Please don't post nonsensical rewrites of posts. Find a charitable interpretation, or at least an honest one.

Just want to ask; how is it a disingenuous rewrite. What is the charitable interpretation of "old people have mental problems, but they still vote, and that's a problem"? That's literally what the parent comment says.

I'm right to compare it to Jim Crow, I'm quoting verbatim, and that's essentially what they're arguing for.

To clarify, there are two logical consequences of that parent comment.

Suppose a 65yo person watches too much tv and still votes.

1. In order to be allowed to vote, they need to watch less tv.

2. They don't get to vote otherwise.

My point is: we have so much stigma against the elderly in this country that arguments like these even appear reasonable at first glance. I'm arguing that there are dark consequences of this line of thinking.

So, how is this not the same as another restrictive voting requirement, such as literacy tests or poll taxes?

That's not at all what I had in mind, but I still think it's an interesting (if extreme) line of reasoning.

Why do we ban 12-year-olds from voting? Seems we already have some concept of the capacity to vote built into our legal system here in the US. Wonder if that's true of all countries... Most states don't allow felons to vote either... It feels weird that you can vote by proxy even if you barely know your own name. I think I agree dementia patients should still be able to vote, but like... it feels weird, right?

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/blog/can-people-with-dementia-...

It's not extreme to be an absolutist here like myself.

The best things about the U.S. system are simple. If you are born on her land, you are a citizen. If you are a citizen over 18* you can vote. You have the right to free speech and religion as long as it doesn't injure anyone else.

These decisions were made in part to reject the British monarch's divine right to rule and establish popular sovereignty. I am not a historian; this is not the full picture, but this is how I understand it.

To me, talk of disenfranchisement is categorically dangerous because it undermines the foundation of the government, and walks back the 250-year work of civil rights activists to establish what is today for most, a pretty good system.

So yeah, should we let kids vote? Maybe, why not.

Should we take that right away from anyone based on fuzzy criteria or a doctor's evaluation? No, and I refer you to the history of the post-reconstruction South as an example.

*(or historically 21, also male, white, etc.)

Yeah, good point. Taking away people's right to vote isn't a direction I'd prefer we all head in.

Interesting then that 2 states: Vermont and Maine (and DC!) let you vote even while you're in prison.

They weren't actually arguing that people over 65 shouldn't be able to vote. They were saying that people over 65 _do_ vote (in this case, despite claiming they are throwing in the towel on caring about the world around them) and we actually have to care if their brains turn to mush on reality TV and conspiracy videos.

OP is saying that if you vote, you're not entitled to the "I'm retired from worldly concerns, let me live however I want, even if what I want is very strange" deflection regardless of age.

It's unfortunate that that horrendous historical abuse of a fundamentally sound idea has poisoned the well.

Umm... yes, historically disenfranchisement was driven by racism and sexism.

This is driven by ageism.

Obviously racism was historically much more abusive. But both are still discrimination.

Then the disenfranchisement of the young is surely equally discriminatory.

Maybe not equally. I know maybe like 10 old people. Most of them are very smart.

I've met several 2-year-olds. Dumb like a rock.

But should 12-year-olds be allowed to vote? I don't see a reason not to besides history. In the U.S. during Vietnam the minimum age was lowered from 21 to 18. Why not younger?

Children have no interest and know nothing about politics. Realistically they would just vote for who their parents vote for.

Realistically a lot of old people just vote for who the guy on TV told them to, or the party they joined 40 years ago. But we don't see disenfranchising them as legitimate.

> Realistically a lot of old people just vote for who the guy on TV told them to

Is there a study or some data backing this up? Or just a stereotype?

Same amount of evidence as saying kids would just vote for who their parents vote for.

Nah, nobody here has suggested we ban anything for kids or old people.

OP's saying that it's reasonable to care about what we put into kid's brains as they have a future, but not to care about them because they're old. I'm saying you absolutely still impact the future even if you're done working, so maybe we should consider everyone's media consumption.