Barrington

Is your plan to walk around with your umbrella up when it's bright and sunny, or to wait until it's overcast, dark, and rainy—hoping I charge something?"

Maybe a parasol would be a better idea?

where did I say that? my suggestion is to not increase the proportion of gullible people, perhaps reduce it by slightly increasing the age limit (like to 20

You didn't, you took my point to the extreme when you said this:

but then just delete the age limit. lets have kindergarten aged kids vote. what could go wrong?

I was doing the same to your point to show how ridiculous it sounds when you exaggerate any of these ideas.

What I would add that got pointed out to me today is, that if we have a general election every 5 years, someone who turns 18 just after an election potentially may not be able to vote for the first time untill they almost 23.

Again, my opinion is that being able to vote for the first time between 16-20 sounds a lot better than voting for the first time between 18-22.

If we are taking things to extremes to make the point.

You plan would be to block anyone that may be gullible from voting.

The question is how? Forced iq tests or level of education achieved. Maybe some demographics are more susceptible? Age, race, gender? Maybe location. Are rural communities less likely to consume propaganda? Are they more likely?

It seems the original argument was that if at 16 you can join the army and fight in a war, should you get a voice on if we go to war?

I think yes.

If your main points are around misinformation, propaganda, fake new, ai generated content or anything that convinces people of something that is false, I would say this is a huge, but separate issue that affects everyone, not just 16-17 year olds.

Younger people consume different types of media and paying influencers to pick political sides doesn't seem to be as uncommon as I would like.

That being said, Cambridge analytica already showed us that the age groups that can vote are not immune to have their opinions manipulated via targeted misinformation.

They are just as fucked as we are, let them vote.

Definitely agree there are no easy answers.

At least this seems like a much better place to have a discussion on it that some other places online.

Edit: I did just saw you first comment got down voted. I think you have a valid point, I don't agree but I wouldn't down vote you for having it and I don't think you should have been.

I appreciate your honesty. I would have to say I was still a twat when I started to vote, and was for a long time after.

What are your thoughts on people with degenerative brain diseases being able to vote?

Should you have to take a test once you hit 70 to confirm you are still aware enough to vote in an informed way? (Should you be able to work in politics after 70?)

I admit I'm taking it to the extreme to make a point but if you can work and pay tax at 16, I think being able to vote makes sense.

But do you think you cared more about the future than someone who is 70?

Is voting selfish reasons at 16 naturally better than someone doing the same at 80?

I agree, I probably didn't know enough at the time to make the most informed choice but I was definitely more idealistic, and I think that would have been a good thing.

Also, will there her more policy aimed at improving the lives of 16+ knowing they can vote.

I think the positives out way any downside.