• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    28
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    That thought experiment unleashes multiple cans of worms.

    (Warning: “Quoted” bits are imaginary strawmen but I believe you will find Republicans holding these positions.)


    “Life begins at conception”

    Do pregnant women cast more votes? Is there going to be a pregnancy test at voting stations? Or ultrasound to check for twins?


    “Parents have a bigger reason to care about future, as their kids will live in it.”

    — Kids aren’t copies of their parents… why not decrease the voting age instead?

    “No, older people know better”

    • @BaldManGoomba
      link
      83 months ago

      If you will be 18 during any elected official term you should be able to vote for them. This allows some kids to vote as young as 12 for senators and get to vote at 14 for president’s and congress people. Then at the worst thing 18 year old seniors can vote for school admin elections

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        123 months ago

        This makes sense if you start with the axiom that the state exists to serve those who are 18 and over. But it doesn’t. It serves everyone. The age threshold is to ensure you have enough life experience to understand the impact of your vote.

      • @jumjummy
        link
        43 months ago

        And by that logic, old people shouldn’t get to vote anymore since “they’re not as invested in the future” either. See what happens to the GOP vote when klanma can no longer vote.

    • Pandantic [they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      83 months ago

      The thing that chafes me more than these things is the fact that this automatically makes the votes of young people who should, by all accounts, not yet have kids, worth less than older people or people who who have kids at young age (and are probably in a worse position to take care of said kids), further disenfranchising young people from voting.