|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Age-related issues are thorny. Always will be. It stands to some sort of reason that a man of 96 probably should not have the same political influence as someone who is 20 - they aren't likely to stay around for long after the vote. In many countries, we have had old people dictating the conditions of pensions and such to a level that they get great pensions and everyone has to pay for them, while eventually the system collapses and then the younger people have to pay for their own pensions after having paid for the older peoples'. Sweden is a prime example of this. Fair? Not really. Nor will it get better with an aging population all across the West.
It is also obvious that demented people should probably not have political influence at all. In some places, convicted criminals are not allowed to vote. In others, immigrants get to vote before citizenship in general elections. It is not clear-cut what should be in this issue.
Finally, age also brings a discussion about the beginning of the right to vote. Eighteen is common, but so is sixteen. Many sixteen-year-olds are perfectly capable of understanding what they need to vote. Many forty-year-olds are not.
But... democracy is a sensitive beast. One man, one vote has been the best we could figure out. In the end, the right to strip someone of the vote is a very dangerous tool, and would be wielded with verve and cruelty. All the above, while real problems with democracy as it is, is really less important than a simple framework.