I would say 24 at the lowest and that's generous. Certainly not 18! Frankly, younger people are too :stupid: to vote. They have abnormal hormone levels (which affect behaviour), their brains are literally underdeveloped and they lack life experience. Why should they be allowed to decide how a country should be run???? It's :cuckoo:
Not a good idea. High IQ people are a bit weird and cannot relate to ordinary people. They dream up (or endorse) utopian schemes that can't work in a society where only a minority of the population think like they do and possess an IQ above 120. This is especially true for academics and 'intellectuals' who tend to be shielded from reality and live in a bubble.
There's absolutely no sense in arguing about the right age. It's meant to be an arbitrary point, as 18/21 are ages where most people reach certain levels of maturity (whatever you want this to mean) to be trusted with the responsibility of voting. The actual problem is that
So you're not going to change much by moving the voting age.
I actually wouldn't mind a constitutional monarchy.
But now thinking about this thread again, I might actually say 30. Or, just weight votes by age. Let 18 year olds vote but give them very little proportionate weight compared to a 60 year old.
Mandatory IQ tests for voting, age is irrelevant except if it goes below 16.
Anyway just a hint, frontal lobe fully develops at 16 i've read, so it means a 16 year old can be as smart as a 25 years old, what separates the two is wisdom and experience.
* Democratic politicians have to please the media and are not allowed to reject any value or cause that is sacred to the media.
* Democratic politicians have to satisfy special interest groups and campaign donors.
* Democratic politicians have to engage in vote buying. Otherwise, rival parties can gain an advantage by throwing a treat to X group of voters.
* Democratic politicians only care about the next term in office, not the long term. Thus, democracy means high time preference.
* Democracy fractures society between rival political factions and hyper-politicizes everything. I think most human activity shold be indifferent to political convictions. Today's total politicalization is a historical anomaly.
I actually think the average 17-year old in a 1st world country is smarter than the average 50 year-old. The 17 year-old "teenage rebels" wouldn't drag their asses to the voting stand; most going there would be highly educated and involved.
The main problem is the cultural marxism that has completely taken over (mostly) the youths. They only get out of that by growing up and experiencing the real world. I am in complete agreeance with you about raising the voting age to at least 25, preferably 30.
I guess that lack of proper representation, people feeling separated from the political system, i.e "not caring" or calling themselves apolitical, converging on not voting, or when forced to (places where it's obligatory, such as my country) voting randomly or carelessly; shows a problem slightly bigger than "teenagers cannot know, blabla". Shame that motorhead and Sham Kay don't have their ages put... I'd like to know why you don't vote, if it's not too annoying.
then 16 is enough. Though I'd go with.. if you can read, you can vote.
I guess that lack of proper representation, people feeling separated from the political system, i.e "not caring" or calling themselves apolitical, converging on not voting, or when forced to (places where it's obligatory, such as my country) voting randomly or carelessly; shows a problem slightly bigger than "teenagers cannot know, blabla". Shame that motorhead and Sham Kay don't have their ages put... I'd like to know why you don't vote, if it's not too annoying.
This is fine too. Add "not having serious cognitive problems" to that and I'm set.
it's a question that would require long answers. since I feel there's hardly any politics behind today's politics but only commercial interests from people who's doing politics, the parties I'd vote for are destined to obtain very little consensus. besides I think politics is something very complex and one should question his own maturity and cultural level before expressing a vote, something I don't see happening that often.
also there's plenty of math and game theory research on voting systems and other political issues that show how our choiches don't always reflect the best possible option.
add to that scarce faith in the human race and you have a pretty pessimistic picture.
I would humbly and graciously accept my appointment as head of state with both honor and responsibility on the condition that I'd get to live in a lavish palace and wear a crown.
Nor like a mere commoner for that matter. I am so embarrassed by modern royals who do not hesitate to appear in public wearing bourgeoisie outfits. What are they thinking!?
Her Royal Highness is far too bourgeoisie. Did you know she did her own make up on her wedding day? She was even spotted doing her own shopping at Waitrose!
Why doesn't she let her servants do it for her? She's too squeamish to be a lady.
Her Royal Highness is far too bourgeoisie. Did you know she did her own make up on her wedding day? She was even spotted doing her own shopping at Waitrose!
Waitrose is still better than real pleb hunting grounds such as Tesco or, God forbid, Sainsbury's. But I do see your point, brushing shoulders with the great unwashed is definitely a faux pas and unbecoming.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
88K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!