As long as people are suggesting qualifying conditions, why not:
“People who have made student loans from the government are not entitled to vote until they’ve paid off their debt (otherwise they’ll be tempted to vote for politicians who promise to waive their student debts).”
This differs from a home mortgage because very few mortgage lenders are likely to ever waive that kind of debt.
These proposals ultimately act as a proxy for maturity. Other classic proxies for having skin in the game are property ownership and marriage/family. If the concern is that today's youth are having problems adulting, and only adults should vote, add those to the mix. You want to avoid adult responsibilities your whole life? Fine, but no franchise for you.
drop the test, but allow 18-25 who are married (and not divorced!) to vote. included the widowed if (a) not responsible for the demise of the spouse and (b) such person is a parent.
I turned 20 in 1971 and was therefore affected by the process. I also was in college and felt that I would delay my right to vote as long as my peers also couldn’t vote because I knew them. They were, for the most part, immature thinkers and poor decision makers. Just being on campus an a Friday night was all the knowledge that was needed to insure withholding the vote. By the time I was 25 I was married, had a child and spent many nights in the ER, hopefully saving lives. The time between 20 and 25 was a very maturing time. I didn’t support the amendment and would support the change now.
Moving the Overton Window is the important point here. The reasoned argument in support of a higher voting age operates to blunt the lack of reasoned argument for a lower voting age, and helps expose the latter as outside of the range of acceptability. So: "Keep on draggin!"
It’s easy to say as a veteran, but I’m increasingly convinced Heinlein was right: only military service - the willingness to fight for the society - is an appropriate qualification for the franchise.
Other historical limits on service - property qualifications and educational qualifications particularly - don’t seem to be meaningful anymore.
I agree with the age 25 with the military and first responder exemption. Although we need to hold firm on not expanding the definition to public service. It's not perfect ad there are still too many clueless 25 year olds but at least by then most people have full-time jobs and are outside the academic bubble.
Although there is part of me that would say that the individual must be out of school for at least 3 years. But that would be too hard to enforce. But it might cause some interesting discussions about bubbles.
Ironically, lowering the voting age (and also allowing parents to cast their children's ballots) would achieve all the same goals as raising the voting age, but better, more effectively, and it's more likely to actually get enough votes to become reality than restricting the voting age: https://nonviolence.substack.com/p/ramaswamy-proposes-restricting-voting
We are seeing the manifestation of the children self-esteem movement started in the 90s. Yet another failed theory introduced into our society by deluded, utopianist boomers (not blaming all boomers). Or maybe it was on purpose as part of a neo-marxist agenda, to quote one boomer, "What difference does it make now?"
Yes, voting is different in nature from driving or drinking. I see no offense to requiring more of a voter than reaching a mere number of years. However, the pols will fight this forever. It's easy to manipulate the young.
Neville Shute had a similar proposal in his novel "In the Wet" written in the 1950s. He extended it by allowing some citizens more than one vote in return for civic action .
Vivek Ramaswamy Channels Robert Heinlein, and Me
As long as people are suggesting qualifying conditions, why not:
“People who have made student loans from the government are not entitled to vote until they’ve paid off their debt (otherwise they’ll be tempted to vote for politicians who promise to waive their student debts).”
This differs from a home mortgage because very few mortgage lenders are likely to ever waive that kind of debt.
I'm beginning to like the cut of Ramaswamy's jib.
These proposals ultimately act as a proxy for maturity. Other classic proxies for having skin in the game are property ownership and marriage/family. If the concern is that today's youth are having problems adulting, and only adults should vote, add those to the mix. You want to avoid adult responsibilities your whole life? Fine, but no franchise for you.
drop the test, but allow 18-25 who are married (and not divorced!) to vote. included the widowed if (a) not responsible for the demise of the spouse and (b) such person is a parent.
I turned 20 in 1971 and was therefore affected by the process. I also was in college and felt that I would delay my right to vote as long as my peers also couldn’t vote because I knew them. They were, for the most part, immature thinkers and poor decision makers. Just being on campus an a Friday night was all the knowledge that was needed to insure withholding the vote. By the time I was 25 I was married, had a child and spent many nights in the ER, hopefully saving lives. The time between 20 and 25 was a very maturing time. I didn’t support the amendment and would support the change now.
I disagree with any exceptions, but I might be convinced on military. But after a period of service, like 2 years.
hell, I have days when I think 30 is too young.
Moving the Overton Window is the important point here. The reasoned argument in support of a higher voting age operates to blunt the lack of reasoned argument for a lower voting age, and helps expose the latter as outside of the range of acceptability. So: "Keep on draggin!"
It’s easy to say as a veteran, but I’m increasingly convinced Heinlein was right: only military service - the willingness to fight for the society - is an appropriate qualification for the franchise.
Other historical limits on service - property qualifications and educational qualifications particularly - don’t seem to be meaningful anymore.
What about the bifurcation between voting age, and the age of legal consent for contracts?
I agree with the age 25 with the military and first responder exemption. Although we need to hold firm on not expanding the definition to public service. It's not perfect ad there are still too many clueless 25 year olds but at least by then most people have full-time jobs and are outside the academic bubble.
Although there is part of me that would say that the individual must be out of school for at least 3 years. But that would be too hard to enforce. But it might cause some interesting discussions about bubbles.
Ironically, lowering the voting age (and also allowing parents to cast their children's ballots) would achieve all the same goals as raising the voting age, but better, more effectively, and it's more likely to actually get enough votes to become reality than restricting the voting age: https://nonviolence.substack.com/p/ramaswamy-proposes-restricting-voting
We are seeing the manifestation of the children self-esteem movement started in the 90s. Yet another failed theory introduced into our society by deluded, utopianist boomers (not blaming all boomers). Or maybe it was on purpose as part of a neo-marxist agenda, to quote one boomer, "What difference does it make now?"
Yes, voting is different in nature from driving or drinking. I see no offense to requiring more of a voter than reaching a mere number of years. However, the pols will fight this forever. It's easy to manipulate the young.
Neville Shute had a similar proposal in his novel "In the Wet" written in the 1950s. He extended it by allowing some citizens more than one vote in return for civic action .