at any stage of life. Both are arguments against the idea of age limit itself, but you nevertheless agree that some lower age limit is self-evident. What exactly was the rational argument provided then ? Because frankly, from my PoV, you were just being contrarian for the sake of it.
And this is the problem. Assuming others are being contrarian for the sake of it, but getting aggrieved when others treat you with the same attitude (which you do, you have a low tolerance for folks being rude to you). It's tiring, and I'm past tired of it. Heck, even if you didn't get upset when it was done to you, it's been going on so long now that I'd still be tired of it.

You not seeing my conclusion shouldn't make you pivot to "he's being contrarian". Certainly not time after time after time after time. If I haven't been able to establish that we can disagree civilly at this point, I'll never be able to, and I should stop trying. Should I?

As for the actual argument, yes, I agree that there is some fundamental age limit, but I disagree that 16 is too young. It's as simple as that. They're not the same things. Assuming that someone isn't "mature" enough to vote at 16 isn't the same kind of risk scenario as assuming someone isn't mature enough to vote at 5. See: knives. We let kids work at 16, for example. Nobody's suggesting we let 5 year olds work. It's a ludicrous appeal to absurdity, and I treat it as such.

Could we then make the same argument for 14 year olds? Possibly! I haven't given the lower boundary too much thought. I've been focusing on 16 as per the thread title and general discussion. Trying to gotcha me with toddler this and that is just going to make me roll my eyes excessively. If you want to try and argue something that I'm not arguing, don't be surprised when I don't want to deal with it.
And speaking of strawmen, you were the one comparing my points about maturity and age limit with preventing people to vote because smoking, so again, spare me the lecture from the glass house.
I wasn't comparing it in the way that I was putting words into your mouth, I was giving a realistic scenario of something that was close, but not too far to be considered a slippery slope. Do you trust your politicians to do a good job of this? Do you trust your administration, or any future administration, to take your idea (of applying some kind of tiered qualifications to being "grown up" / mature) and do a good and fair job of implementing it? I don't trust mine to. This underpins one half of my opposition to the idea. The other half is the argument about how informed adults are, which I've covered above.

This is what I meant by bad faith. You didn't assume I was debating in good faith from the offset, despite my post being incredibly reasonable and taking your suggestions at face value without any negative intent.
At which point I'd say :
1) "everybody knows" also that teenagers are immature. If we can hold as self-evident that toddlers shouldn't play with knifes because they don't realize they can hurt themselves, why wouldn't we also hold as self-evident that teenagers shouldn't vote because they don't have the maturity to make informed decisions ?

2) At some point, you hold self-evident that a toddler will grow up, get some more awareness and then should be able to use a knife without hurting himself. The same reasoning can also be held for a teenager about voting. But you seem to consider the first obvious, and the second "gatekeeping". Why ?
The same reasoning does not hold, because we're not discussing remotely equivalent things. Nobody is seriously discussing toddlers with knives. Teenagers voting is a completely separate thing. It should be treated as separate, instead of as some kind of equivalent logical exercise. They're not interchangeable, the law around each case isn't interchangeable, the consequences of both are not the same, and so on, and so forth. The same lessons aren't learned in either case.
 
No one's actually established 16 is actually a good idea.

The argument they're using can also be applied to any type of age limit eg alcohol purchases (18), drivers license (16 was 15), retirement age (65).

All they've established is it's worth looking at and they need to justify it if they keep it at 18.
I don't understand why the onus is on those who want to keep things the same as opposed to those who want to change it but I guess things work differently in NZ.
In my mind, the justification the parliament could give to the court is: "because that is what we decided". Maybe that will be sufficient for the court.
This does and should matter to 16-year-olds, because some people do graduate high school at that age. I did.
I'm sure there are many youngsters who can decide and vote like adults. But to me, that is proof that those individuals should petition for some sort of exemption in their case to be able to vote (if such a thing would ever be possible) rather than the threshold being lowered for everyone regardless.
 
I can't see it getting any further in AU than the idea being recently floated by the Greens.
 
I'm sure there are many youngsters who can decide and vote like adults. But to me, that is proof that those individuals should petition for some sort of exemption in their case to be able to vote (if such a thing would ever be possible) rather than the threshold being lowered for everyone regardless.
Thought exercise: why are adults automatically exempt from this proposal? What defines deciding and voting like an adult? Is it people who vote for the same party as me? Is it people who vote for the things I find sensible? Where is this seemingly-arbitrary qualifier of voting like an adult (specifically when it comes to voting)?
 
16 year olds are mostly too ignorant and hormone deluded to be responsible voters. 18 is not much better, but since we recruit them for military service, we need to let them vote.

Unless you have some other connected criteria, age cut offs (at the top or bottom) are completely arbitrary. Many elderly are quite mentally excellent well past 70 and your selection of such a number is rooted in some other agenda. :p So unless we get into testing, an upper age limits is probably not useful. We do test the elderly for driving.

Pretty hilarious how your tone changed between these posts. I'd rather be governed by hormone-addled teenagers than live in the skeletal grip of geriatrics whose political activity is all concerned with preserving their unearned advantages but what do I know
 
Also if your go-to about being cool involves the chess scene

My go to about being cool involved demonstration to peers that one is capable. Chess was summoned to demonstrate possibility and rarity of intellectual ability at a very early age. I accept your good will coming into this one even though chess and cool didn’t intersect in the manner you propose.

Doesn't matter what you were offering, the point is arbitrary standards (which is what ruling on political understanding is when based solely on age) are discriminatory by default.

And? A lot of things are discriminatory, I am fine with that. Are you not? We don’t let mentally ill people pilot planes. Oh the horror of discrimination against the mentally ill! The lines were drawn in the past: 18 to vote. Fine by me. Some smart kids can find their way to become early voters, Sounds good too. If they can prove their capability - even better.

If someone is 30 and couldn't pass the test, but gets to vote anyway, what's the difference between them and a 16 year old?

The difference becomes visible when instead of comparing a dumb 16 year old to a dumb 30 year old you compare (1 million) 16 year olds to (1 million) 30 year olds. Which group can demonstrate superior knowledge, experience, self control, conscientiousness. Common knowledge has it that at 18 one is more or less ready to take part in political life, this knowledge, based on local experience, is very consistent throughout the world. I understand you want to change that? You’ll need a very strong argument.
 
And? A lot of things are discriminatory, I am fine with that. Are you not? We don’t let mentally ill people pilot planes. Oh the horror of discrimination against the mentally ill! The lines were drawn in the past: 18 to vote. Fine by me. Some smart kids can find their way to become early voters, Sounds good too. If they can prove their capability - even better.
The difference becomes visible when instead of comparing a dumb 16 year old to a dumb 30 year old you compare (1 million) 16 year olds to (1 million) 30 year olds. Which group can demonstrate superior knowledge, experience, self control, conscientiousness. Common knowledge has it that at 18 one is more or less ready to take part in political life, this knowledge, based on local experience, is very consistent throughout the world. I understand you want to change that? You’ll need a very strong argument.
Needing a "very strong argument" (whatever your threshold for this is) to convince you doesn't mean I need a very strong argument generally. It just means you're predisposed to thinking less of younger people and weirdly not any other demographic that can be adequately-generalised as "ready to take part in political life". I can't change that predisposition, but I can quite easily demonstrate demographics that completely fail at voting sensibly.

But then, it depends how we define it. It would be better, I think, if people could demonstrate why they think young people aren't ready to take part in political life, and how they (including you) judge this. Because at this point it seems little more than a self-serving tautology. People don't magically turn 18 and know how to vote. Maturation varies per-person. People diminish mentally as they get older, and we don't discriminate against them.

I'm not a fan of "well that's just how things are, and therefore that means it must've been for a good reason" kind of circular logic that seems to be going on. It's not self-evident to me that a 16 year old will make worse political decisions than a 70 year old, or a 30 year old right-wing extremist (imo).
 
Pretty hilarious how your tone changed between these posts. I'd rather be governed by hormone-addled teenagers than live in the skeletal grip of geriatrics whose political activity is all concerned with preserving their unearned advantages but what do I know
So what is your solution to the issue?
 
So what is your solution to the issue?
There isn't a correct solution. Whatever age is decided on will be an arbitrary dividing line disqualifying some who would be capable of making a mature decision and allowing some who aren't capable of doing that to vote. We should be honest about that.
 
Thought exercise: why are adults automatically exempt from this proposal? What defines deciding and voting like an adult? Is it people who vote for the same party as me? Is it people who vote for the things I find sensible? Where is this seemingly-arbitrary qualifier of voting like an adult (specifically when it comes to voting)?

What defines eligibility, period? In Canada, you have to be at least 18, a Canadian citizen, and resident in the riding where you want to vote (length of residency varies depending on if federal, provincial, or municipal). There's an airhead on FB who insists that having permanent resident status allows her to vote, but that is utter BS. It doesn't. Mind you, she also insists that only people with children have a say in educational matters, which is also utter BS. I pointed out that if she had ever voted in a municipal election, she would know that people who cast school board ballots are asked if they want the public ballot or the separate (Catholic) ballot. They are never asked if they are parents (which would be absurd - since many teachers don't have children, should they lose their right to a school board ballot because of that?).

And? A lot of things are discriminatory, I am fine with that. Are you not? We don’t let mentally ill people pilot planes. Oh the horror of discrimination against the mentally ill! The lines were drawn in the past: 18 to vote. Fine by me. Some smart kids can find their way to become early voters, Sounds good too. If they can prove their capability - even better.

Common knowledge has it that at 18 one is more or less ready to take part in political life, this knowledge, based on local experience, is very consistent throughout the world. I understand you want to change that? You’ll need a very strong argument.

And how would they prove their capability? I had to point out to my grandmother that voting for a woman as mayor just because she was a woman was not a good enough reason. Yes, she would have been the first woman mayor we'd had, but before voting, we needed more information. So I told her I was going to the all-candidates' forum and she should come with me. There's nothing like evaluating a candidate by hearing them speak and watching their facial expressions and body language and weighing the tone of voice.

My grandmother's conclusion was that she would not vote for this woman "because she's too smooth" (in her way of talking). I didn't like her for another reason - when someone in the audience asked for a show of hands to see which candidates had ever taken public transit, this woman peered around to see if anyone else raised their hand. A few did, so she put hers up to a little past shoulder-height as if she was thinking, "Oh god, don't let anyone I know see me do this". Well, since she was a well-to-do businesswoman living in one of the poshest parts of town, I didn't believe her for a nanosecond. She would not have taken the bus, and in fact council's general attitude on the issue later (she did end up winning) pretty well confirmed my impression that most of them were generally clueless.


How do you define "taking part in political life"? Even babies take part in it indirectly if their issues become election issues. The major parties have youth categories of membership and they can be "youth delegates" at nomination and leadership events. These kids - teenagers younger than 18 - are generally used as unpaid labor, either doing mundane office stuff during campaigns, running errands, or helping put up lawn signs. During that time they are taught the party line, what to say, and what to believe. Some of these youth members go on to run as adults. Some have made politics their lifelong job, without ever having done any other sort of work. They don't know any other perspective, and too many don't care to learn. Some of those are the people we have at high levels in federal and provincial politics. One of them is our recently departed ex-premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney.

People don't magically turn 18 and know how to vote. Maturation varies per-person. People diminish mentally as they get older, and we don't discriminate against them.
Exactly. Kids need to learn how the political system works, and how voting works. Every federal election, I see people writing in to the comment sections of my news site, either spreading misinformation or in a panic because they don't actually know these things. I learned the how of this stuff in my junior high social studies class. I didn't actually learn what polling stations are like until it was my first time voting. I remember feeling proud that I could finally do this, but nervous because I didn't know what to expect.

Nerves keep some people away. They see a row of people sitting there, ballot boxes on the tables, the voting stations off to the side, and there are rules about things you can and cannot wear (nothing campaign-related - no t-shirts or buttons or hats or pins that endorse any party or candidate). Nobody chats much, and open discussion of candidates and parties isn't allowed. I remember being annoyed when I was one of those election workers, and a guy asked me, "Who should I vote for?".

Never say that to an Elections Canada worker. They aren't allowed to answer either verbally or by gesture. I just repeated the instructions I'd given him - take the ballot to an unoccupied voting station and mark an X in the circle next to the candidate of his choice. I don't know who he chose, or if his was one of the spoiled ballots. I just know that it's really frustrating when the public doesn't follow the rules.

Some people who comment on the news sites relate their experiences at the polling stations. I told one woman not to worry; the experience she and her sister had was legit - that was the standard procedure. Another woman had been a new DRO and had been confronted by a man wearing religious garb who demanded that his entire family accompany him to a single voting station. He intended to make sure his wife, sisters-in-law, and mother all voted as he told them (not that he said this, but that's the obvious conclusion I reached).

I asked her why she didn't tell him no, that they had to be at separate voting stations. The answer was sheer intimidation and she was too scared to even think of calling the Presiding Deputy Returning Officer/Poll Supervisor over - they would have had the authority to deal with it - by kicking him out if he refused to follow the rules.

So I told her she should report this incident to the Returning Officer anyway. It would be useful feedback for training future EC workers faced with obstinate voters who tried intimidation.

Having been a federal Deputy Returning Officer and knowing the procedures has meant being able to stick up for myself now that I can't access the physical polling stations. I know when someone in the Returning Office is handing me a line of BS, trying to claim that no, in-home special ballots don't exist. I know my rights, and I know where to find the procedures in the online Elections Canada manual published on the website. It's infuriating that the news articles never mention this voting method that's for disabled people like me. The assumption is that we either don't vote, or aren't allowed. They're surprised to hear that there are only two adult Canadian citizens who are not allowed to vote in a federal election: The Chief Electoral Officer and their deputy. Since they have to resolve disputes, they must be strictly neutral. So they don't vote. Everyone else has the right to vote, even if some snooty Returning Officers don't think so and don't want to bother with the extra paperwork it takes to send a team to the home of a mobility-disabled voter with additional barriers to using mail-in ballots.
 
I can't see it getting any further in AU than the idea being recently floated by the Greens.
Yeah but most of this country won't even decriminalise, let alone legalise, cannabis. Hardly a bastion of sensible forward minded policy.

The ACT mostly isn't going ahead with lowering the voting age after an inquiry because they didn't want to create a two tiered system where territory rules were different to federal.
 
No one over 30? Sign me up.
wow. i wonder how quickly that would lead to starvation, mass exodus, and major violence compared to communism. what a terrible thought experiment

it should be self-evident that removing a majority of the workforce from having a say in policy is going to result in disaster. completely broken incentives. i guess wide-scale disenfranchisement is only an issue when it doesn't suit you and isn't actually happening, but if given the opportunity it seems at least some here are unironically for doing it for real
Make them pass a political literacy test at school if they want to vote before 18.
the problem with this historically is "who gets to decide". what's on the tests, what's acceptable enough in terms of answers, who oversees it. we presently live in a system that discriminates against people on factors they can't control and does so while claiming those measures are to prevent discrimination on factors people can't control. it teaches students to believe that's fine/nothing inconsistent.

that is the same system that would be teaching students "political literacy". i would put near-guarantee odds it devolves into a fight about people failing language/reasoning tests being "disenfranchised" vs people with "wrong views" who are otherwise competent at logic/basic reasoning being ruled out. roll out a system like that and i'd be willing to put money on almost these exact arguments being made rapidly.
Age discrimination is defined in the NZ human rights act as potentially existing when policies and rules are applied differently based on age from anywhere 16 and up.
sounds like age discrimination itself (by necessity/definition, since it's including an arbitrary cutoff age).

it's going to be a pain no matter where you draw the line, because some % of people are still going to be immature in multiple ways. age is necessarily an imperfect proxy for developing into a capable voter...but it's not clear what we could use that will work better w/o being abused, or what an "optimal" age would be for voting and why.
 
Putting the age cut-off (e.g., no one over 30) in your future incentivises you to create a world where your kids want to take care of you. The other side of things, where we currently have the incentive to milk the kids for your benefit, also has obvious disadvantages.

We love our kids, so we try to do a good job. But we also love our parents, so we also try to do a good job. But a world where someone can milk someone else by having them not be enfranchised creates opportunity for abuse.

By having an age cut-off at the top, you create a system where you have an incentive to create good voters to replace you. It's very similar logic as to how corporate executives get paid out over multi-year contracts and don't get all their pay at once. Like, bonused with shares but those shares don't arrive until two years later.
 
Putting the age cut-off (e.g., no one over 30) in your future incentivises you to create a world where your kids want to take care of you.
or to not have children. or to switch countries once you're over the age of 30, taking your expertise somewhere that will continue rewarding you more and leaving the people without the means to make such a switch behind (on average, less productive people).

agreed that milking future generations is also bad, and that this incentive exists as well.

By having an age cut-off at the top, you create a system where you have an incentive to create good voters to replace you.
my estimate is that this will not match real world outcome, because countries will not universally adopt such a cutoff. there would also be enormous pressure to retain as much agency as possible through other means than voting. i'm less confident on how that shakes out, but note that we already have political systems that minimize the impact of voting throughout history in various forms. i suppose you could create a "system" that sufficiently constrains people from voting to screw you. i'm less enthusiastic about what that would look like.
 
Top Bottom