Would older people be more inclined to put effort in educating younger people if people over a certain age were not allowed to vote?
Overall I think older people have collectively (yes, there are exceptions) shown a shocking lack of concern for the conditions of the young (education and otherwise). Collectively the grey vote has been overwhelmingly about preserving and expanding the role of government in helping out the elderly and everyone else can go to hell (while spouting endless mythology about how much they put into the system, etc). I doubt there's any way to educate (indoctrinate?) young people to vote for the big intergenerational wealth transfers that old people have collectively achieved.
I know that both my parents put in considerable time, effort and funds to give my siblings and me the opportunities to develop ourselves in whatever way we leaned towards, whether that be apprenticeships or university or something else. There was no mythology of what they put in. Likewise, my wife and I have put out considerable effort to have our children well educated and and have helped facilitate their life directions. My children have reflected on their realisation of just how hard it is, now that they are going through the same things with their own families.
With all the young people we are involved with, our common refrain is to look carefully at what is going on in society, learn all you can and make decisions based on careful thought. Part and parcel of this is about respecting those who have gone before them, even if they don't deserve it, and respecting other people even if there is no agreement with what they might say or do.
As far as wealth transfers are concerned, how often do we see stories of the young who have made considerable inroads into making their own fortunes by dint of wise savings and investments and doing the hard yards to learn how to do this. I have watched many who just fritter away their wealth with the latest fashions, gizmo's, parties and lattes, without thinking about what they could do instead. But hey, that's their choice.
One would need to think very, very carefully before taking the franchise away from some group of people because you may think they are now to old. There will be unintended consequences that will cause more problems than one may have ever thought possible.
I would point out that nearly everything you are raising about 'looking after the young' is about the idea of your own children and looking after yourselves. You've done the sleight of hand of shifting the topic to 'leaving money to, and looking after, your own kids'. What I'm talking about is the way older voters have collectively demanded more from society (generous governmental benefits) while collectively denying the same sort of benefits to younger people (there are way more small children growing up in poverty than old people in poverty).
The mythology to which I refer is that older people are taking way more out of the retirement systems than they typically paid into it. So every time there's a thread like this people jump on and yell "what about my social security and all my tax contributions"; however, the books are not balanced - younger taxpayers carry older ones.
I'm sure you have done the right thing by your own parents and children and I respect you for that. I am doing the right thing also.
But there's a big difference between responsibility to ones own and civic responsibility, and a lot of old people have decided that bringing up the young is somehow a raw naked capitalist process while looking after the old should be done with the gentlest principles of socialistic redistribution.
Almost all of them will be geriatrics complaining about traffic or property values or somesuch, with complete disregard for children's well-being.
Older people, in general, have far more time to devote to political pursuits. The primary reason it's mostly older people talking about politics on TV is that they can be out at a political event at 2pm and stand in front of the camera crew.
The approach can be summarized as: "government is a vending machine to serve my interests; I put taxes in and a equal or greater pile of stuff comes out and goes directly to me". It's possible a large number of people of any age group believe this but it certainly looks much more stark when someone 65+ believes it (and acts on it, often in a well-organized bloc).
The other thing that spurred my comment is the statement "with complete disregard for children's well-being." That's the truly dishonest part, as it completely misrepresents the political position of about half the country. It's a strawman.
I wouldn't worry about the idea that old people skew fiscally conservative; they are typically enthusiastic socialists, at least as far as redistributing money from younger people to pay for their ever expanding benefits.
They aren't just over-represented in perception; they are a self-interested bloc that is over-represented in terms of redistributive policy. The furore that emerges whenever someone delicately suggests that we means-test benfits so middle-class oldies (and above) can't help themselves to the public pot (well in excess of what they have contributed) is proof of that.
The fact that children (who have had almost zero opportunity to shape their current financial situation) now live in poverty at a substantial higher rate than 65+ people does suggest something a bit closer to "complete disregard". The political position of about half the country (or more) in most Western countries is a strange combination of rugged individualism applied to others and an outsize enthusiasm for unearned handouts for oneself.
It's not strange, nor is it a combination. It's just one thing, called "FYIGM."
Not an argument for anything, just a consideration.