Escape the idiocracy

A Bold Proposal for the Future

The right to vote is sacred. It’s one of the core tenets of democracy, granting individuals a voice in shaping the future. However, let’s take a moment to confront an uncomfortable reality: not all voices are equally aligned with the times. Why should individuals who are more attuned to the past—those well into their retirement years—dictate the trajectory of a future they are statistically less likely to experience? In a world where young people under 18 cannot vote, it’s worth asking: should there also be an upper limit for voting eligibility?

I had comments from close friends before releasing this article it could be banned, reported, but, only offended would do that, and no one thinks that HE is the stupid one.. so I think I'm pretty safe.

The Case for Time-Relevant Voting

TL;DR: Younger generations will live in the future shaped by today’s policies, yet older voters often prioritize preserving their status quo, potentially at the expense of long-term goals.

Before you grab your pitchforks, let’s clarify something: this is not about dismissing the wisdom and experience of older generations. Far from it. Retirees have lived through eras of social, economic, and technological evolution, often enduring hardships younger generations can’t fathom. But here’s the rub: the future belongs to those who will live in it.

Diving Deeper: The argument for time-relevant voting is rooted in a simple truth: priorities differ based on life stages. A retired individual with limited years ahead is naturally more concerned about immediate needs, such as pensions and healthcare, rather than long-term policies like climate change or infrastructure investments. On the other hand, young voters have their entire lives ahead of them and are more likely to prioritize sustainable and future-focused policies.

Moreover, older voters often favor maintaining traditions and resisting change. While this conservatism can sometimes offer stability, it also risks stifling progress. For instance, policies around technology adoption or environmental reform can be slowed significantly by resistance from older demographics. This disconnect between generations can create a political environment that favors inertia over innovation.

"In politics, stupidity is not a handicap." - Napoleon Bonaparte

Who Can’t Vote, and Why?

TL;DR: Restrictions on voting exist to ensure informed and relevant decision-making. These restrictions are typically based on age, mental capacity, and criminal behavior. Why not extend this logic to those out of touch with the present?

To understand why age might matter in voting, let’s look at the existing restrictions:

1. Under 18s: Lacking the cognitive maturity or legal status to participate in national decisions.
2. Prisoners: In some countries, individuals convicted of serious crimes are barred from voting as they are seen as having violated societal norms.
3. Mentally incapacitated individuals: Excluded to ensure decisions are made by those of sound mind.

Diving Deeper: The reasoning behind these exclusions is straightforward: they’re designed to ensure that voters are capable of making informed, rational, and relevant decisions. However, this logic is inconsistently applied. If young people are considered too inexperienced to vote and individuals with certain mental incapacities are excluded for lack of judgment, why do we ignore the potential disconnect of retirees from contemporary issues?

For example, consider policies around technology or social justice. Many older voters did not grow up in a world shaped by these concerns, leading to a potential gap in understanding. In contrast, younger voters, who are more immersed in these issues, often find their voices drowned out by the weight of older voting blocs.

"There are no healthy people, only those who haven’t been diagnosed yet." - Anton Pavlovich Chekhov

The Influence of Age on Voting Patterns

TL;DR: Older voters consistently show up at the polls, wielding disproportionate influence over policies, often at odds with younger generations' priorities.

Older voters dominate elections in many democracies. This isn’t just a matter of demographics; it’s about turnout. Statistically, retirees are more likely to vote than younger people. This creates a significant imbalance, where policies often cater to older demographics at the expense of younger ones.

Take climate change as an example. Younger voters overwhelmingly support aggressive measures to combat global warming, recognizing its existential threat. In contrast, older voters often prioritize immediate economic stability, even if it means sidelining environmental concerns. This generational divide extends to issues like education funding, technological investments, and social reforms.

The result? Short-term gains for older voters but long-term losses for society as a whole. This imbalance perpetuates a cycle where younger generations inherit problems created or ignored by their predecessors.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell, philosopher and logician.

A Global Perspective: Voting and Age Restrictions

TL;DR: Voting patterns and restrictions vary worldwide, but the generational divide is a universal challenge.

Different regions showcase diverse voting landscapes:

1. Europe: Countries like Germany and Italy face challenges due to aging populations dominating elections.
2. Asia: Japan’s “silver democracy” prioritizes retirees’ needs, sidelining youth concerns.
3. America: The U.S. grapples with stark generational divides, especially on issues like healthcare and climate change.
4. Russia: Older voters help legitimize regimes, maintaining the status quo.
5. Africa: Younger populations often face systemic barriers despite their numbers.

Diving Deeper: The implications of these patterns are profound. In Europe, aging populations have stalled reforms needed to address workforce shortages and climate commitments. In Japan, the political focus on retirees has left younger generations struggling with job insecurity and rising costs. Meanwhile, in the U.S., divisive policies often reflect the priorities of older, more conservative voters rather than the progressive values of the youth.

Lessons from History: Rome and the Politics of Relevance

TL;DR: Ancient Rome’s system of governance emphasized accountability. Leaders who failed to serve the people faced consequences—a stark contrast to modern democracies.

Ancient Rome offers valuable insights. Certain classes of people were excluded from voting, and when leadership failed to serve the populace, uprisings ensued. Dynasties fell, and new systems emerged.

Diving Deeper: Rome’s political structure, flawed as it was, recognized the importance of serving the people. When leadership failed, they faced consequences. Contrast that with today’s world, where political systems are insulated from accountability. Complaints are often drowned out by echo chambers, and entrenched bureaucracies stifle meaningful change. This lack of accountability is exacerbated by generational divides, where older voters’ priorities often overshadow the needs of the young.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." - Winston Churchill

Should We Have a Sanity or Intelligence Test for Voting?

TL;DR: Basic criteria for voting could ensure informed decision-making, but implementing such measures raises ethical and practical concerns.

If we’re serious about ensuring informed decision-making, why not introduce basic criteria for voting? A simple test to assess awareness of key issues—climate change, economic policy, social justice—could weed out voters swayed by misinformation or narrow self-interest.

Critics might call this undemocratic, but consider the alternative: a democracy compromised by ignorance and propaganda. While the idea of a voting test is controversial, it underscores the need for a more informed electorate. Educational initiatives and public awareness campaigns could be a less divisive solution, empowering voters without excluding anyone.

"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." ― Marcus Aurelius

The Real Question: Do We Deserve Better Leaders?

TL;DR: Leadership quality reflects the electorate. To elect better leaders, we need a more informed and engaged citizenry.

The quality of leadership often reflects the quality of the electorate. If we consistently elect leaders who fail to deliver meaningful progress, perhaps the fault lies with us.

Are we too complacent, too divided, or too shortsighted? Do we prioritize personal gain over collective well-being? These are uncomfortable questions, but they’re essential for understanding the state of modern democracies. By addressing these issues, we can begin to build a political landscape that truly serves future generations.

Every nation gets the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre

Where Is the Care for Our Children’s Future?

TL;DR: The argument against voting after retirement is about prioritizing the future over immediate, short-term concerns.

Younger generations deserve a greater say in shaping the world they will inherit. While older voters bring valuable perspectives, their decisions should not outweigh the needs of those who will live with the consequences.

The policies we enact today will shape the world for decades to come. Failing to prioritize the future risks leaving a legacy of debt, environmental degradation, and social instability. By recalibrating voting systems to emphasize relevance and informed decision-making, we can create a democracy that truly serves all generations.

"The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away." - Ronald Reagan

Explore the Roots of Democracy: From Athens to Today's Chaos

TL;DR: Democracy has evolved from its origins in ancient Greece to the chaotic systems we see today. By tracing its history, we can understand its strengths, weaknesses, and the events that shaped its current form.

Ancient Athens: Democracy was born in 5th-century BCE Athens, where citizens could participate directly in decision-making. However, this "direct democracy" excluded women, slaves, and non-citizens, making it far from universal.

The Roman Republic: Rome introduced representative elements, balancing power between elected officials and checks like the Senate. Though it eventually gave way to autocracy, its structure influenced modern democratic systems.

Magna Carta (1215): This pivotal document limited the power of the English monarchy and laid the groundwork for constitutional governance.

The Enlightenment: Thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu championed ideas of individual rights and the separation of powers, shaping modern democratic thought.

The American Revolution (1776): A new democratic experiment emerged, emphasizing representation and checks and balances.

The French Revolution (1789): While tumultuous, it spread ideas of equality and popular sovereignty across Europe.

20th Century: Democracy expanded with universal suffrage, civil rights movements, and decolonization, though challenges like totalitarianism and Cold War tensions tested its resilience.

Today’s Chaos: Modern democracies face polarization, misinformation, and declining trust in institutions. The rise of populism and authoritarian trends highlights vulnerabilities in democratic systems.

Lessons learned: Understanding democracy’s roots helps us appreciate its adaptability while recognizing the need for reform to address contemporary challenges.

Lessons (Not) Learned

TL;DR: Despite centuries of evolution, democracy continues to repeat its mistakes, often ignoring lessons from history and failing to adapt to modern challenges.

Ignoring History: Time and again, democracies have failed to heed the warnings of the past. The Roman Republic’s collapse under populism and corruption is a cautionary tale that echoes in today’s political landscapes. Modern democracies, much like their predecessors, struggle with wealth inequality, eroding institutions, and the rise of demagogues.

Misinformation Overload: The digital age has amplified the spread of misinformation, making it easier than ever for uninformed opinions to dominate public discourse. Despite the lessons of propaganda in the 20th century, democracies have yet to find effective ways to combat the deluge of false information.

Polarization and Division: The growing divide between political factions mirrors historical patterns of civil strife. Democracies have failed to address the root causes of polarization, allowing extremist voices to drown out reasoned debate.

Short-Term Thinking: Election cycles incentivize short-term solutions over long-term strategies, a flaw that has plagued democratic systems since their inception. Leaders prioritize immediate gains to secure reelection, often at the expense of future generations.

Lack of Civic Education: Despite the importance of an informed electorate, many democracies have failed to invest in robust civic education. This leaves voters vulnerable to manipulation and less capable of making reasoned decisions.

What Can Be Done?: To break the cycle of repeating mistakes, democracies must prioritize adaptability, transparency, and education. By learning from history and embracing innovation, democratic systems can evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

A Modest Proposal

Maybe, just maybe we could escape the matrix with implementing age limits and awareness tests could foster a more balanced, future-focused democracy...

Here’s a bold but practical suggestion:

1. Implement an upper age limit for voting: Perhaps at 70 or 75, with exceptions for those actively contributing to society through work or civic engagement.
2. Introduce a basic awareness test: Ensure voters have a minimum understanding of key issues.
3. Increase youth participation: Lower the voting age to 16 for local and national elections to empower younger voices.

These measures might seem radical, but they’re aimed at fostering a more balanced democracy. By ensuring voters are informed and connected to the times, we can create a political system that serves both present and future generations.

Democracy is about giving everyone a voice, but not all voices resonate equally with the times. By recalibrating voting systems to prioritize relevance and informed decision-making, we can create a political landscape that truly serves future generations. It’s time to ask tough questions and make bold changes because the future deserves nothing less.

"Democracy is a system where two idiots have more rights than one wise man." - Anybody sane.