What would happen if we banned 50+ year olds from voting?

What do you think would happen if we banned 50+ year olds from voting? Would we get better government or not?

  • Better government
    31% (11)24% (7)28% (18)Vote
  • The same
    25% (9)28% (8)26% (17)Vote
  • Worse than W, Scalia, Citizens United, Reaganomics and the Great Recession fraud of trillions of $ siphoned out
    44% (16)48% (14)46% (30)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
11|21

Most Helpful Girl

  • I think it would more future oriented.
    In my country the over 50 crowd is by far the biggest demographic so every year raise college and pensions. To please that crowd. But the pensions are already not bad. And I think the same happens in a lot of countries, they take away a lot of opportunity from the young to give the old a little more comfortable life and get votes

    Which is great if there's enough money to go around, but there's not. And I don't think education and youth unemployment are the right areas to save money.
    Maybe old people have more experience but I used to volunteer in a nursery home (yes they can still vote) and old people are also fucking selfish.

    I do think 50 is too low tho. Maybe 60. Between 18 and 60 that would give 42 years to vote, after which I think it's time to pass on the torch

    "I believe the children are our future
    Teach them well and let them lead the way"

    from a crackhead in the 80s

    0|1
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

  • We might improve actually because right now, we have so many people who are stuck in their old ways and are not willing to change. I wish their would be a movement to abolish the 2 party system. Our founding fathers warned us about this system and told us it would be our downfall and we still didn't listen.

    0|1
    0|0

What Girls Said 10

  • people who've had more life experience tend to make better decisions

    5|4
    0|0
    • I forgot to specify this is only about the US. So, with that said, what is the metric that determines the US has made better decisions?

  • we would be fucking doomed.

    3|2
    0|0
  • People who vote at those ages would be angry over the fact that their rights got taken away and it would end up making more issues than it was solving

    0|1
    0|0
  • Worse, in my opinion. You can't take away people's rights like that.
    I feel like that would be the beginning of more people losing their rights.

    0|1
    0|0
  • They are older and wiser. They have the most education, they pay the most attention to politics, and they use their best judgment. Young people today are so ignorant that they're willing to vote for anyone. They're fools. They don't educate themselves enough, so they'll vote on behalf of their limited perspective, and everyone as a whole would be doomed.

    0|0
    0|0
    • How do you measure wisdom?

    • Good question. I'll let you know when I'm old enough to see it. Currently I cannot measure wisdom, but I just have to rely on my speculations. From what I can see, I have a grandma who knows a lot about politics, and I know that the people I go to school with don't care at all. (I don't even care.) In high school, they aren't going to teach students about how to vote or even the basics of politics. They are only going to be educated if they WANT and CHOOSE to be on their own free time. Simply put, the elderly know a lot more than we do...

    • I'm relying on demonstrable results. Call me crazy.

  • This country would be fucked

    0|2
    0|0
  • Better because I think the majority of all the racist, greedy, prejudice people in this country are old people. But still, everyone deserves their voice to be heard, not just the ones with their heads on straight.

    0|0
    0|0
  • What's the purpose of banning them

    0|0
    0|0
  • Worse.

    0|0
    0|0
  • That wouldn't be democracy, a government is meant to please all citizens of a country

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 20

  • In that case I believe not much would change. I disagree somewhat with @hellionthesage in that there are of course also old liberals but there are also important generational differences.
    The reason nothing would change is because in your example, you're just banning everyone 50+. This includes one very conservative generation and one very progressive generation, so they cancel each other out.
    Many young people believe that "old people are conservative" but that's not generally true. The conservatives today are the cold-war generation. The people between 40-75 tend to be very conservative. Incidentally, they are also the current establishment. Practically all major politicians are in that generation. However, if you go upwards from there, people actually become much more liberal again. Bernie Sanders (who is right at the generational border) is a great example for this. The people who are now in their 90s were born in the 1920s and became young adults in the late 1930s. This was an extremely tough time in US history for many folks but it was also a very revolutionary time. It was the time of people such as John Steinbeck and FDR. It was a time when "socialist" was not yet a swear word in America and the workers unions were very strong. In addition, the 1920s and 1930s were - despite many hardships - a time when people wanted to have a lot of fun. They threw parties, listened to new music (Negro Jazz, Blues, Ragtime etc.), were sexually promiscuous, tried some drugs (at least until 1934 when they were prohibited) etc. Though they might have settled down a little over the years, many of these elderly people are in fact still very liberal in their thinking. Oftentimes, they're more progressive than people who are 30 years younger than them.
    So if you want a more liberal government, you'd have to exclude the cold war generation from voting and not all old people.

    0|0
    0|0
    • You're the first one to mention conservative vs liberal on this question, so most of your answer is moot.

      It's not about right or left. It's about informed vs uninformed TV zombies. Trying to present the great depression generation as somehow relevant today is ludicrous. At any rate, you can consider this hypothetical question as a circumstance where it is experimental. So, they only get banned for a generation, or so. Until a new power structure can take hold.

    • Show All
    • Well to be perfectly honest I don't care about your feelings I care about facts. Now you talked about how liberals "question authoritarianism" now unless you didn't mean that as a slight against conservatives, then I would say you started the mud slinging (along with the claim that intellect is associated with liberalism, that also would be insulting). So yeah you being insulted doesn't really matter because you instigated that. And again even if I did care about emotions I still care about facts more and by definition authoritarianism is by definition: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. Which is applicable to liberalism as it forces people to obey the liberal morality by always excepting a certain view or banning peoples personal say in thier beliefs (attacks on religion and any other group they deem the enemy) and they use government to enforce this ie they are by definition authoritarian.

    • As for what Thomas sowell has proved wrong he has proved many feminist theories wrong (feminism being very much embraced by liberalism (or taken over by feminism)) he has disproved most of the so called racial equality laws showing that they have actually been incredibly harmful to the black community (he by the way is black) and just general liberal policy. Look him up if you want, here are a few links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo
      And yes I agree that science is about objective evidence but again, liberalism isn't science its an ideology it has an idea and it adheres to it irregardless of evidence. Also what police brutality are we speaking of? Ferguson where a police officer was assualted by a black man and then was accused of racism for defending himself? Is that the kind of brutality your talking about? Where even black witnesses stated as such.

  • You would get the same thing. Why? Do you think age alters everything? Like their where never old liberals? That every single person above a certain age is racist/sexist/conservative/etc etc etc? Thats just stupid and prejudice/bigoted. First and fore most nothing would change because age does not dictate personal views (except where experience is concerned) and two just because your young doesn't make you intelligent or capable you can still be a bigot and an idiot even if you are young (kind of strange that you would think otherwise to be honest). Three since 80% of all votes don't count thanks to gerrymandering and the electoral college nobodies vote really matters except for a select few so even banning the young or the old (you honestly would have a better argument banning any one under the age of twenty five then over fifty) would have no impact on who is elected.

    0|0
    0|0
    • So it would be better to ban under 25, but it would be the same? Epic double talk.

      Whoever you want to view it, it's a fact that people over a certain age vote a certain way, compared to younger people. And older people vote in overwhelming numbers compared to the rest, so they are the ones that decide the elections. They are the ones that elected the system we are living in today.

    • Show All
    • Rebuttel? Alright, who knows if you're even serious or trolling.

    • Some one questioning you or calling you out on something does not mean they are trolling it means that they are questioning you and/or calling you out on something. You know that and I know that. I have not behaved in any fashion indicative of "trolling" which again, you know but simply do not wish to respond to my questions because you know exactly what that will do and where that will lead.

  • We would be much better off banning those less than 35 from voting!! Simply because they haven't lived enough, experienced enough, and seen enough 'regimes' to know what is REAL!
    At least the 50+ people have seen different Presidents, inept Congresses, and all kinds of issues in the Courts.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Curious that people are choosing this age, evenly matched up with their self interest.

  • 1) Hardly anyone would vote since older people have a much higher voter turnout.
    2) You'd have a bunch of young people who have almost no knowledge or experience making important decisions based on naivety, gullibility and a very narrow view of the world.

    I have a better idea. Raise the voting age to 35. That's still very young without much experience, but it's a heck of a lot better than the voting age being 18.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I would present the current state of affairs as Exhibit A, against the argument that voters have 'knowledge or experience making important decisions'

  • We might improve, all these older folks lose their idealism and just vote for who they think is 'electable' instead of the people they want

    0|1
    0|0
    • It's the consequence of beating brow beaten with oppression their whole lives. Stockholm syndrome.

  • No, if that is done then the efficiency of voting will go down, I mean we do need experience people to vote also, their votes will affect the end result.

    No, we won't get a better government if 50+ year olds are banned.

    0|0
    0|0
  • The negative effects of violating a huge number of people's basic right to vote would outweigh any positive effect, if there even is anything positive about elderly people not voting.

    You may as well ban undergrad college students from voting, since they tend to vote irrationally and emotionally when it comes to major issues like the economy. But that too would be a violation of a human right, and anyone who holds the rights of others as sacred would be pissed off if that were to happen.

    0|1
    0|0
  • As opposed to what do you really think most people my age have a fucking clue about what's best for our country.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Well more likely to access independent information, at least.

    • Trust me the older voters are the main reason things aren't worse but to deny them the right to vote would be infringing upon their rights given to them. Plus what about the 50+ who do deserve to vote like my father who's also an active soldiers over 50 doesn't he deserve to vote?

  • Voting and thinking with your emotions rather than your brain, Yeah that always works out :/
    And all you ideas of oppression and persecution all complete bullshit lol

    1|2
    0|0
  • They have all the wisdom if not you would have puppys running the world

    0|0
    0|0
  • It really depends. In the case of Singapore, it would lead to a better government as the current corrupt as hell PAP is almost solely held in power by the older population who fail to look past their glory days in the 60s and face the reality of the present state of neglection they have been subject to. And with the population aging as a whole, it's no wonder they have been able to stay in power despite their steady shift into dictatorship.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Sorry to tell you this, but it's not much different in the US.

    • I never said it isn't this way in any other country, I'm just citing one example

    • East Asian power structures tend to be slightly different because the cultures there tend to be more obedient and collectivist. But the oppressive power structures can adapt to fit any culture, including the US.

  • It will never happen anyway, because it would be undemocratic to do so. You need representation from every group of people in a country to reach a truly democratic election. You can not trust any group to make decisions that will not benefit them but another group, it will just not happen.

    0|0
    0|0
  • If anything, the voting age should be raised.

    0|1
    0|0
  • There'd be a lot less conservatives voting

    0|0
    0|0
  • What a loaded bullshit poll. Sophistry at it's... well. I've seen better sophistry.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I don't think you know what that means.

    • Show All
    • That's what makes it sophistry. You're employing a fallacy called the "false dilemma."

      Is it better in the summer or the country?

    • If you say so. If you wanted to trade stupid names, ok, you're a poopy pantz.

  • They would probably fire all the young people. They have all the seat of power.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Yeah. I guess they can run their workforce with nothing but old folks. That should work.

    • Show All
    • You're entire idea is to disenfranchise them. 1) regardless of the fact that I think it would be stupid to disenfranchise people, it would never pass through government. 2) if you want to give all sorts of loans to young people after you strip their rights, you obviously need tax revenue to do that. Basically you're proposing to destroy all past infrastructure and reinvent the wheel, while simultaneously preventing wide spread revolts. That sort of shit doesn't work when it comes to controlling people.

  • The people 50 and below are the ones who put us in this mess. So yeah banning 50+ year olds from voting would most likely put Sanders in office which would only further increase our dept and put millions of workers out of jobs. Also establishing a socialist economy in which no one is allowed to keep the money they earn because "the government should control everything"

    0|0
    0|0
    • How did people below 50 put us in this mess? Elaborate. If they don't decide the elections, then how?

      And your rant about the government controlling everything is a non-sequitur.

  • We'd get a better government if we stopped right wing idiots from voting.

    0|0
    0|0
  • doesn't matter. everything stays the same no matter who is prez

    0|0
    0|0
    • Hardly. And it's not just about the president. You know that another branch of government also gets elected? And the 3rd branch gets appointed by the president.

  • Defeats the aim of democracy does it not? but then again, US is not really a democracy.

    1|1
    0|0
Loading...