Just like 16 years old people can’t vote because too young, 80+ years old people should not be able to vote, most of them are too distant from everyday reality of younger people to be able to take a wise decision for the community and also often stick with (way too) old ideals from their years
Which is why competency based voting > age based voting. Age can be an easy approximation for competency, but creates issues like the above.
THAT BEING SAID, implementing competency based voting on a large scale can be very very dangerous if not done with the utmost care (in its design). Who writes the competency tests? What should be part of the tests? How do we make sure that the competency tests are not used as a proxy to keep out certain groups of society?
At the same time, I’m all for youth liberation. In the current political systems of the world, the youth are represented by their parents/elders only, which is a horrible horrible mode of representation.
A competency test is just the start of the end of a democracy tbh, it means that someone can influence political decisions by making a specific political idea “incompetent”
Both age and competency limitations are very stupid ideas
Not inherently
Correct, which is the biggest issue and why it’s very dangerous to implement in practice.
That being said, there is nothing inherently wrong with competency tests. We have competency tests for driving, practicing medicine, law and so on. Why? Because we don’t want incompetent individuals with the power to cause a lot of damage.
Through voting, millions can be stripped off health coverage. Wars can be started. The power to vote can create or destroy entire civilizations.
A basic competency test for:
would help reduce the probability of disaster imo.
The question of “the test setter can act in bad faith” can be remedied through independent sortition based committees requiring a supermajority approval for the test. I mean I can’t see how designing such a structure in theory could be that difficult.