• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    If you need to wait 18 years to vote you shouldn’t be able to vote once you are 18 years from average life expectancy (as in life expectancy is 80, you can vote until you’re 62, not after).

    Imagine how much focus would be put on healthcare if that were the case…

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        If it works one way it should work the other way as well! You’re too young to be responsible enough to vote? Then you can be too old to care enough about the future to vote!

    • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      A quick google says the US is 77 years, add 18 to that and you’re already way too high. 77 is geriatric, just like everyone complained about the last and current US presidents.

      Or… did you mean ‘from’ as in below? That would make more sense. Early 60s isn’t too old though.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Yes, I meant 18 years after birth = 18 years before average age of death, so politicians would need to either reduce 18 to something lower or would have to work to increase life expectancy.