this post was submitted on 11 May 2024

151 points (96.9% liked)

politics

18651 readers

3611 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

151

More than a million adults have legal guardians. In seven states, they can't vote. (www.motherjones.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago (7 children)

If you have someone making life choices for you does it not make sense that you shouldn't be allowed to vote? Someone has successfully made an argument you aren't fit to run your own life. Not sure why they should be allowed to affect the lives of others. I'm not sure what the difference is, at least in some cases, between people with a guardian and children <18 y/o. And IDK of many clamoring to lower the voting age.

If you want to argue that guardian and/or conservatorships are misused far too often then I'm with you on that.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 3 months ago

Guardianships are very often for severe physical disabilities with no intellectual imparement. Those people can't vote either.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Funny how Americans treat owing a gun an inalienable right, but voting is a privilege that could be taken off more easily than 'The Second'

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

I'm game for not letting people capable of basic life choices to either, to be honest.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Daily reminder that the average 15 year old is smarter than the average 70 year old by literally any psychometric standard.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Smarter maybe, but wiser?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Crapshoot, wisdom is aquired via both length of experience and breadth of experience. There is no way to objectively measure either, though id probably trust the wisdom of a 15 year old who fucks up constantly over that of some 70 year old yuppie who hasnt done anything stupid since the 70s.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, that's true, but the hormones of a 15 year old impair their wisdom. Unless there is significant cognitive deterioration a 70 year old would have no problem with that.

And, I'd bet on average the 70 year old has more weslth, breadth and length of experience. Pulling it 100% out of my ass though, no data to back it up.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

“Wisdom” in this case meaning the prejudices accumulated over a lifetime? According to research, an average septuagenarian is more narcissistic, less literate, more bigoted, and less intelligent than the average teenager. Sometimes by multiple standard deviations. (I can provide sources).

Couple the Flynn effect with lead poisoning and you have a gap of almost 30 IQ points in some areas of the country.

By the way, have you ever seen an old person’s brain in an MRI? It’s missing like 20% of its volume.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Lead poisoning is a real bitch

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

15 year olds have much less knowledge.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

This implies the people handing out these conservatorship judgements are infallible, which they aren't.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

If they submit a properly completed voting document, their vote should count. (It should also be easy to vote.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Judges, at least in my area, are increasingly explicitly listing which rights are being taken and which rights remain with the individual. For example, financial concerns or driving may be directed to the guardian but the individual still has the right to get married. I would hope that voting would be one of those line items.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

If you have someone making life choices for you does it not make sense that you shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

As with the disenfranchisement of felons and inmates, there is a perverse incentive to put people you don't want to vote into conservatorship.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

So this is an interesting one for me. I worked with mentally handicapped adults for years, and here in texas at least, if they were able, they could vote.

What happened often was that they voted for who their caretakers insinuated they should vote for, and were taken advantage of in that regard. It wasnt what they wanted, they just did what they were told.

But, to counter that point, the same thing happens to perfectly compitent adults through societal pressures, cultural influence, and media coverage. It may not be what they really want to vote for, but these influnces direct their vote.

Its been established that poll restrictions based on literacy are unconstitutional since 1965. But there is some nuance. Where is the line drawn for disadvantaged or mentally handicapped adults? Convincing chuck, 35 and on a 4th grade reading level, to agree with me and vote how i want is one thing. physically guiding the hand of and checking a box for sharon, a 40 year old with the mind of an infant, seems to be two different parts of a spectrum that blur the line between acceptable and immoral. Its fairly easy to distinguish those extremes, but there is in fact a line somewhere in between.