Earning the Vote

[FrustratedFool]

So, by agreeing to an age criteria, we agree that someone needs to be able to make reasonable choices and not be swayed unduly by manipulative tactics in order to make voting a fair and sensible process that won't do more harm than good.

Our only disagreement is over what checks and balances are best employed to ensure this.

I tend towards thinking that in the highly complex modern world, globalised political and economic issues are such, and the ability to manipulate through post-AI mass-media such, that simply being 18+ is not enough of an obvious measure or safeguard anymore.

My dad was born before Hitler invaded Poland. He's badly manipulated by political rhetoric in every election cycle. Age is no deterrent to poor decisions.

Our disagreement seems to be over how draconian our solutions would be. You would divest millions of the right to vote. That, to me, is a terrible thing.

Education and perceived intelligence (but especially education) is no magical preventative to making poor decisions. I know university graduates who voted Trump. No one is immune to political manipulation so trying to limit participation by that criteria, which is what education and intelligence testing really is, is a fool's game. It also provides a smaller pool for the powers that be to manipulate.

1)  Of course age is relevant.  It's not a sure thing, of course.  But a 30 year old is obviously less easily manipulated than a 3 year old.  That's why we both agree on an age criteria, yes?

2)  I don't know how many would fail to meet the criteria, since the details haven't been set.  Not sure how you work that out either.  But, let's agree that I would stop millions voting.  By setting the age at 18 rather than 16 you do the same.  It seems irrelevant, especially if voting can be harmful as well as good.  The point is that voting isn't neutral.  As your dad found out.  If stopping millions voting prevents great harm then surely that's the best thing to do?

3) Of course there's no simple obvious way to prevent bad choices and manipulation.  But surely we seek to reduce and limit it, yes?  Do we want children and lunatics to vote?  No.  There's no principle disagreement between us, merely a methodological one.  Which method best protects democracy whilst also limiting harm.