Here is an alarming proposal:
In 1970, Douglas Stewart, a university professor in California, was upset by the rise of Ronald Reagan and suggested that perhaps there were too many old people moving to California and voting. He made a modest proposal of his own, writing a controversial article in the New Republic titled "Disenfranchise the old":
'The vote should not be a privilege in perpetuity, guaranteed by minimal physical survival, but a share in the continuing fate of the political community, both in its benefits and its risks. 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, the politician or party he may help elect ... I would advocate that all persons lose the vote at retirement or age 70, whichever is earlier.'
You can read the rest @
I will soon fall into the age group the professor wants to disenfranchise, so I'm very interested in how this turns out.
The "logic" of this proposal is similar to that which would not tax the property of people who do not have kids in school. Or perhaps we should pay for our prisons by taxing only the families of prisoners.
We have (or at least should have) a social contract, and everyone has an obligation to be part of it - as a giver and as a recipient. There would have been PLENTY of money to pay for the care of the aged and the needy if Congress hadn't spent the money on wars, if the Pentagon hadn't wasted the $6.5 trillion they can't account for, and if US corporations hadn't offshored our economy.
I recommend that we not allow college professors or students to vote. They clearly don't know what the hell they're talking about, and much of what they do is more disruptive than constructive.