No new insights, just trying to say the obvious: Yes, age 18 is arbitrary; there is no law of physics saying that changing it to 17 or 19 would mean the end of the world.
Kids live in a different world. Most of them never had a job, never had to take serious responsibility. In average school they are brought up to believe and obey. It seems like their votes will partially go towards the parent or teacher who shapes their opinions, and partially towards the currently fashionable form or teenage rebellion. (And yes, most of this could be said also about people above 18, e.g. college students or state employees, or adults who take their opinions from media. The argument is simply that no one is perfect, but for an average high school student these pressures are stronger than for an average adult.)
The argument against “people over 60 are the same case as people under 18” is that if you experience strong injustice when you are under 18, you can do nothing about it now, but you can remember it and express your opinion later. People over 60 would not get the same chance.
With high percentage of young males being often blamed for social unrest and wars, is the changing shape of the age pyramid going to result in even more political stability? And how is giving teenagers a vote going to affect that?
There are young people, middle-aged people, and old people. A change “less votes for young, more for middle-aged” could perhaps bring stability, but it doesn’t stop there. It will soon become “less votes for young and middle-aged, more votes for old”, and then I would expect politics of high taxes (need to get the money for the old people who don’t have savings; why not take from those who have less political power) and neglecting long-term development in favor of short-term fixes.
Possibly a backlash afterwards, if the middle-aged people realize they do all the work and have almost no power. In extreme, we will either go the “no vote above 60” way; or if the old people coordinate first and make it impossible, then preference for less democratic forms of government.
We should also expect more of the usual; governments trying to change the demographic curve by importing young people from developing countries, thus adding racial and cultural aspects to the already existing inter-generational conflict.
A progress in medicine (or perhaps a change in lifestyle) could possibly change a lot; it matters whether “old people” refers to a lonely and sick person, or a relatively healthy person with hobbies and social connections.
No new insights, just trying to say the obvious: Yes, age 18 is arbitrary; there is no law of physics saying that changing it to 17 or 19 would mean the end of the world.
Kids live in a different world. Most of them never had a job, never had to take serious responsibility. In average school they are brought up to believe and obey. It seems like their votes will partially go towards the parent or teacher who shapes their opinions, and partially towards the currently fashionable form or teenage rebellion. (And yes, most of this could be said also about people above 18, e.g. college students or state employees, or adults who take their opinions from media. The argument is simply that no one is perfect, but for an average high school student these pressures are stronger than for an average adult.)
The argument against “people over 60 are the same case as people under 18” is that if you experience strong injustice when you are under 18, you can do nothing about it now, but you can remember it and express your opinion later. People over 60 would not get the same chance.
There are young people, middle-aged people, and old people. A change “less votes for young, more for middle-aged” could perhaps bring stability, but it doesn’t stop there. It will soon become “less votes for young and middle-aged, more votes for old”, and then I would expect politics of high taxes (need to get the money for the old people who don’t have savings; why not take from those who have less political power) and neglecting long-term development in favor of short-term fixes.
Possibly a backlash afterwards, if the middle-aged people realize they do all the work and have almost no power. In extreme, we will either go the “no vote above 60” way; or if the old people coordinate first and make it impossible, then preference for less democratic forms of government.
We should also expect more of the usual; governments trying to change the demographic curve by importing young people from developing countries, thus adding racial and cultural aspects to the already existing inter-generational conflict.
A progress in medicine (or perhaps a change in lifestyle) could possibly change a lot; it matters whether “old people” refers to a lonely and sick person, or a relatively healthy person with hobbies and social connections.