Seems a stretch to use this as the basis of any radical change like raising the voting age to 32 (although maybe it supports reducing the minimum presidential age from 35 to 32!), but it does perhaps suggest looking at what kind of soft-paternalistic structures might help “adolescents” make better life choices. It is a little absurd that we expect an 18 year old to navigate the world with the same competence as a 40 year old.
I think it's weird having an arbitrary minimum age to be president. I would probably never vote for someone in their 20s anyway, but I don't think there should be a legal barrier. In my country (Brazil) it's the same age, but we usually just copy US in think kind of policy. I wonder how common it's in the rest of the world.
I'm more bothered by the geriatric politicians in various democracies than I am that you're missing out on some amazing politician in their twenties.
The UK has a practical minimum of 18 for Prime Minister (technically there is no minimum but practically there is) but realistically never elects a PM under 40.
For British Sovereign there is also no limit, any particularly young Sovereign has effectively delegated to a council of regents historically. In practice this is also unlikely - although in theory of course we are two untimely deaths from a 12 year old taking the throne.
> It is a little absurd that we expect an 18 year old to navigate the world with the same competence as a 40 year old.
I don't think it is. 18 year olds are smarter than most people give them credit for. They probably know math better than most 40 year olds just given their adjacency to math practice in school.
Life skills and wise decision making are very hard to judge and most people will disagree on them though. I don't think 18 year olds make all the worst life choices and 40 year olds make far better ones, but I also can't really prove my statement, nor could you prove a counterfactual statement. It's hard to prove what life skills are valuable and who is good at them.
Math is at least important in many life skills most would consider important imo. Like budgeting, financial planning, retirement planning, investing, etc.
I've become an advocate of restricting the voting age to 25-54. It's basically a reversion to the property holder rule, but shifted to production. The people paying for everything would get to make the decisions.
I'm not in favor of restricting at all the people they can vote for. Let them elect an Iraqi toddler to be US president for all I care; if they're the ones taking care of us, they probably have a good reason.
> The people paying for everything would get to make the decisions.
Just as a thought experiment: what if the threshold for having a vote was tied to paying a positive amount of personal income tax, and the weight of each vote was proportional to the amount paid? How skewed might such a system be? My first reaction is that in countries with high inequality, the wealthy would disproportionately influence the outcome. However, on the other hand, if people avoid or minimize paying taxes, they would lose the power of a weighted vote, which theoretically could incentivize paying taxes in full.
I think tying it to pension age would make a very interesting dynamic. I can see a lot of incentives and alignments around the issue would instantly shift around, and I think for the healthier and will incentivize finding the true ideal pension age.
