Elderly Should Lose Vote

Back in 1970, Douglas P. Stewart, a professor of classics at Brandeis University, made headlines for advocating that the elderly should lose the right to vote.

His thesis is this:
"The old, having no future, are dangerously free from the consequences of their own political acts, and it makes no sense to allow the vote to someone who is actuarially unlikely to survive and pay the bills for (what) he may help elect."
In other words, Stewart thinks old people vote with an attitude of "grand je serais mort, je me ficherais de tou — (when I'm dead, it (society) can go to hell)."

Stewart, if he's still alive, would now be around 83. I wonder if he's still voting?

The Daily Journal (Franklin, Indiana) — Sep 23, 1970

Posted By: Alex - Tue May 17, 2016
Category: Elderly and Seniors, Politics, Elderly, 1970s





Comments
"SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!"
Posted by KDP in Madill, OK on 05/17/16 at 10:48 AM
LOL The wife still won't eat crunchy chips. LOL

I agree, those of us old enough to not give a shit anymore should just let that assh0le Ob all the young, stupid, whippersnappers that haven't got enough experience under their belt to vote in whichever lying, cheating, traitor politician they want.

Now, pass the kool-aid and leave me alone. angry
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 05/17/16 at 11:12 AM
I hadn't thought of voting revengefully before reading this. It sounds like more fun than the old way.
Posted by Virtual in Carnate on 05/17/16 at 05:43 PM
I'd much prefer a law which prevents career academics from voting.
Posted by A Nonny Mouse on 05/17/16 at 06:41 PM
I still don't get that felons can't vote for criminals.
Posted by BrokeDad in Midwest US on 05/17/16 at 06:47 PM
The question of who should decide is quite a puzzle. Basically, we have democracy because all the other options have turned out to be even worse. Rousseau, I hear, advocated choosing magistrates by lot. Heinlein, in /Time Enough for Love/, briefly described a society in which anyone hitting the age of 70 or 75 (I forget) legally died; his heirs inherited his property, and even if they chose to continue to feed and clothe him, anyone could shoot him, just for target practice. When the existence of the long-lifers who are a central thread in that novel becomes public knowledge, there is agitation for an upper limit on the franchise.
Posted by John Ayer in Connecticut on 05/17/16 at 08:42 PM
The novel 'Search The Sky' by Pohl and Kornbluth has a planetary colony with a Gerontocratic Government. Nobody had ANY rights until they turned 65. Anyone over 65 was treated like royalty.

Seems like a good idea to me!
Posted by BMN on 05/17/16 at 11:29 PM
I propose that we ban anyone who can´t make a comment on TV, radio, in a newspaper or on the internet without it turning into a hate filled rant.
Posted by F.U.D. in Stockholm, Sweden on 05/18/16 at 01:14 AM
@F.U.D.: I agree 100%!
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 05/18/16 at 01:17 AM
@ John Ayer

Quote: "anyone hitting the age of 70 or 75... anyone could shoot him"

I always thought this about murder sentences... Shouldn't the time the murderer spend in jail be based at least partially on the remaining life expectancy of the person he killed (a minimum mandatory time for the crime, plus some factor of the person's age that was killed)? Seems more fair to me!
Posted by Kyle Morgan in Earth (I think...) on 05/18/16 at 12:08 PM
No, Kyle, the time a murder should spend locked up should not be any longer than it takes to load the guns and march out the firing squad.
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 05/18/16 at 12:23 PM
Expat47 -- Agreed! grin
Posted by Kyle Morgan in Earth (I think...) on 05/18/16 at 12:28 PM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.