Free Lollies
Lower voting age to six to tackle bias against young, says academic.
It’s a Guardian headline, since you ask.
The head of politics at Cambridge University has called for children as young as six to be given the vote in an attempt to tackle the age bias in modern democracy. Prof David Runciman said the ageing population meant young people were now “massively outnumbered,” creating a democratic crisis and an inbuilt bias against governments that plan for the future.
Children and teenagers are of course renowned for their conscientious forethought.
In the latest episode of his podcast, Talking Politics, he said lowering the voting age to 16 was not radical enough to address the problem. He said: “I would lower the voting age to six, not 16. And I’m serious about that. I would want people who vote to be able to read, so I would exclude reception [age-children].”
Ah, a voice of moderation.
“What’s the worst that could happen? At least it would be exciting.”
Professor Runciman has, we’re told, pondered other options, such as giving extra weight to votes cast by the adolescent – in effect, allowing them to vote twice or one-and-some-fraction – but has dismissed these suggestions as, and I quote, “insane.” Given the professor’s desire to enlist an army of the credulous and hormonal, allegedly to save the world from the elderly and middle-aged, readers may be raising eyebrows as to his motives. And indeed, an alternative explanation does in fact present itself:
Runciman suggested the Brexit vote might not have happened with a radically lower voting age.
And,
“If 16- or 17-year-olds voted in the 2017 general election, there is a chance that Jeremy Corbyn would now be prime minister.”
And then, quite suddenly, all became clear. Well, when we’ve done fretting about the catastrophic unfairness of primary-school children being unable to vote in general elections, perhaps we might turn our attention to the number of leftist educators who wish to exploit the unworldliness of your children in order to further their own socialist preferences.
governments that plan for the future… Jeremy Corbyn would now be prime minister.
I think I see where the problem is.
1. Kids (being kids) are dumb.
2. Dumb kids like free stuff and will vote socialist.
3. Give dumb kids the vote.
“head of politics at Cambridge University”
Heh. Quite.
– And kids do what their parents tell them to – “Mummy, who should I vote for?” ” – Why, vote for that nice Mr. Corbyn, dear. He wants to give us lots of free stuff, and save our Earth – and doesn’t he look sort of like a short-bearded Santa Claus?”
“Yes Mummy…”
Me personally (and yeah, I know nobody gives a $hit 😉 I’d introduce a compact – taxpayers vote. We’re paying for it, we decide who gets to spend it. So no criminals, no welfare cases, no illegal immigrants and no children. You get your voter card with your first tax return.
Sorry kids…
Its in my podcast feed but I haven’t got round to listening yet, but my response is likely to be the same as it is to anyone suggesting lowering the voting age to x:
If x are wise enough on aggregate to affect my wealth and freedom then they are wise enough to be able to smoke, drink, gamble, be fully responsible for their crimes and go to adult prisons, join the armed forces and fight on the front line, drive and be responsible for all their actions like the rest of the things the rest of the grown up population does now.
The irony being that children and teenagers tend to be quite selfish and self-absorbed, to a degree unbecoming in adults, and are accustomed to free stuff, all paid for out of sight by someone else, much to the youngsters’ indifference. It would therefore hardly be surprising if voting children tended to favour policies that pile up unsustainable debt, all left for whatever generations follow them.
Apparently, this constitutes “planning for the future.”
Women are selfish and self-absorbed, and are accustomed to free stuff, all paid for out of sight by someone else. Shouldn’t we rescind their right to vote?
It seems only fair that six-year olds should get the vote. After all, their generation will spend their entire working lives paying off the eye-watering national debt our recent governments created. Debt that was necessary in order to enact policies informed by “social justice” principles as defined by, among others, the Guardian.
head of politics at Cambridge University
Fears not in the least making an ass of himself, apparently, which rather labels the university. And both exist in this, our 21st Century. Such progress.
Women are selfish and self-absorbed, and are accustomed to free stuff, all paid for out of sight by someone else. Shouldn’t we rescind their right to vote?
The mark of advanced culture is never questioning the obvious.
If x are wise enough on aggregate to affect my wealth and freedom then they are wise enough to be able to smoke, drink, gamble, be fully responsible for their crimes and go to adult prisons, join the armed forces and fight on the front line, drive and be responsible for all their actions like the rest of the things the rest of the grown up population does now.
Disagree. The first three are vices, the next two a drain on society, the military qualification is a frequent rightist canard and also a drain on society, as is driving, I’m afraid.
Voting requires property. Nothing more. From there, one per head of household.
One vote per household.
If six year-olds are able to make informed decisions about their governance, what is next on that slippery slope? Pushing the PGTLBBQ agenda by a roundabout route, I’d say.
Cambridge this time? Ever notice how trebuchets are always at the wrong universities?
I vividly remember the day Mrs. Thatcher entered Downing Street. I was seven. I also vivdly remember, not just having no idea what it meant, but knowing that I had no idea what it meant.
Ten years later, I thought I did. But it was almost ten years after that before I actually began to properly understand.
Personally, I’d raise the voting age back to 21. Or even higher. And I’m serious about that, Prof. Runciman.
I remember the “white heat of technology” speech when I was six and that would have wowed me. Fortunately, the one about “the pound in your pocket” when I was ten decided the slant of my views from then on.
Real: The importance of setting boundaries for peaceful existence.
Make believe: Six year olds should vote. What’s the worst that could happen?
https://twitter.com/wrathofgnon/status/890007166991482881
I think I see where the problem is.
I suppose you could take it as an inadvertent admission that socialist thinking tends towards the adolescent. I’m sure it’s coincidental that what came to mind on reading the piece was an episode of Malcolm in the Middle, in which the boys steal Hal’s credit card and run away to start a new and grander life in a hotel room, making enthusiastic use of room service.
Voting requires property. Nothing more. From there, one per head of household.
I’d add in having a non-governmental job. That is owning property or working for oneself. The people who pay the bills call the shots.
…an inbuilt bias against governments that plan for the future.
In five year increments, as I recall.
Ah cmon, this is just like when Professor Peterson muses on radical ideas to better understand issues, no? It seems more idle chit chat than anything approaching serious consideration. The “at least it would be exciting” is the tell
It’s a pissing match. Whenever any other academic suggests lowering the voting age, he can now reply, “(sniff) well, my proposal goes further than that!”
Saw this. Seemed apt.
Also somewhat relevant.
I have no doubt a similar survey in the USA would yield an even larger majority of Democrats (and perhaps an even smaller minority of Republicans).
Regarding the six year olds, to be fair, they are probably as mentally qualified to vote as most “entertainers” who like to hector real people with their idiotic views, and for that matter certain members of congress.
Voting requires property.
Define property, there are plenty of tax-paying people who can’t afford to buy real estate, may live in a place (e.g., NYC or similar shithole) where a car is not a necessity, and whose other “property” consists of whatever fits in their apartment.
I’d add in having a non-governmental job.
Including the military and first responders ?
Make it simple, you pay into the system, you get to vote, otherwise, no.
I’m with Muldoon on this except, again, the problem lies not with our politics but with our culture. No matter how you choose to “qualify” people to vote, the incentive will be there to game or cheat the system. Political parties will divide up parcels of land into small, inexpensive chunks to sell to their favored class, they let illegal aliens register to vote, they institue a one dollar/pound poll tax and/or muddy up the difference or definition as to what is welfare vs taxes. Hell, the idiots in our academic institutions already regard any tax break as “welfare for the rich”. This problem will NEVER be fixed at the polls. By the time the voting is to be done, the die has already been cast. The only realistic, long term solution to this problem is upstream at the educational, religious, and cultural level.
Oh, let’s not leave it at voting. I say lower the age for holding office to six, as well. Having the polls shift forty percent because someone made his opponent break down into a crying fit at a debate will be priceless entertainment. For all of us here in hell.
This is all why I like voting with my feet:
I am the electorate.
Ah cmon, this is just like when Professor Peterson muses on radical ideas to better understand issues, no?
That’s it. He’s not suggesting giving votes to children, he’s suggesting that votes should be taking away from the senile who are like children.
Besides, he’s demographically aware enough to know that even if the votes of Badwhite parents are cancelled out by their 2.3 children and the votes of Goodwhite parents are doubled by their 1.3 children, the overwhelming blockvotes would be in the hands of conservative cultures that (a) have lots of children and (b) bring up those children to respect their parents and be proud of their tradition.
Oh I didn’t mean to suggest it was intelligent musing, but musing nonetheless.
While we’re musing, why be so ageist by limiting to 6 years of age? I say extend it thoroughly all the way to children in utero….oh wait…hmmm that’s a can of worms…well we seem to have finally found the intersectional floor.
“If 16- or 17-year-olds voted in the 2017 general election, there is a chance that Jeremy Corbyn would now be prime minister.”
I’ll pass thanks.
No matter how you choose to “qualify” people to vote, the incentive will be there to game or cheat the system.
Two years Federal Service. Service guarantees citizenship.
Voting requires property.
Since I said that, the upshot being that culture defines culture. Or as WTP observes:
WTP: the problem lies not with our politics but with our culture.
[…]
The only realistic, long term solution to this problem is upstream at the educational, religious, and cultural level.
WTP also declares property-based voting corruptible, which it is, but which again we must defer to culture to manage. Culture is upstream; politics – hence, corruption – is downstream. Whether the latter exists is a function of the former. Voting is no less or more corruptible than the church or academy or media.
They’ve not been immune and neither will a sounder voting principle, therefore the prior consideration takes precedent, which is culture. No amount of manipulation of the letter can prevent a manipulation of the law.
Muldoon: Define property, there are plenty of tax-paying people who can’t afford to buy real estate…
Don’t care, especially because “tax-paying” is no more qualification than citizenship, which is no more qualification than stepping over a national border and not leaving. By now the right’s notions on taxes are most bizarre.
…may live in a place (e.g., NYC or similar shithole) where a car is not a necessity, and whose other “property” consists of whatever fits in their apartment.
Property = real estate, ergo holding, station, vested interest, and a mutual cultural anchor, among other essentials. Confirming the principle of the American electoral college, whether the welfare state or Wall St., urbanism is on the other hand a parasitic blight on the democratic republic and no less a scourge on civilization than the rest of the statist toolkit.
R. Sherman: I’d add in having a non-governmental job [qualifies for voting].
Ditto. Axiomatic.
Muldoon: Including the military and first responders ?
Public servants are no more privileged where voted representation goes than anyone else, therefore the rule does not change, more so when a given public class could comprise even a potential drain on a domestic people. Here again the ostensible right becomes a classist hive when it privileges its empty, cliched qualifier “the brave men and women of X” in establishing it’s own official socialist cliques. Privilege dropped-out privates and ambulance drivers?
Make it simple, you pay into the system, you get to vote, otherwise, no.
Simplistic, probably. There is no originalist, structuralist principle whatsoever to justify paying for citizenship hence to vote. There is, however, a mountain of worth in tying the vote to a sustainable culture, for which a constitutional, common law framework serves that culture and not the other way around.
Property = real estate, ergo holding, station, vested interest, and a mutual cultural anchor, among other essentials.
I see. So COL Beauregard, sipping mint juleps on the veranda of the plantation gets to vote, but Lester Lunchbox who drives The Colone’s John Deere CP690 doesn’t because he rents his house.
Dr. Zotz in his residency, making on average the princely sum of $16/hour for his average 80 hour week and paying off 8 years of student loans, doesn’t get to vote.
Joe Bob Baggadonuts who just finished vo-tech as an HVAC repairman and is saving for a house but has to rent in the interim doesn’t get to vote.
Public servants are no more privileged where voted representation goes than anyone else…
No one said they were more privileged, the idea is that they are not less so.
Here again the ostensible right becomes a classist hive…
Yet here you are dividing up people into classes based on who you think gets to vote.
Privilege dropped-out privates and ambulance drivers?
Gee, glad you are not some condescending classist. You clearly are not a serious person.
The head of politics at Cambridge University has called for children as young as six to be given the vote
Does he think all the ‘woke 6 year old’ tweets were true?
I see your skill at engaging above your intellectual pay grade remains tethered to a remarkable talent for assumptions, begged questions, projections, and the colorful conclusions you draw from them, Muldoon.
Will we review your previous insights on military discipline and its potential for collective civilian virtue next? Just because your thoughts were left in such a senseless state the last time doesn’t mean I don’t remember them fondly.
I see you haven’t forgotten either.
Here again the ostensible right becomes a classist hive when it privileges its empty, cliched qualifier “the brave men and women of X” in establishing it’s own official socialist cliques.
Anarchist bullshit.
There ARE legitimate functions of government – and it is stated in the US Constitution – to secure (not grant) the rights of citizens. One of the first things a government does (local or national) is to protect people from having their basic rights to life and property taken by force. A police force, military and a judicial system to provide a neutral arena to solve conflicts between citizens are basic necessities, NOT socialism/collectivism.
Also.
Maybe only ex-military should be allowed to vote.
Coming soon…votes for all primates!
Maybe only ex-military should be allowed to vote.
Why only ex ? Why would a one term E-3 warrant a vote any more than an active component guy at 18 or 28, and what of the reserve component types, do they get to vote only if not drilling or on active duty ?
Including the military and first responders?
The former certainly; the latter, thanks their very powerful unions, not so much. The problem with public employees of any stripe is that they vote to feather their own nests, not to benefit to public at large. And when you call them on it, suddenly they wrap themselves in the “public service” mantle and scream “Why do you hate cops and firefighters!?!”
Here again the ostensible right becomes a classist hive when it privileges its empty, cliched qualifier “the brave men and women of X” in establishing it’s own official socialist cliques.
***
Anarchist bullshit.
Oh? It is visibly structural in the US and it stems from common law and principle: Collective and especially public institutions, paid by the people, are fundamentally suspect and it is, to your eventual point, the state’s obligation to protect the latter and its rights from the former.
The police and military are, contrary to prevailing rightist flag-waving, not exempt. In fact, they are among the first to fall under that scrutiny. Further, their sloganed “brave men and women” are no more a guiding moral force for culture than any other. That’s not a slight, it’s a valid observation of a greater principle.
That’s hardly anarchic, and the evident fact that rightists convert a vague sense of hero-worship to a rite of social and cultural moral passage – typically substituting it for anti-left pushback, which it isn’t – is technically abhorrent to that structure because it eventually risks it. It becomes left-leaning, in a sense.
There ARE legitimate functions of government – and it is stated in the US Constitution – to secure (not grant) the rights of citizens.
I didn’t say otherwise; you jumped to conclusions and I’m afraid you projected.
And here comes your two disconnects, emphasis mine:
One of the first things a government does (local or national) is to protect people from having their basic rights to life and property taken by force. A police force, military and a judicial system to provide a neutral arena to solve conflicts between citizens are basic necessities, NOT socialism/collectivism.
First, rights are compromised by any and all government agencies and second, conflicts are therefore not entirely between citizens, if they’re even the majority of them. There is no such thing as a neutral arena, not today there isn’t.
I’m afraid you’ve made the same disconnect Muldoon did. Just as there is no organized, empowered agent of private persons justified to ensure cultural success and longevity by an arbitrary morality, there is no organized, empowered agent of public persons justified to ensure cultural success and longevity by an arbitrary morality.
Culture – a people – survive because their overall principles are robust and, in the case of the classic west and to your point, they establish logical, rational, fair, and transcendent rights to allow themselves to coexist together.
It’s an interesting conundrum that the areas of the developing human brain that mediate social-moral judgement don’t begin to develop until late teens, hence recent moves in Australia to raise the age of criminal responsibility by several years. At the same time progressive types want to lower the age limit for voting and driving of those same juveniles who, in their eyes, cannot yet make reasonable judgements and understand about the potential criminality of acts they may commit. There is a reason children are protected in the Law lest they be abused and others take advantage of them and also because their own morally unbridled immaturity lead them to act and cause harm to others and themselves.
Ten: drinking alcohol is not a vice. Drinking is a pleasant activity that millions of people do each day with no ill effects. Drinking too much is a vice, either as drunkenness, or as alcoholism is you have dependents.
But then too much of anything is a vice. Eating isn’t a vice, only gluttony is. Wanting nice things isn’t a vice, only greed is.
Doing things that are not ideal for your body is not a vice anyway. The current moralistic tone about “risky behaviour” is actually just killjoys using a convenient stick. Drinking alcohol is less risky than parachuting, mountain climbing, horse riding etc, but the moral campaigners aren’t interested in stopping those things, because they aren’t actually interested in lowering risk, only in preventing people from “immoral” behaviour.
And you can fuck right off with your “rightist canard” about military service too, until you can find me some leftist countries with no military obligations on the populace. The draft is a reality of modern political existence that we forget about because it hasn’t been used in most Western democracies for a while, but assuredly will be a reality in any shooting war. Military service is not a right wing thing, it’s only a thing that right wing people tend not to pretend doesn’t exist.
BTW, if young children vote as their parents tell them, then the Left doesn’t gain by lowering the voting age so low. Children’s parents will tend to be in their late 30’s and early 40’s, when the leftist phase of the young is wearing off. Small children can also be extremely moralistic — they don’t yet see the world in greys. The maximum age for Leftism is about 15 to 18, precisely when children start to rebel against the politics of their parents.
Maybe only ex-military should be allowed to vote.
Given France today, Macron could be pleased. Eisenhower not so much.
And you can fuck right off with your “rightist canard” about military service too…
Rightists are so touchy about structural conservatism.
What I said, obviously, wasn’t about service, whatever that can be construed to mean. It was about morality-by-class and therefore effective rule by standard or ethic, or as many American rightists apparently now have it, preference for a semi-official primacy of a particular authority agency under color of patriotic nationalism.
…until you can find me some leftist countries with no military obligations on the populace.
If it takes that much of a stretch to make the counterpoint, well…
The draft is a reality of modern political existence that we forget about because it hasn’t been used in most Western democracies for a while, but assuredly will be a reality in any shooting war. Military service is not a right wing thing, it’s only a thing that right wing people tend not to pretend doesn’t exist.
All of which is neither here or there, unless the premise switches from only-ex-military-vote (up-thread) to among that voting class only draftees don’t vote, which, wouldn’t that be an arbitrary, moralistic, discriminatory thing for the democratic rightist who a moment ago was on about Joe Pickup’s right to a representative voice while paying off his federal student loan but hadn’t thought it through quite enough.
I don’t actually mean to inflame the argument, Chet, but since you had, allow some reason to penetrate. Such staunch rightism just isn’t structural conservativism – they conflict quite a lot in history – and besides, the original point referred to how to maintain a people who’s collective aim, presumably, wasn’t jingoism, militarism, collectivism, the state church, or any other oppressive system.
Just maybe the folks who own the place should, through their vote, represent the folks who own the place.
Although 300 was just a hell of a movie, wasn’t it?
David Runciman comes from a long line of often-distinguished academics.
But the breed seems to have lost something with time … perhaps we should strongly discourage nepotism in academia.
And he thinks this is a point in favor of either Corbyn or this cockamamie idea of his?
They just keep justifying our revolution. Every damn day.
In America there’s a movement to lower the voting age to 16.
When I was in sixth form a few of my fellow students, having seen Logan’s Run, thought that mandatory extermination at age 30 was a great idea.
The problem is, that almost everyone over the age of 18 thinks that 18 is too young – apart from people pimping their new book with outrageous comments.
I have a better idea. Let’s raise the voting and driving ages to 25 and lower the drinking age to 16.