[Thinkx220]

It's comments like this that convince me most programmers are arogant douchebags. Just because someone has a weird idea about an event that had almost no direct affect on the general population doesn't mean we should remove those peoples ability to have a choice in matters which will effect them.

Knowing more than someone else does not make you morally superior or give you more of a right to have a say in your own fate.

[wolco2]

If that were the case we would give babies, kids and teenagers the right to vote. Kids would always vote in a superhero or ice cream. And chocolate would win in a landslide.

We only allow those of a certain age to vote because they are able to understand and weigh the issues fairly.

We only allow those of a certain age to be juriors for that reason.

[jlokier]

> We only allow those of a certain age to vote because they are able to understand and weigh the issues fairly.

Yes, but we draw a simple, arbitrary rule at a fixed age because everyone grows older, so it isn't manipulable by anyone who is motivated to do so.

If the vote permission line is drawn by more complex means that gives a different answer for different people, it becomes a primary target for manipulation, abuse, and group selectivity.

For example if it was based on IQ tests or even general knowledge tests, it is already well understood that these are heavily biased tests which test for social background, culture and upbringing, rather than general intelligence.

If there's going to be a voter test, it needs to be extremely robust, something just about everyone has confidence in to be fair and appropriate.

[Thinkx220]

Maturity is different than intelligence.