[AnimalMuppet]

> That's nuts, and it shows that what we have right now is not a 1-person-1-vote system.

How does that show any such thing? Unless you're defining someone with dementia as "not a person".

> Go ask any climate scientist what our future on this current trajectory looks like. Trying to stay the course is suicide.

Ah. You're against old people voting because they don't vote the way you want on your hot-button issue. And you're willing to sacrifice the right to vote on the altar of climate change. No thanks. (But it makes me wonder what else you're willing to sacrifice there...)

[darkpuma]

> "How does that show any such thing? Unless you're defining someone with dementia as "not a person"."

Are 17 year old people "not persons"? Of course not. Who is talking about non-personhood?

We currently forbid 17 year olds from voting (while allowing them to sign up for the military..) but where are the objections when a 75 year old with dementia and the mentality of a 5 year old votes? The 17 year old is unquestionably more qualified to vote than a senile pensioner who thinks Jimmy Carter is still in office and forgets to walk to the bathroom when nature calls. That's the case even if you disregard the "skin in the game" argument, or even if you somehow convince yourself that democracy is more important than bracing humanity for catastrophic climate change.

[AnimalMuppet]

Ah, I now understand your argument. Well, if you want senile people prohibited from voting, then do it on the basis of senility, not on the basis of age. My mother is 91, and she's as qualified to vote as you are.

But if you want old people disqualified because you don't like the way they vote, get lost.