Didn't the UK just start allowing 16 year olds to vote, which presumably helps offset the impact of older voters? I remember not getting around to voting in my first election (USA, Colorado). The outcome was George W. Bush being elected president, who favored policies not well-liked by younger people at the time.

>It is unfortunate that things like this become politically impossible because older people are one of the most reliable voting groups out there.

They become politically impossible because they're not a front burner issue for anyone so the only people who are driving the issue are extremists who want the criteria set at like 10 whereas normal people want it at like 5 on some arbitrary scale of extremity so whenever it goes up for public consideration it gets shot down. You see this across all areas of mundane policy.

Give parents extra votes for their children who are not yet eligible to vote. Perhaps half a vote per child for starters.

This assumes parents would vote in the interests of future adults. In my experience, parents are quite happy to vote against future adults, even their own. Housing policy is the most obvious example.

“invasion” is an unnecessarily emotive term. Legal immigrants are doing what is allowed by law, the country is able to change those laws if they wish.

Is that a reference to one of the sources of the civil war in the US? Voting rights for disenfranchised (literally enslaved) people?

Actually the US maintains a Senate and Electoral College because of slavery, and refuses to abolish them for (supposedly) any and every other reason. These systems allow whites in less populous states to exercise outsized power.

Make voting be based on military eligibility. This is something Starship Troopers was sort of correct about.

You can't be drafted in war time emergencies? You can't vote (also yes I do want women to be draftable)

> This is something Starship Troopers was sort of correct about.

It might also suggest further reflection is warranted.

The movie was a satire, the novel was earnest. If you arent willing to sacrifice everything for democracy, then why should you have a voice? I am with Heinlein 100% here.

Having since read more about the author I'm pretty sure you're right the novel was earnest, but honestly it read as excellent satire when I didn't know it wasn't meant to be (and I read it prior to seeing the movie). Would recommend.

Then you're against democracy. Think about what the word means.

In the movie. The book wholeheartedly endorsed service for citizenship.

It's worth noting that in the book "service" is heavily implied to be primarily military in nature yet Heinlein purported years after the fact that in the book's canon "95 percent" of citizen service was actually civil. I think it's debatable whether or not this was his intention all along or a retcon to fit his more, ahem, liberal worldview that emerged as he aged.

I also loved Verhoeven's film adaptation but he straight up admitted that he didn't finish the book before making the film, which was itself based on a Neumeier (of "Robocop" fame) script called "Bug Hunt at Outpost 7" that bore only superficial resemblance to the book. He made the same mistake as many others in casting the book as fascist merely because of its militaristic elements when it's clearly not. On top of lacking many essential elements of fascism (a dictator, a directed economy, suppression of political dissent, etc) there are also several spots that veer into philosophical treatise to espouse the opposite. The flashback scene involving Rico's professor talking about how a society is obligated to raise its children correctly (and how it's society's failure if they end up delinquent) is a perfect example - "the system is the problem" hardly reads as far-right.

This is all to say that I think Heinlein was more interested in exploring a concept of reciprocal responsibility between a citizenry and its government. The militaristic aspects of the novel as regards a distant, dehumanized enemy and the dominance of the fight over all other aspects of life are far more alarming in my opinion.

Another in a long line of tech people not understanding science fiction

Or policy. We have an embarrassing chap in these comments advocating for the equivalent of Jim Crow voting laws.

Who, amusingly, dodged his military service.

I think people should be able to get up to 3 votes:

1. Veteran

2. Property ownership

3. Having children.

If you dont hit 1 of those criteria, you dont get a vote. You need skin in the game. Letting anyone vote is why “tax someone else, give me things” is such a popular platform. Politicians should have to hit maybe 2 out of 3.

Property ownership seems like a pretty transparent way to disenfranchise the poor. In what way does a renter not have “skin in the game” compared to a homeowner?

I am none of these. I'm in my late 50's and have been paying income tax since I was 16. Sure, rescind my voting rights ... I'd like all my 40+ years taxes back please then.

Did the government not provide you with services (roads, police, etc) in those 40+ years?

Taxation without representation? Hellooo, Earth calling Americans, are you there?

Property ownership?

Ooooh, this is how you tip the scales further away from the progressive policies.

I own a house but I'd hate such setup.

Having children? Why not consider instead: teacher, healthcare professional, municipal worker, civil engineer, volunteer ...and all of the many other roles that make society. Being a parent isn't the only indicator of caring for others.

We already tried this in America and it’s not the flex you think it is.

What did you try?

The main issue off the top of my head with property ownership is how you define property.

I honestly can’t tell if this is satire, or if we’re running into a lack of civics education.

In the US at least, political rights are considered inalienable, not rewards. The OPs point can be extended to giving more votes to people based on their “productivity” (ie income) to society and the absurdity becomes obvious to most.

So, only people aged 18 to 25 year olds should be able to vote in the US?

[nitpick tangent] the law states a much wider age range of American men can be drafted: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

You're right about military eligibility, but also that you shouldn't make calls for a nation which you will never see. Doubly so if one does not have children. No skin in the game, no alignment of incentives, no moral right to choose.

Even moreso when you consider basically the whole generation relies on leeching off the young and have continued to capture an ever-increasing proportion of public spending across the western world despite owning an outsized proportion of both real estate and wealth overall.

What about people with a medial disability?

Are we talking one spurs? Or dementia?

Either way, they sound like they have leadership potential.

Should still count if you can be 'drafted' into an 'office job' right?

The book does address that, in that the federal service is universally available (and even the blind, deaf, or crippled would spend their time performing some job, even if it eas "counting the hairs on a caterpillar by feel".