A Kinder Logan’s Run?

The counter argument involves wisdom gained from experience. There are foolish oldsters as well as wise youngsters but overall there is something to it. Balance it all out and the votes should probably count the same.

Maybe you could impose some sort of empathy or consciousness test on potential voters, like the Bene Gesserit’s gom jabbar. Demonstrate you are fully human before you’re allowed to vote. If you lack basic human awareness of the fact the species will continue after your death, perhaps you shouldn’t be trusted to hold office or influence decisions concerning pollution, education, or the economy. Of course poll tests are always twisted by the ruling class but it’s an interesting question.

Or maybe the people who don’t give a damn are just kept in such a desperate state by economic conditions that short-termism is a logical result. Some short termers are just incorrigible, sure, but others are influenced by propaganda, and others by necessity. We know that racism was deliberately inculcated in the New World by slave owners to keep poor whites in line. As the economy deteriorates for workers we see the old biases and -isms (sexism, homophobia, racism) reassert itself as a force in the national culture. It’s a way of keeping competitors down when one has next to nothing. If economic conditions approved we would have less short term thinking.

Most people under 25 are mostly obsessed with finding their place in the world. That’s why you have former Rand voters now being berniebots.

It’s best if extra votes were based on military service and peace corps type things. No person should join congress if they haven’t served.

Ignorance and apathy seems to span the generations: the evidence of the sinfulness of Man. I have worked with young teachers for the past fifteen years, all of whom consider themselves intelligent (they are certainly educated and able to express themselves) and progressive, and yet it means almost nothing. For example, they have absolutely no practical, personal concern for the environment. They are unwilling to sacrifice the slightest convenience for the sake of the larger picture.
My older relatives think far more about how their actions affect others around them. Even more ironically, my older relatives are more socially liberal than I.
On another related tangent, I see how many of the solutions to the issues in this world do not line up neatly into larger categories like progressive, moderate and traditional. Some things were better before, some are best as they are, and some need drastic change.

We could start by lowering the voting age to 12 or 14. True, not many kids would actually vote, but let’s at least offer them a say in the decisions they will live with for decades.

For the rest, you are right that some kind of systemic way to reduce the impact of older voters on democracy is needed. Making their votes worth 3/5 or something would be too fraught for the obvious reasons (and picking another fraction wouldn’t help).

Maybe you need to guarantee a percentage of legislative seats for under 30s. Have to ponder the options more.

I’m 50 years old, but I would strongly support no one being allowed to vote or hold public office past age 60 (the age at which most people’s cognitive functions begin to deteriorate). It wouldn’t be a cure-all to what ails us, but at least the system would be forced to be more responsive to the concerns of those who have the most to lose.

Ian–

You rarely come up with bad ideas, but when you do, they are amazing.

Your proposal is inherently divisive.

It assumes wisdom decreases with age, and while, sadly, there are plenty of suggestions that it does not increase, assuming those with less experience are wiser is a bit of a stretch.

You worry too much about the death-bet–as though this form of selfishness were special, or especially important. Any society that bases itself on selfishness has entered the process of suicide, and trying to save such a society makes no odds.

When I go to an organic farming workshop, finding old people is easy. There are a few of the very young. All the other age groups are missing. The idea that young people in general are interested in reducing their environmental footprint is not supported by observation.

The idea that we are going to do something about climate change–and the even more extreme notion that old people in particular are standing in the way of doing something about climate change–flies in the face of the obvious fact that using less energy is wildly unpopular with most people.

Instead, everyone is looking for crazy schemes to keep going as usual. Solar panels are a nice example. Reduce your energy use by 90% and solar panels allow you to do some very nice things, like run some LED lights, a radio, or a laptop computer. But although solar panels look neat and clean, the environmental . . . externalities . . . of their manufacture preclude intensive use on a habitable planet. Just one example of many.

You sometimes use the phrase “why we can’t have nice things.” Well, a sustainable life is possible, but people don’t want that. They want unsustainable lives, and of course, those will not be sustained.

You have been making some posts on the principles of a functioning society. That is a hard problem but your thoughts are good. Usually you set the principles in a whole context, which is where they have to be set, because a society is a complex (rather than a simple) system.

Today’s proposal is different.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that most societies draw the opposite conclusions to yours. Whether they are right or wrong I do not know. But it does stand as a warning to think twice.

—Gaianne

IRONY ALERT: Yes, I am aware that I am making this post using technologies that are fated to disappear. No regret: When it is gone it is gone. I hope anything I say has served its purpose before that happens.

–Gaianne

I’m 74 and very much “into ecology”. I am retired middle class educated american (white) woman–great public university education, full employment, born in 1942 a great time to be born in the USA (not so much other places) worked till I was 72.(a year off at age 60 to recoup energy) Most folk I know in the boring suburb are into “decreasing our energy foot print” I see either a sixth extinction that will destroy human life or else small pockets of survival in what I would consider “primitive” conditions–eg markedly reduced sources of energy—maybe all the nuclear plants deteriorating. it will be a return to “the dark ages”—but actually we are in the dark ages right now. I just do my best to be kind, lower my energy footprint, give bits of money to charities, still camp out at national parks, read a lot, and ALWAYS vote–hopefully will vote for Bernie, walk a lot, keep healthy so I don’t need high cost dying and hopefully then slip beyond the veil during sleep. (And I voted for McGovern too!) I would like to do no harm–but just by being, I do–so I hope to be kind to those I meet in life.

Any way Ian, if you read these, I am inspired and intrigued by your writing and so very happy you are writing the booklet. On a fixed income I just made a one small donation–but I am glad to be part of your blogging and sharing with us and feel like celebrating the fact you are writing the booklet. . thank you, wishing you all the best

To be sure, it would probably be more useful to ban the rich from voting and exerting influence on elections.

You are right that the way democracy is practiced around the world these days is often a minimalist version of possible democratic practices. Of course, the problem is that money is the most widespread medium of power exercise. Wherever that is the case then any particular practice of democracy as a medium of power is, by tautological definition, powerless.

But your musing here assumes that money has been tamed and ponders an alternate approach to voting within a democratic governance. As such your proposal, while interesting, is a very rudimentary one within the canon of democratic ideology. Besides voting one needs to consider the actual institutions to which one becomes represented by ones vote, no matter which voting system is used.

My own preferences, ones made increasingly possible for large groupings by electronic communication and computation and information storage, tend towards full participatory democracies. I would prefer a defacto single party system where anyone can join and expulsion is very difficult. Likely many people would not even choose to participate. These would be many of the non-voters of today but excluding the conscious non-voters who recognize the extreme futility of almost all voting.

Then within the defacto single-party and effectively “the” government, I would propose systems of defacto real-time proxy representation. Meaning that people who know shit would get the proxies of people who trust them. I believe you refer to that as a system based on authority, or to put it negatively, a kind of authoritarianism. But since it is representationily based it could be considered democratic authoritarianism. And further since it is real time representation, meaning that ones relative authoritative power is constantly changing, it is even more democratic.

That’s all that I mean when I suggest that your idea is rudimentary.

I seem to remember there’s some old saw about how civilisation is old men planting trees they know they’ll never see come to fruition.

Not one of your better ideas Ian organising to protect your interests – the so-called “grey panther effect” is the essence of participatory democracy. The solution is to engage younger potential voters in political activity in such a way that their contribution is meaningful not to exclude the wrinkly contingent.

I also think that you are over emphasisisng the “death bet” factor. In my experience most people are too busy coping with an increasingy fraught and distraction rich environment to plan even five years ahead let along longer. The more people twitter and jabber the more easily distracted from what is essential they become, it’s easy to send a tweet and persuade yourself you’ve done something worthwhile it’s not at all easy to build an effective political movement.

I agree with Mark’s gentle dissent.

If it would stop raining long enough, I will plant 18 bare root trees on a steep hillside that I’ll never see reach maturity. Last summer I built terraces meant to last several hundred years giving the trees a chance to set deep roots and for descendants to be planted.

I’ve been asked by the young laborer I’ve hired to help; “why, you’ll be dead before this is a productive orchard?” “Dunno” I replied; “it’s just hard wired to produce for the future, I wish I could do more, but my society has turned away from progress and science.”

God will judge all us in our time, pious pharisees who’s hopes lie in the fooling those around them will be chagrined to be cast into the darkness with the vilest criminals…and I may be among them, but at least I’ll have planted trees throughout my life!

Setting generations at odds with one another is an increasingly popular Republican tactic, in their zeal to screw Social Security and quash empathy in general. It disturbs me to see anything similar on the left.

Historically, children have often felt closer to their grandparents than their parents, due to the generational 180 caused by routine rebellion. Certainly, my grandmother was the angel in my life, until her death when I was 12. My oldest aunt and I shared a special affinity, too; in fact, we were only family members who voted for George McGovern.

That was the first vote I was eligible to cast. My next will be for Bernie Sanders. Although I’m 60-something now, in my heart I’m still a hippie doper queen.

We were a minority then, BTW. Plenty of young people were thoroughly nasty — “Goldwater Girls,” for instance. I submit that the same is always true and that one’s original proclivity is seldom overthrown.

My peers who were vile in youth no doubt voted in due course for Reagan — and allowed such horrors as tiered wage and benefit structures that protected them while their younger colleagues suffered. (That stands out in my mind as a particular atrocity against the young.)

While I have a lot of hope for today’s kids, who’ve proudly rediscovered tolerance and are eager to learn more, many in middle age really need a swift kick. Yes, they’re having a devil of a time surviving — we all are in these piratical times — but their ignorance of public affairs is just plain scary. It’s those who think they’re far too busy to ferret out any truthful information, but know everything their favorite celebrities did all day, whose votes I worry about.

All the best to you, Ian. Thanks for using your fine brain so well and spurring others to give their own a workout.

Wow! What a truly loathsome idea. Let’s see how that would work out, hmm?

Women live longer than men. Women don’t make as much money as men. Since women spend more time caring for future generations (children) they don’t put enough away for retirement. (My 91 year old grandmother is a good example. She was everything society expected of her. Good wife. Great mother. SS check? $430.00 per month in year 2016.) So basically you want to take the vote away from poor elderly women. Good job curse word.

I have a better idea.

Since men don’t live as long (short term outlook) and since they spend way less time caring for future generations (can’t remember the kid’s birthday let alone the details of climate change), since they cause more violent crime and more of them are in prisons… or doing jihad (costing society a ton of money we could be devoting to climate change), I say it would be much smarter not to allow any man on the planet to vote. Bonus points: Take all their toys away. (Military.)

/snark… barely.

“I treat people based on their actions. Boomers fucked up everything when they managed to get in charge of it.”

Yeah, I remember being at the countless meetings of the entire “Boomer” generation where we all gave unanimous consent to every bad act committed by the financial, military and political elites of that era. And we were so much worse than the generations that gave us slavery, genocide of Native Americans, child labor, the Great Depression, etc., etc.

Yours is a sophomoric analysis. Generations do not have agency. People in power are the agents of the bad shit that happens on their watch and power elites making bad, sociopathic. short-sighted decisions and their supporters can be found in all generations. Its baked into the rancid ideologies that this country worships, and always has worshiped generation , after generation after generation.

The power elites of this nation assassinated the best leaders of the Boomer generation (JFK, RFK, MLK) who wanted to end the Cold War, the Vietnam War and make progress on social and racial justice. That those leaders enjoyed wide spread support from the generation you claim “fucked up everything they got in charge of” makes a mockery of your stance. Sure, they weren’t universally loved and they had their faults but we would be living in a very different world if those leaders had lived and their visions had been realized. Instead we got Nixon, Reagan and the like and a neutered “opposition” who redefined their vision to winning the competition for support from the reactionary elements in our society.

And I’m not impressed by your denigration of your own generation. You can’t tar that large a group of people (even if you’re one of them) with the same brush.

Errata:

John, b. 1917, Robert, b. 1925 and Martin, b. 1929 were squarely in the “Greatest Generation” demographic, not boomers.

Otherwise I remember it like you do, especially the part about the All-Boomer meetings, although I was only 5 years old, where my older siblings voted for everything bad that happened since 1967.

Generation as identity is a recent invention, like fashions and celebrity fads changing periodically, promoted by public relations, advertising and media companies to sell product and control the masses. The fact that increasing numbers of non-white youngish voters vote not-republican, while their white counterparts without degrees or income prospects vote republican should surprise no one.

That’s the plan, divide and conquer, bro. Don’t carry their goddamn water for them.

Sadly, Ian has signed onto Pete Peterson’s fix-the-debt crew. Elites love it, they can rape and pillage with impunity as long as the oldsters get blamed for it. Then they’ll play a few rounds of blame the youth. and round and round it goes.

That depends on whether you think people only act selfishly. That is not what I have observed, and I continue to be astonished at how much ordinary people give to charity.

Young people may be more idealistic, but I would attribute that mainly to the fact that they are not yet under any real economic pressure. People become aggressive and selfish when they feel insecure, whereas most older people have come to terms with their lot one way or the other and can return to their earlier idealism. In addition they have a wealth of experience to bring to the table, including an understanding of the shortcomings of confrontation and populism.

Traditional societies revere their ‘elders and betters’. I guess there’s a good reason for that!

@John Poynton

“Young people may be more idealistic, but I would attribute that mainly to the fact that they are not yet under any real economic pressure.”

in that parallel, grey universe i was talking about, perhaps.