Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by johngossman 39 days ago
Go look at the demographics of the last election and then tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote.
5 comments

Hey, I hear you, but the age cutoff could also be on holding office.

As someone just hitting the 60 yr old mark, and looking at my parents who are still pretty sharp in their late 80s, -- so definitely talking about myself and my capacity here,

No-one over 70 has any business in a high ranking government office. The mental flexibility isn't there.

Which means no one over 66 should be allowed to run office (yes, I know this puts senators in office until 72, and kicks out representatives at 68, but it also gives a single number which is easier to understand).

It's also a question of accountability. A 40 year old politician will expect/have to live with their choices for another 40 years.

It’s not just mental ability it’s a set of perverse incentives: the old robbing the future of the young, instead of planting trees whose shade the old will never personally enjoy.
That's a response to an opinion I don't hold, but I could have been more clear. The claim I'm making is about the fitness to hold office. Specifically: septo/octogenarians belong at the ballot box, but not on the ballot. If you'd like to dissuade me of something, that's the meat of it.
What is the justification? Why can someone vote for a future they're not likely have to endure?

We don't allow under 18s to vote, so clearly some age restrictions are legitimate.

> Go look at the demographics of the last election and then tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote

The group that uses the rhetoric like "which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote". You tell me which one that is.

Of course, when I go to my local city planning meetings and see the demographics shouting down any new housing my feelings are different.
Go look at recent changes to how young men vote and tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote in the future.