How can you simultaneously be concerned that children will vote immaturely and vote the same way as their parents?
I have described two separate failure modes. I see no reason to believe that the two failure modes would cancel each other out.
My favourite response to this is to retain the “everyone gets to vote at 18” aspect regardless of child enfranchisement.
That doesn’t work. If everyone above age 18 can vote, black children can vote down to IQ 65, and white children can vote down to IQ 60, the result will still be skewed, although not by as much as if the IQ test was applied to everyone.
I see no reason to believe that the two failure modes would cancel each other out.
… you don’t? Could you explain your reasoning on this?
That doesn’t work. If everyone above age 18 can vote, black children can vote down to IQ 65, and white children can vote down to IQ 60, the result will still be skewed, although not by as much as if the IQ test was applied to everyone.
It doesn’t work perfectly. That’s far from the same thing as not working at all.
… you don’t? Could you explain your reasoning on this?
Yes. First of all, having two independent failure modes cancel each other out would be an astonishing coincidence. If you think that an astonishing coincidence has happened, you had better show some reason to believe it other than just saying “perhaps there will be an astonishing coincidence”. Second, it doesn’t follow that the two failure modes will always produce opposite results anyway. For instance, suppose that immature parents are more likely to pressure their kids into voting with the parents than mature parents are; then both failure modes increase the amount of immaturity-based votes.
It doesn’t work perfectly. That’s far from the same thing as not working at all.
It works worse, as far as racial bias goes, than having the 18 year old age limit and nothing else.
If you think that an astonishing coincidence has happened, you had better show some reason to believe it other than just saying “perhaps there will be an astonishing coincidence”.
I didn’t mean it as a coincidence. I meant that if you’re OK with adult voters, then you should be OK with kids parroting adult voters.
However, you have a good point about the possibility that poor voters might affect their children disproportionately. I can only respond that the same might be true of adult voters, but … yeah, there is definitely something to think about there.
It doesn’t work perfectly. That’s far from the same thing as not working at all.
It works worse, as far as racial bias goes, than having the 18 year old age limit and nothing else.
As I believe I pointed out elsewhere, there is more to life than racism. We are, in reality, talking about a tiny bias here. What kind of distortions are ageist biases producing?
Not to mention, in a racist world, oppressed minorities have lower life expectancy.
(Also, well …I feel uncomfortable just typing this, but the thought occurs that if the best test you can produce is racist, then maybe you should be updating the possibility that racists were onto something.)
I am okay with adult voters to the extent that any cure for poor voting by adults is going to be worse than the disease. Voting tests create incentives for corruption and mismanagement and historically have been associated with corruption and mismanagement pretty much whenever they have been used.
I have described two separate failure modes. I see no reason to believe that the two failure modes would cancel each other out.
That doesn’t work. If everyone above age 18 can vote, black children can vote down to IQ 65, and white children can vote down to IQ 60, the result will still be skewed, although not by as much as if the IQ test was applied to everyone.
… you don’t? Could you explain your reasoning on this?
It doesn’t work perfectly. That’s far from the same thing as not working at all.
Yes. First of all, having two independent failure modes cancel each other out would be an astonishing coincidence. If you think that an astonishing coincidence has happened, you had better show some reason to believe it other than just saying “perhaps there will be an astonishing coincidence”. Second, it doesn’t follow that the two failure modes will always produce opposite results anyway. For instance, suppose that immature parents are more likely to pressure their kids into voting with the parents than mature parents are; then both failure modes increase the amount of immaturity-based votes.
It works worse, as far as racial bias goes, than having the 18 year old age limit and nothing else.
I didn’t mean it as a coincidence. I meant that if you’re OK with adult voters, then you should be OK with kids parroting adult voters.
However, you have a good point about the possibility that poor voters might affect their children disproportionately. I can only respond that the same might be true of adult voters, but … yeah, there is definitely something to think about there.
As I believe I pointed out elsewhere, there is more to life than racism. We are, in reality, talking about a tiny bias here. What kind of distortions are ageist biases producing?
Not to mention, in a racist world, oppressed minorities have lower life expectancy.
(Also, well …I feel uncomfortable just typing this, but the thought occurs that if the best test you can produce is racist, then maybe you should be updating the possibility that racists were onto something.)
I am okay with adult voters to the extent that any cure for poor voting by adults is going to be worse than the disease. Voting tests create incentives for corruption and mismanagement and historically have been associated with corruption and mismanagement pretty much whenever they have been used.