The UK has a practical minimum of 18 for Prime Minister (technically there is no minimum but practically there is) but realistically never elects a PM under 40.
For British Sovereign there is also no limit, any particularly young Sovereign has effectively delegated to a council of regents historically. In practice this is also unlikely - although in theory of course we are two untimely deaths from a 12 year old taking the throne.
Between 35-60 at start of term, IQ above 130.
I don't think it is. 18 year olds are smarter than most people give them credit for. They probably know math better than most 40 year olds just given their adjacency to math practice in school.
Some of the smartest people I’ve ever known at any age have been among the worst at “life skills”.
Math is at least important in many life skills most would consider important imo. Like budgeting, financial planning, retirement planning, investing, etc.
I'm not in favor of restricting at all the people they can vote for. Let them elect an Iraqi toddler to be US president for all I care; if they're the ones taking care of us, they probably have a good reason.
Just as a thought experiment: what if the threshold for having a vote was tied to paying a positive amount of personal income tax, and the weight of each vote was proportional to the amount paid? How skewed might such a system be? My first reaction is that in countries with high inequality, the wealthy would disproportionately influence the outcome. However, on the other hand, if people avoid or minimize paying taxes, they would lose the power of a weighted vote, which theoretically could incentivize paying taxes in full.
Right now, the top 10% pay about 70% of federal income taxes, so your plan would effectively make 90% of the population's votes effectively worthless.
Regardless, specific policy implications are totally beside the point.
The problem with this "well you're not akshually an adult until X" stuff is that it is basically a re-hash of long out of fashion "women are hysterical, blacks have big muscles and small brains" type crap from 200yr ago that was used as a justification to continue preventing these people from finding their own way in life unbounded, consequences and all. First off, the logic is flawed and self referential, of course housewives and slaves couldn't adult, they never had the opportunity to gain the experience, same with 22yo college kids you're measuring today. Removing the racism and sexism by simply applying it to everyone doesn't change the flawed logic. But that's not even the big problem. The big problem is that at a societal level you're reducing the number of person-years available for full adult capacity work and productivity. You can solve this with coercion (state, social norms, etc), but people are less productive when they're not working for themselves so you're still handicapping your own society. A society that does not encourage people to develop and become adult and achieve and produce at full capacity as quickly as possible (which is likely a different timetable in an agrarian society than an industrial one, details left as exercise for the reader) WILL eventually be outcompeted by one that does, though a head start may buy time.
Plenty of data on this: https://theharvardpoliticalreview.com/gen-z-voter-barriers-2...