Pudding First
Over at Vox, where leftist brains pulsate, Ms Kelsey Piper has an idea:
The United States should consider eradicating the voting age entirely… There are a host of good reasons to give children the vote… I think voting would be an exciting and meaningful exercise even for children too young to fill out their ballot validly, and it’s a great chance to develop the habit early — just like we have young children brush their teeth even though they’ll lose those teeth in a few years anyway.
I didn’t say it was a good one.
It occurs to me that if you start demanding that small children be allowed to vote in general elections – largely because you assume that their choices, their politics, will tend to mirror your own – then perhaps it’s time to ponder why your own politics correspond with the imagined preferences of children, who are, by definition, unworldly and irresponsible. Such that you grudgingly concede that, “Enfranchising everyone [i.e., including small children] will make the electorate less informed on average.” The rest of us, meanwhile, may wish to ponder whether a leftist’s desire to exploit the ignorance of small children in order to further her own socialist vanities is not only farcical, but degenerate.
We’ve been here before, of course, when Professor David Runciman claimed that not allowing primary school children to vote alongside adults amounts to “an inbuilt bias against governments that plan for the future.” As if small children are renowned for their selflessness and conscientious forethought. As noted at the time,
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… What comes to mind is 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.
How this sits with Ms Piper’s claim that “Kids have… a greater stake in political issues than adults do,” I leave to the reader.
Heh, good luck. The ‘pile up of unsustainable debt’ would be the least of our problems. In my teaching experience, I have found teenagers to be enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty and extreme punishments for the most menial crimes.
Not entirely unrelated:
With kids being unworldly, there’s much less chance of pushback.
“Lord of the Flies” should be required reading. I highly recommend the movie version.
…in order to further her own socialist vanities is not only farcical, but degenerate.
Speaking of which, and also of voting, and also of infantile thought, pneumatic actresses, how do they become so wise in the way of world politics ?
Only one answer needed for this: Greta the Amazing CO2 Seer
…not only farcical, but degenerate.
Speaking of which, OT, but as it is 9/11, “airplanes took aim”.
I am amazed that someone at the NYT had the decency to try to memory hole that tweet.
Yup. “Fourteen or fight!” And eliminate the age limit on driving licenses, that will give kids more time to get better at it. And the age limit on buying a firearm. Oh, and drinking.
I dunno…As I recall, shortly after the fall of the Commies, Hungary was considering this. But more along the lines of the parents getting a vote for each child. Or perhaps such was how it was expected to play out. IIRC it was those more on the political right who were pushing it. I know if I was given the vote (and/or my parents a proxy vote early on), for the first 18 years of my life it would have cancelled out a few of the stupid left-leaning votes that I made in the following 12 or so years.
Can we eradicate voting by Vox columnists?
Speaking of which, OT, but as it is 9/11, “airplanes took aim”.
It’s a climate thing. They want to ban air travel, right? So if we blame the airplanes…
You do recall the news person who, after the second plane hit the WTC, wondered if something had gone wrong with our air traffic control systems, yes?
”I am amazed that someone at the NYT had the decency to try to memory hole that tweet.”
Expediency seems more likely than decency.
Hey, everyone has fully bought into the idea that everyone gets a vote; why not children? Children voting is logically consistent with criminals voting, tax frauds voting, welfare recipients voting, foreign nationals voting, people who collect taxes taking money from their left pocket and putting it in their right to pay taxes voting…
If children voting is a bad idea, then perhaps you are finally willing to to start disenfranchising a whole lot of people. It is the only way to break the power of cities over vast areas of productive agribusiness (California, anyone?).
Although, it would take a lot of thought to come up with a system that would only let people with skin in the game vote, and simultaneously stop the pulling of multiple levers.
rule 1: there are two ways to influence an election: vote, money.
rule 2: you get to pick exactly one
rule3: you get to do neither, if you have no skin in the game (ie. do not pay taxes, or are paid out of tax collections)
Say you belong to a union. The union buys ads pushing Paul, disparaging Peter; I think you have to take the vote away from the entire union membership.
At this point, either let the children vote, or start pushing some serious electoral reform very hard.
“pneumatic actresses, how do they become so wise in the way of world politics ?”
and
“You do recall the news person who, after the second plane hit the WTC, wondered if something had gone wrong with our air traffic control systems, yes?”
Two job categories for which the chief qualifications are physical beauty and an ability to read words that somebody else wrote.
Although, it would take a lot of thought to come up with a system that would only let people with skin in the game vote
Yes, a lot of thought. Those would be awkward rules to enforce. Just look at the current state of “campaign finance reform” here in the US. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, WaPo, NYT, etc. etc. etc. are essentially mouthpieces of the left. Billions (trillions?) of dollars invested in these organizations yet not one cent of it counts as campaign contribution. But if someone tries to buy time on one of those stations to present an opposing point of view, those thousands of dollars are accounted for in CFR. That the people fell for this crap in the first place shows how weak the thinking skills of the average American are and how far we have drifted from any reasonable understanding of our Constitution. And all of this has happened with the rise of publik (and even private) edjumacation. Though there’s a few 20th century constitutional amendments I could call out as well. Which would be every one excepting 20, 24, 25, & 27.
At this point, either let the children vote, or start pushing some serious electoral reform very hard.
The longer I live the more I’m coming around to the idea that not everyone should get to vote. (cue evil laughter over threatening music)
No, I don’t want to go back to only white, landed gentry voting, but I’d be happy if you had to be over 30* and were not working for, or collecting any money from, your government. This would actually disenfranchise me where I live and as it would also disenfranchise my co-workers I’d be just fine with that.
*The exception to under 30 voting would be anyone who served and was honourably discharged from their country’s military. If you’ve put your life on the line, you get a vote. I was listening to a podcast last week (Peter Whittle with Martin Daubney) and they got around to women winning sufferage in the early 20th century. Daubney pointed out not many people know that on the day 7 million women gained the right to vote so did 5 million men. Three quarters of the men in the trenches of WWI had never been able to vote for the government which threw their lives away.
It occurs to me that if you start demanding that small children be allowed to vote in general elections – largely because you assume that their choices, their politics, will tend to mirror your own – then perhaps it’s time to ponder why your own politics correspond with the imagined preferences of children, who are, by definition, unworldly and irresponsible.
It could be well past time to evaluate, David. Given the infantilization of the populace, the shameless rhetoric justifying our unfettered federal grifting, and our general sloth and moral emptiness about our state and condition, it’s debatable if there’s been a responsible voting class of any age in decades.
so did 5 million men.
Not seeing a source for this. The amendment itself states:
…ah, simplicity eh? But was there something in parallel passed, possibly temporary, that I’m not seeing?
If children voting is a bad idea, then perhaps you are finally willing to to start disenfranchising a whole lot of people. It is the only way to break the power of cities over vast areas of productive agribusiness (California, anyone?).
These being ostensible democracies, there’s no hope unless the power of the corporation is broken as well. Urbanism may be a net mental cancer, but corporatism is a net collectivist destroyer.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/03/abortion-gun-laws-stand-your-ground-model-bills-conservatives-liberal-corporate-influence-lobbyists/3162173002/
Not seeing a source for this. The amendment itself states:
Apologies WTP, I should have specified that they were discussing the UK. According to Wikipedia the act of 1918 which gave all men, and some women, the right to vote still excluded women under 30 or those over 30 who did not meet property qualifications, about 60% apparently. They were eventually enfranchised in the act of 1928.
If you’ve put your life on the line, you get a vote.
Two years Federal Service. Service guarantees citizenship.
Apologies WTP, I should have specified that they were discussing the UK.
Ah, my bad as well. The 7 million being low and the 5 million being high for a US context should have clued me in. Did give me an excuse to rant about the numerous stupid amendments to the US Constitution in the 20th century, however. So there was that…
http://www.jimkeefe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Child_Catcher.jpg
Two years Federal Service. Service guarantees citizenship.
Because draconian patriotism.
Because draconian patriotism.
And yet it has been a requirement for citizens for thousands of years–since forever, as a matter of fact.
Do elaborate on your conservative bona fides, pst314.
…since forever, as a matter of fact.
Well, it was certainly one of the ways a poor man could gain Roman citizenship which was a definitely a thing worth having. I see nothing wrong with giving voting rights to someone who was willing to die for you.
Based on the criterion of property ownership used, well, up to 1918 in the UK apparently, I’d not have been able to vote until I was about 33. Looking back, I was still a bit green to be honest.
To be fair to Ms Piper, I imagine most American toddlers have a better grasp of reality and are in most ways better-equipped to vote than she is.
One problem is that younger people don’t vote as often as older people, a pattern that favors conservatives. But there is a solution: mandatory voting, as they have in Australia. Combining this with no age limit might seem problematic, but I’m sure scientists can figure how to record votes from babies.
A second problem is that people often insist on voting for the wrong candidate. That Trump got elected president is ample evidence of that. And again, there’s a solution: make people’s votes public, so that social pressure can be brought against those who vote irresponsibly. Should someone who insists on hurting others by voting incorrectly be allowed to keep their jobs, or enjoy an undisturbed meal in a restaurant? I don’t think so.
With no age limit, compulsory voting, and publicized votes, the results of democratic elections should be improved enormously.
Can you formulate a real question, Ten?
Do elaborate on your conservative bona fides, pst314.
Step away from the bar, boys, and somebody fetch the sheriff ! Looks like somebody’s got a mighty itchy trigger finger on that there measuring ruler in his pocket protector, and is a aimin’ to use it !
Two words in reference to the franchise:
Starship Troopers
somebody fetch the sheriff!
The sheriff is nigh.
Starship Troopers.”
I believe that the earlier comment, “Two years Federal Service. Service guarantees citizenship.” is a reference to that movie. (The text of the novel was somewhat different.)
pst314
I must confess I posted before reading all the comments. I’m heartened that I’m not the only one to reference Heinlein’s musings on the franchise.
He had others, too. He thought you could do away with the age requirement if you had an educational test – step into booth, random question re: American history & current politics, get a wrong answer and no voting.
I must confess I posted before reading all the comments.
I often do that too. And I’ll confess even before they put me in the comfy chair.
there’s a solution: make people’s votes public, so that social pressure can be brought against those who vote irresponsibly. Should someone who insists on hurting others by voting incorrectly be allowed to keep their jobs, or enjoy an undisturbed meal in a restaurant?
I wonder if that isn’t already happening to some degree in the US at least. Your party registration is public knowledge and if you contribute over, I think, $100 to any candidate, that becomes public knowledge. Every so often I see a story where a prominent person is said to have voted for x without directly quoting them and I start to wonder. With all the focus on voting registration rolls and given that more and more people from the conservative side become afraid to answer survey/polling questions, as the preliminary polling starts to differentiate significantly from the actual polls, at some point I expect there will be a call to audit the votes by tying the vote to a person. They’ll swear up and down that your vote will be private to get that camel’s nose under the tent. I truly believe we are headed that way. When that happens is my only real uncertainty. In fact, I have very serious doubts that it hasn’t already happened. What’s my guarantee that the bar code on my ballot isn’t tied directly to my name in some manner already? It certainly can be tracked with mail-in ballots.
I truly believe we are headed that way.
Agreed. I have had great difficulty getting liberals to condemn the harassment of quite peaceful people who fail to conform to the left’s dogma. Express the wrong opinion, donate to the wrong candidate, subscribe to the wrong periodicals, any clue is sufficient to earn their retribution.
They also supported the notoriously evil Employee Free Choice Act, which would used Card Check to effectively abolish the secret ballot for union votes. The fact that unions use threats and violence to intimidate people did not matter.
Correction: “which would have used Card Check…”
The longer I live the more I’m coming around to the idea that not everyone should get to vote
I have the simplest, most elegant, and to my mind the only fair solution: only I have the vote.
I have the simplest, most elegant, and to my mind the only fair solution: only I have the vote.
I’m good with that, as long as I get to ensure that you voted correctly.
I have the simplest, most elegant, and to my mind the only fair solution: only I have the vote.
We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more…
2019 contender for Most Convoluted Headline.
Most Convoluted Headline
“Crazy person has an opinion” would have been much more concise.
“Crazy person has an opinion”…
Yeah, but he’s not wrong, you know…
You mean “he”. 🙂
Can you formulate a real question, Ten?
Not without it triggering your fallacy generator.
Anyway, turn it off and then you or the ego known as Muldoon kindly fill me in on the state’s mandate on servitude-citizenship, or in his case, the military’s mandate on child discipline.
Which state, ten? What time frame?
What do *you* mean by the word “conservative”?
…fill me in on the state’s mandate on servitude-citizenship…
How about you do something like be less obtuse, or perhaps just less obtunded, and share for us what you consider to be “conservative bona fides”. I am sure you are just chock-a-block with them.
I get it. This is the internet and y’all want to argue on it. See, then being even as concise as I’ve been isn’t really going to do more than keep pulling dickheads out of the woodwork, is it.