Hacker News Reader

Comment by bell-cot | Hacker News Reader

Those in their first ~2 decades of life have long been exempted from proper representation, and I've never heard the elderly complain about that. Having both ends cut off sounds more fair and balanced to me.

View on HN

Comparing a child to someone in their 70s with a lifetime of experience is silly. Maybe there should be limits once in office at a certain age, but not everyone ages the same.

"Adolescence" was a made-up term to remove personal sovereignty over younger people who know full well, and would do, but aren't legally permitted to do so. They're also subject to our laws. They should have their say as well.

And then we see under-18 routinely be charged as adults.

And yes, if 15 year olds could vote and run for office, I do think we'd see more issues aimed at the younger generations ALONG WITH longer views of how our government is run. And we're seeing the judicial side of this with youngsters suing for climate devastation, like https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/1...

I used to believe this - and even advocate for change - then I watched my children become teenagers.

There is truth to the idea that, whether due to life experience or brain development, teenagers struggle with proper decision-making.

I don't like the arbitrary nature of age cutoffs, but I would no longer support the idea of giving more political power to anyone under 18.

> There is truth to the idea that, whether due to life experience or brain development, teenagers struggle with proper decision-making.

I don't like the arbitrary nature of age cutoffs, but I would no longer support the idea of giving more political power to anyone under 18.

while that's just an anecdote, even if it were the norm, it is also the norm for old people of a sufficient age

if it makes you feel better, we can administer cognitive tests to old people and determine at what point they fall into "teenager" level of mental acuity

There is much less variance on cognitive ability on the younger end of our lives than the higher end. Arbitrary age limits in youth are unfair, but less unfair than the same on the upper end of life.

I had a friend who remained sharp until her mid 90s. I have family members who shouldn't be voting in their early 70s. That range is massive, whereas we can mostly agree that nearly all 14 year olds aren't capable, but most 20 year olds are - unfair but not as vast a range.

> There is much less variance on cognitive ability on the younger end of our lives than the higher end.

I'm not sure that's true. Mental maturity in kids varies widely, too. There are some pretty mentally mature kids changing the world. Look at Greta Thunberg.

There are also many fewer years for older people to live with the consequences of their votes. Everything has trade-offs. In this case, the loss would not be as bad as the loss we get from excluding those below 18.

Whatever the counterexample of sharp old people, I can think of one for sharp young people. We ignore those exceptions for young people, we can ignore them for old people, too. And if you're worried the old-age cutoff will be too young, just pick whatever age's median mental acuity matches 18 year olds - what's good for the gosling is good for the goose.

Your friend could still vote, just not run for office at 90 years old. This seems like a fine compromise to avoid the Feinstein/McConnell/RBG/etc pattern.

Then why is anyone under 18 charged in criminal court as adults?

If you get ages can be seen to have the same legal cognitive patters as an adult, why shouldn't they also have the same rights as an adult?

Part of the criminal justice system is removing dangerous people from society. Sometimes you can make this determination before their 18th birthday. In general I agree with you though.

I don’t believe they should be.

We already allow 19-30 year olds to vote, and it doesn't really seem to move the needle much in areas they are supposedly interested in.

If you've been around many kids, you know that "18" is completely arbitrary, and adult-ish maturity comes to some far sooner than to others. (And to a few, it never does seem to come.)

And if you've been around many elderly people, you know that quite a few are less competent to vote than the average 14-year-old student council member, and that letting ~all of them do so is no less arbitrary than that "18".

My father is in his 70s and can barely remember what he had for breakfast. He should not be representing anyone, or even voting for that matter.

There's no way to separate the able minded from the seniles fairly, so an age limit is the best way to do it.

> There's no way to separate the able minded from the seniles fairly, so an age limit is the best way to do it.

Sorry about your father, but there are plenty of 70 year olds who are extremely competent, capable and that also bring valuable connections and experience.

Does your father continue to vote the same way he has most of his life?

Yes. But his party has changed a little in the last few years and I feel he would not be voting for them now if he could understand that.

can you call it voting if they have less idea what's going on around them than a teenager?

Having a lifetime of experience does not necessarily make someone smart, rational, or even coherent. It especially does not make someone interested in voting for changes that will improve the lives of people younger than them.

That’s why we have elections. Being youthful doesn’t imply any of those things either and guarantees limited experience. I’m not arguing that young people shouldn’t be in office. I’m just not sure an arbitrary age limit is appropriate either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com