this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
112 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10180 readers
109 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

We already have age limits at the lower end. Why are people so against age limits at the upper end?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We should move to a system where votes are weighted based on age. Up to, say, 40 years of age your vote has a weight of 1.0. Above 40 the weight should reduce linearly each year until it reaches 0.1 at the age that equals the current life expectancy. Basically: the closer you are to death the shorter you are affected by the consequences of your votes, so you should have less influence. Older people are probe to short term thinking as they won’t live to see the long term effects anyway.

[–] Lowbird@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

What the fuck. What the fuck.

[–] StringTheory@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ah, Dred Scott vs Sanford raises its ugly head again.

When you get old enough to be worth 0.6, shall we call it “3/5” just for old times’ sake? As a compromise?