Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[jjbrr]

Then why do retirees get to vote about issues that mostly affect the long-term future?

 

Actually I find it quite obvious that the average 16-year old would make a better-considered voting decision than the average 80-year old - and I don't think it's even close.

In fact, just imagine how much of a better place the world would be if in the elections of the last 3-4 years in the Western world, we'd had no one above age 65 turn up to vote, and instead those 16-17 old be allowed to vote.

 

can you qualify why you think this way? do you think we'd have fewer voters on strictly party lines? do you think some single-issue votes are obvious morally(abortion, marijuana, and climate among others, i suspect, would be incredibly skewed by minors; my position on all is probably clear)? is it related to religion, with the younger generation skewing more atheist? do you think 16-year olds are both more motivated and more capable of research on their own? or you just think old people are more likely bigots? likely some combination of all of the above.

 

i'm closer to 16 than 65, obviously. i've also learned more about the world in the past 5ish years than i had in the previous 26ish, i believe. maybe i'll have lost a few steps by the time im 65, but hopefully i'll be able to afford some steps to lose.

[cherdano]

can you qualify why you think this way? do you think we'd have fewer voters on strictly party lines? do you think some single-issue votes are obvious morally(abortion, marijuana, and climate among others, i suspect, would be incredibly skewed by minors; my position on all is probably clear)? is it related to religion, with the younger generation skewing more atheist? do you think 16-year olds are both more motivated and more capable of research on their own? or you just think old people are more likely bigots? likely some combination of all of the above.

 

i'm closer to 16 than 65, obviously. i've also learned more about the world in the past 5ish years than i had in the previous 26ish, i believe. maybe i'll have lost a few steps by the time im 65, but hopefully i'll be able to afford some steps to lose.

By and large, older people vote more xenophobic and racist. The patterns doesn't hold in every country, but it's still fairly consistent. We'd certainly have avoided the two biggest recent disasters (Brexit and Trump).

 

But also I mean - just talk to them. I'd say young voters are actually more motivated to find out about issues, and the candidates' positions about them. Older people in comparison just vote by pattern matching - "We tried Corbynism in the 70s and it was a disaster".

 

As an example, I wouldn't advise you to discuss the EU and the Euro with any German above the age of 60 - even among the most educated, you'll just hear platitudes and prejudices ("The Euro is a disaster because as always the French just steamrolled the Germans in the negotiations." - that's a quote from a retired well-respected philosophy/politics professor I had the displeasure of meeting) that would be contrary to the views of any economist, or anyone else with a modest understanding of the facts.

[Cyberyeti]

Well, you do realise we got Brexit because 70-year olds didn't want to have to talk to a Polish nurse at the hospital?

 

Actually not entirely true. I seem to be almost unique in that all the Brexiteers I know are well educated, worked in the financial sector and whether 80 or not fully understood all the issues and made their decision for reasons nothing to do with racism. In fact they're true Europhiles, speak European languages or even originate from another EU country. They are simply fed up with the waste and corruption of the EU and that Brussels runs the EU for its own benefit rather than that of the member states.

[nige1]

Then why do retirees get to vote about issues that mostly affect the long-term future? Actually I find it quite obvious that the average 16-year old would make a better-considered voting decision than the average 80-year old - and I don't think it's even close. In fact, just imagine how much of a better place the world would be if in the elections of the last 3-4 years in the Western world, we'd had no one above age 65 turn up to vote, and instead those 16-17 old be allowed to vote.

It seems obvious that a person with 5 times longer time to think than a 16-year old will make a more considered (but not necessarily a better) decision. Arguably, young people tend to have more extreme views, although I still support lowering of the voting age.

Well, you do realise we got Brexit because 70-year olds didn't want to have to talk to a Polish nurse at the hospital

No, although communication failures can be fatal in a hospital context. My experience differs from Cherdano's: older patients get on excellently with foreign medical staff.

By and large, older people vote more xenophobic and racist. The patterns doesn't hold in every country, but it's still fairly consistent. We'd certainly have avoided the two biggest recent disasters (Brexit and Trump). But also I mean - just talk to them. I'd say young voters are actually more motivated to find out about issues, and the candidates' positions about them. Older people in comparison just vote by pattern matching - "We tried Corbynism in the 70s and it was a disaster".

As an example, I wouldn't advise you to discuss the EU and the Euro with any German above the age of 60 - even among the most educated, you'll just hear platitudes and prejudices ("The Euro is a disaster because as always the French just steamrolled the Germans in the negotiations." - that's a quote from a retired well-respected philosophy/politics professor I had the displeasure of meeting) that would be contrary to the views of any economist, or anyone else with a modest understanding of the facts.

Brussels is a festering mire of corruption -- it's finances are so niffy that no accountant will audit them. I still hope that reform is possible. FWIW, I think we should have joined the Euro and I voted "remain".

 

Also, we should welcome calm, constructive, and informed debate about so-called ageism, racism, and other "taboo" subjects.

[StevenG]

Well, you do realise we got Brexit because 70-year olds didn't want to have to talk to a Polish nurse at the hospital?

Actually, 60-year olds can remember a time before Thatcher, and have watched the economic decline of their country over nearly 40 years.

[RedSpawn]

Actually, 60-year olds can remember a time before Thatcher, and have watched the economic decline of their country over nearly 40 years.

Source: http://www.scmp.com/business/global-economy/article/2101946/britains-economy-already-disasterbrexit-final-nail-coffin

 

Short-termism in industry, chronic underinvestment in key infrastructure and the lack of a coherent national economic plan have all resulted in an economy where regional development and regeneration has often been chaotic, muddled and wasteful. Market forces and government intervention have both failed to bridge yawing shortfalls in the economy.

 

Sounds like Britain and the U.S. share a similar problem but in America we have the luxury of our central bank expanding our money supply by $4 trillion ($4,000,000,000,000) and keeping key interest rates artificially low since the 2008 housing bubble to make it appear that our economic recovery and wealth is long-term.

[Winstonm]

I think the president should agree to talk with special counsel Mueller because it would be the great testimony, maybe the greatest ever.

[y66]

Excerpts from The case for allowing 16-year-olds to vote by Zachary Crockett at Vox

 

Lowering local election voting age to 16 in major cities, in conjunction with the integration of civics classes in school, has been gaining support as a tenable way to boost turnout.

 

“Executive function skills are the brain-based attentional skills required for goal-directed problem solving [like voting],” says Zelazo. While these skills generally continue to improve until the mid-20s, the biggest leap occurs from age 10 to 12. As Zelazo’s research shows, the ability to make informed decisions is formed well before the age of 18.

 

Further research has shown that 16-year-olds “possess the same level of civic knowledge as older young adults” (those ages 18 to 25). While their knowledge is not up to par with that of, say, a 40-year-old voter, there is no statistical discrepancy between them and 18-year-old voters who already have the right to vote.

 

In 2013, Takoma Park — a small, progressive enclave in a suburb of Washington, DC — became the first city in the US to lower its local election voting age to 16. Two years later, nearby Hyattsville followed suit. “We have many 16- and 17-year-olds in our community who care deeply about this place,” council member Tim Male, who initiated the measure, told the Washington Post.

 

The data proves that to be true: In Takoma Park, the turnout rate for 16- and 17-year-olds not only exceeded that of every other demographic in the city’s 2013 and 2015 elections, but nearly quadrupled the overall average:

 

Internationally, at least 20 countries allow citizens under the age of 18 to vote. In Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina, and Nicaragua, 16-year-olds regularly contribute to the electoral process. In Greece and Indonesia, 17-year-olds can vote in national elections, and in Israel they have the right to vote in municipal contests. Recently, 16-year-olds in the Scotland election had a 75 percent turnout rate — higher than voters three times their age.

 

But two European countries — Norway and Austria — present a particularly interesting case.

 

In 2011, Norway officials decided to test out allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote. The result: 58 percent showed up to the polls — more than first-time voters ages 18 to 21. After lowering its voting age to 16, Austria saw a similar trend: 16- and 17-year-olds voted at higher rates than other young voters:

 

Voting, by measure of hundreds of studies, is a habitual act. Voting in one election increases the likelihood of voting in subsequent elections by 25 percent. As Peter Levine, a professor of citizenship and public affairs at Tufts University, says, “if you voted in a past election, you tend to vote again.” Likewise, voters who skip their first election — typically at age 18 — are far more inclined to become habitual nonvoters.

 

Entrenched both in familial and institutional support groups, 16-year-olds are in a better place to form long-lasting voting habits than 18-year-olds — but only if the right to vote is accompanied by a robust civics education.

 

In general, Americans of all ages possess a pitiful knowledge of civic affairs.

 

Only 36 percent of us, for instance, can identify the three branches of US Government (Executive, Legislative , and Judicial).

 

Sixteen-year-olds are no exception. Though they are cognitively and habitually primed to vote, they often lack a deeper knowledge — or interest, for that matter — in the foundations of civic engagement. Should they get the vote in local elections, it is absolutely crucial that that new right comes in tandem with an educational support system.

 

Civics courses, designed to educate youth on the workings of both local and federal governments, have been proven to boost voter turnout. One study found that a year of such coursework can boost voter turnout for more than a decade after graduation.

 

Should Proposition F pass [it failed: 48% for 52% against], the San Francisco Board of Education has committed to implementing a plan to give 16- and 17-year-olds the resources they need to be better informed citizens in an election.

 

“The entire school board is unanimously in support of this,” Matt Haney, president of the San Francisco School Board, tells me. “We can see a huge benefit for our school system and local government to have the perspective and voices of young people.”

 

“We may be teenagers who do things that frustrate our parents,” says York. “But we’re also people who care about our city. And we’re thinking about solutions that will make it a better place — not just for us, but for everyone.”

From Maryland Suburb Says 16 Is Old Enough To Vote (May 2013) by Alan Greenblatt at NPR:

 

"The more opportunity we have to introduce young people to the voting process, the more likely it is that they'll be lifetime voters," says Heather Smith, president of Rock the Vote, which encourages voting among the young.

 

Still, when bills pop up in cities, public officials have sometimes been skeptical, questioning the wisdom and common sense of teenagers. Often, they recall their own foolishness at that age.

 

But while there are always questions about picking the right cutoff for various activities — and the age differs at which you can drive, enlist in the armed services and legally drink alcohol — voting is something younger teenagers should be able to handle, says Laurence Steinberg, an expert in adolescent brain development.

 

"Adolescents are probably just as good as adults at really taking information and making a logical decision about it," says Steinberg, a psychology professor at Temple University. "That doesn't mean they'll always do it logically, but neither do adults."

So 16 year olds have roughly the same amount of civic knowledge as 18-25 year olds, have slightly less developed reasoning skills than 18-25 year olds but stronger skills than 40+ year olds, generally have more at stake than older people and are more likely to become habitual voters than if they start voting 2 years later. This is not close.

[awm]

Perhaps the major point is not civic knowledge or even reasoning skills but rather environment. 16-17 year olds are typically in a place they have lived for a while, with support from a structured school environment and a parent or guardian. This makes it easy for them to learn about candidates, find out where and when to vote (maybe just go with parent/guardian) and so forth. The 18-19 year old is in a different situation, often just starting college and living on their own for the first time, maybe in a new city. School is much less structured (if they’re in school at all) and parents may be less willing/able to help (if only because they may live far away). It seems harder to vote!

 

Since voting once makes you more likely to vote again, it seems like starting younger is better. Certainly I remember being 16 and knowing quite a bit about issues and candidates and wanting to vote.

[barmar]

My instinct suggests to me completing a W4 and having income withheld should make minors eligible to vote. I suspect a working minor has a better grasp of things like taxes, FICA, healthcare, etc etc, than a kid who makes no income, pays no taxes, and is dependent on the parents' insurance.

I had a paper route when I was a teenager, but I'm pretty sure I didn't really think about any of that stuff at the time. I delivered the papers, collected the money (so I needed to learn to keep records of how much each customer owed), and the newspaper paid me my share. I don't remember dealing with taxes -- if I had to file a tax return, my parents probably took care of it, but I suspect I didn't make enough for this to be necessary.

[jjbrr]

I had a paper route when I was a teenager, but I'm pretty sure I didn't really think about any of that stuff at the time. I delivered the papers, collected the money (so I needed to learn to keep records of how much each customer owed), and the newspaper paid me my share. I don't remember dealing with taxes -- if I had to file a tax return, my parents probably took care of it, but I suspect I didn't make enough for this to be necessary.

 

I may be mistaken, but this anecdote doesn't strongly suggest to me that you cared about voting one way or another as a teenager. I certainly didn't care. To some, I imagine it would be much more important (otherwise this conversation is entirely moot).

[y66]

In theory, it is also increases chances of discussing stuff that matters and learning how to do this before kids leave home. One of the guys on the Brookings' panel for Raj Chetty's "Lost Einsteins" talk thought learning how to constructively discuss stuff with adults was a skill that separated the most successful kids (and the kids from the best schools) from the rest of the field at his college. Of course, you can always pick up this skill later on in life here in the water cooler.

[barmar]

Then why do retirees get to vote about issues that mostly affect the long-term future?

I think there are arguments both ways.

 

Retirees have had a full life of experience. We'd like to think that this imparts wisdom. They've seen how many past decisions turned out, and this should inform future ones. And decisions they make about the long-term future can be unbiased, because they don't have to worry about how it impacts them. And if they have descendants, they usually want to make decisions that are good for them. It's kind of like why lame duck politicians can more easily vote their conscience, because they don't have to worry about how it affects their electibility.

 

On the other hand, the world changes over time, but most people's fundamental principles are formed early in life. A teenager doesn't have nostalgia for "the good old days" (which often weren't really as good as we think). They understand the current environment better. Millenials all matured after the financial crisis, they don't have a rosy vision of how the economy works (I started working full time and investing my savings during the Reagan years, so for a decade I thought the stock market almost always goes up).

[Winstonm]

I may be mistaken, but this anecdote doesn't strongly suggest to me that you cared about voting one way or another as a teenager. I certainly didn't care. To some, I imagine it would be much more important (otherwise this conversation is entirely moot).

 

When you factor in the three choices that high school students faced in 1965-1975, unless after 1969 you won a birthday lottery, you begin to have an appreciation for the impact government can have on a young person's life and future. With the Vietnam war on nightly news, those nearing draft age were politically aware.

 

I would think the threat of mass shootings and other terror would have a similar effect, although not as universal as the effects caused by the draft.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I would prefer a system that removed the franchise from folks once they - say - hit 70 and extended it to 16 year olds to the one that we have today

 

For me, the major arguments in favor of restricting the franchise are

 

1. Planning horizon

2. Obsolete mental models

3. Declining mental function

[kenberg]

FWIW, I would prefer a system that removed the franchise from folks once they - say - hit 70 and extended it to 16 year olds to the one that we have today

 

For me, the major arguments in favor of restricting the franchise are

 

1. Planning horizon

2. Obsolete mental models

3. Declining mental function

 

Here is a key difference, for this discussion, between 16 and 70.

 

Someone who is 40 expects, or at least hopes, that he will someday be 70. He does not expect to someday be 16, even if he did see Peggy Sue Got Married. There is thus no way in hell that we will be voting to exclude 70 year-olds from voting. Perhaps you are willing to agree to give up your vote when you are 70, perhaps Cherdano is, but imagine it being put to a popular vote. It might get 27 votes. I don't mean 27%, I mean 27 votes.

It won't happen.

 

I think we almost octogenarians bring a few things to the table. For one thing, we are very aware that at times in the past we have been wrong. But another thing, for those of us who have had a good life, we really do hope we can help to pass along a prosperous and secure country to future generations.

 

I recognize that I do not always see things clearly. I also recognize that people who see things differently from me might have a few blind spots of their own.

[y66]

Following up on winstonm's comment on Linda Belcher's 68:32 win in a Kentucky district Trump carried by 50 points, Greg Sargent at WaPo discusses the Trump effect and factors driving these wins with Jessica Post, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, including

 

The Beltway and Twittersphere are consumed with debates over whether Democrats should or should not be speaking directly to anti-Trump anger, or whether their failure to more directly attack Trump’s tax plan is helping it (and Trump himself) edge up in popularity. But Post tells me that these candidates are mostly “campaigning on hyper-local issues.”

[Al_U_Card]

Source: http://www.scmp.com/business/global-economy/article/2101946/britains-economy-already-disasterbrexit-final-nail-coffin

 

 

 

Sounds like Britain and the U.S. share a similar problem but in America we have the luxury of our central bank expanding our money supply by $4 trillion ($4,000,000,000,000) and keeping key interest rates artificially low since the 2008 housing bubble to make it appear that our economic recovery and wealth is long-term.

Bang on. The U$ is a mighty weapon. We are the target and not the beneficiary...

As for the other issue, same age to vote, drink, get married, go to war etc. No age restriction because experience counts whether you like or agree with the other guy's. Your rights and theirs are linked.

[cherdano]

Oh dear. Obviously I knew what I wrote would be provocative, but I did think it was fairly obvious to anyone who has given this serious thought. I mean, it's the proverbial "racist uncle" and not the "racist nephew" for a reason. Or, to take sexism as an example - the most sexist demographic are obviously old men. On many topics (e.g. expectations around childcare), the second-most sexist demographic isn't middle-aged or young men, it's old women.

 

The quote that amazed me the most was this:

I think we almost octogenarians bring a few things to the table. For one thing, we are very aware that at times in the past we have been wrong.

Ken, if your octogenarian friends are, on average, more likely to change their minds, or admit they were wrong, than the average person in their 20s, you have an amazing circle of friends!

 

Here is a key difference, for this discussion, between 16 and 70.

 

Someone who is 40 expects, or at least hopes, that he will someday be 70. He does not expect to someday be 16, even if he did see Peggy Sue Got Married. There is thus no way in hell that we will be voting to exclude 70 year-olds from voting.

I wasn't suggesting to take the franchise away from anyone. But I actually agree with your difference. Consider the following two policy suggestions: a mandatory year of social service after high school, and a mandatory year of social service as you begin retirement (to qualify for your state pension, say). Now, I happen to think that both are extremely awful policy ideas. (I've lived through the former, as an alternative to military service; suffice to say that I could write long posts about it.) For some reason, the former idea (taking away the liberty of every 18-year old for one year for marginal and debatable benefits) is inexplicably popular in polite society. But the latter would be politically dead even before arrival because you would have to justify to voters who would be affected by it. If you propose the former, you should also have to justify it in front of some voters who will be affected by it. (And don't get me started on how long of a process it was in Germany to get rid of conscription, long after the military was clear that it wasn't any useful to them.)

 

Or consider climate change. If you ask US voters the question "would you be in favour of greenhouse gas regulations if it cost 20$ per month in your energy bill", the answer depends significantly on the age group (almost as much as on partisan affiliation). Well it's completely rational for a 70-year old to be less willing to make trade-offs that will pay off in 30-40 years. But it means that a political system that disenfranchises 16-year olds but doesn't disenfranchise 70-year olds will have a significant bias towards off-loading costs into the future.

 

So you would need a very strong case to disenfranchise 16-year old, i.e. that their decision-making is significantly worse than those of 40-year olds or 70-year olds. I don't see it. It's worth remembering that most voters make fairly uninformed decisions. But democracy only has a chance of working if everyone has a chance of making that uninformed decision, and of slightly tipping the political process towards taking their own views interests into account.

[kenberg]

Oh dear. Obviously I knew what I wrote would be provocative, but I did think it was fairly obvious to anyone who has given this serious thought. I mean, it's the proverbial "racist uncle" and not the "racist nephew" for a reason. Or, to take sexism as an example - the most sexist demographic are obviously old men. On many topics (e.g. expectations around childcare), the second-most sexist demographic isn't middle-aged or young men, it's old women.

 

The quote that amazed me the most was this:

 

Ken, if your octogenarian friends are, on average, more likely to change their minds, or admit they were wrong, than the average person in their 20s, you have an amazing circle of friends!

 

 

I wasn't suggesting to take the franchise away from anyone. But I actually agree with your difference. Consider the following two policy suggestions: a mandatory year of social service after high school, and a mandatory year of social service as you begin retirement (to qualify for your state pension, say). Now, I happen to think that both are extremely awful policy ideas. (I've lived through the former, as an alternative to military service; suffice to say that I could write long posts about it.) For some reason, the former idea (taking away the liberty of every 18-year old for one year for marginal and debatable benefits) is inexplicably popular in polite society. But the latter would be politically dead even before arrival because you would have to justify to voters who would be affected by it. If you propose the former, you should also have to justify it in front of some voters who will be affected by it. (And don't get me started on how long of a process it was in Germany to get rid of conscription, long after the military was clear that it wasn't any useful to them.)

 

Or consider climate change. If you ask US voters the question "would you be in favour of greenhouse gas regulations if it cost 20$ per month in your energy bill", the answer depends significantly on the age group (almost as much as on partisan affiliation). Well it's completely rational for a 70-year old to be less willing to make trade-offs that will pay off in 30-40 years. But it means that a political system that disenfranchises 16-year olds but doesn't disenfranchise 70-year olds will have a significant bias towards off-loading costs into the future.

 

So you would need a very strong case to disenfranchise 16-year old, i.e. that their decision-making is significantly worse than those of 40-year olds or 70-year olds. I don't see it. It's worth remembering that most voters make fairly uninformed decisions. But democracy only has a chance of working if everyone has a chance of making that uninformed decision, and of slightly tipping the political process towards taking their own views interests into account.

 

You did not suggest disenfranchising the old.You compared the cases. I might disagree with the comparison, but that's all that it was. Richard seemed to be advocating disenfranchisement in later years. But I am pretty confident he also agrees that it would be a non-starter. Anyway I was primarily addressing him.

 

 

As to this year of social service. I have thought about this from time to time and in my opinion if it is to be imposed on anyone (and I agree that it should not be) then it should be imposed on people of my age, but of course only if they have adequate means for their own support. Young people need to be preparing for their own careers, my career is largely over. I think you are no longer in the US and I am not sure how much detail you know, but in many high schools students are required to do "community service" as part of a graduation requirement. I think it is a horrible idea for many reasons. I have seen several cases up reasonably close and most of it borders on fraud. But it is also not the purpose of a school. Student's circumstances vary widely. In the school I went to one girl was working very substantial hours, much of her earnings helping to support her family. Others are in one parent families with young children and have responsibilities beyond what a young person should have. And even when this doesn't apply, I think we need to let people see if they would like to help their community rather than have it be a box that needs to be checked to get a diploma. To require this for graduations seems wrong, to require a year of community service after graduation seems horribly wrong. A military draft can, at times, be justified by the needs of self-defense. Perhaps after a major disaster it is right to tell people that extraordinary circumstances require some sort of mandatory service. But these things should be few and far between.

 

Just when an adult's right to vote should be taken away is a tough question. Probably so tough that perhaps the practical answer should be never. Suppose I have Alzheimer's and am not sure who I am, let alone who my Senator is. I shouldn't be voting. But it needs to be something like that, and the need for caution is so substantial that I almost think we need to let the demented vote just so that we do not have to get into the issue of who is demented and who isn't. I agree that in some cases it is clear, I suppose I support some instances of disenfranchisement, but drawing the border is tough.

 

Any case for having 16 year-olds vote has to be made without reference to how they would vote. Some of what you said has the flavor of "Mid-teens tend to agree with me so obviously they are more qualified to vote than are the old farts who disagree with me". I favor not having 16 year-olds vote, regardless of how they would go. At 16 parents are often still supervising who their youngster can date and when they have to be home. Parents are sometimes choosing the college, even the major, for their kids. Not in my case, but in many cases. As a college prof I was stunned to see parents come in on behalf of their (usually embarrassed) kids. Such parental involvement stopped somewhere around fourth grade in my family. At some point we say to the young: You are now an adult, making your own choices. That's a good voting age. 18 sounds fine to me. Actually it's a bit young, but it's what we have and I am ok with it.

[Cyberyeti]

Oh dear. Obviously I knew what I wrote would be provocative, but I did think it was fairly obvious to anyone who has given this serious thought. I mean, it's the proverbial "racist uncle" and not the "racist nephew" for a reason. Or, to take sexism as an example - the most sexist demographic are obviously old men. On many topics (e.g. expectations around childcare), the second-most sexist demographic isn't middle-aged or young men, it's old women.

 

 

Actually I find the most racist demographic in the UK is the twentysomethings and thirtysomethings in places like the medway towns where they feel that "their jobs" are being done by Eastern Europeans. The fact that the Eastern Europeans might actually have gone to school and listened has little bearing on this in their minds.

[Winstonm]

Actually I find the most racist demographic in the UK is the twentysomethings and thirtysomethings in places like the medway towns where they feel that "their jobs" are being done by Eastern Europeans. The fact that the Eastern Europeans might actually have gone to school and listened has little bearing on this in their minds.

 

Keep in mind racism is a learned behavior. I doubt these people are more racist than whoever it was that taught them to hate - only more outspoken.

[jjbrr]

Keep in mind racism is a learned behavior. I doubt these people are more racist than whoever it was that taught them to hate - only more outspoken.

 

[citation needed]

 

studies suggest even infants prefer their own race.

[barmar]

[citation needed]

 

studies suggest even infants prefer their own race.

Yes, the capacity to distinguish "us" from "them" and prefer the former is an ancient survival mechanism. "Them" was more likely to be a warring tribe trying to take your stuff away from you. And the most obvious way to distinguish is from appearance.

 

But racism also goes beyond just "us" and "them". Studies have also shown that in white societies, even black people have more subconscious fear of black people then white people. This is more likely to be a learned from the way black people are portrayed in media -- a black guy on TV is more likely to be a criminal than one of the good guys.

 

However, these are just small biases, and our higher brain functions allow us to override these instinctual tendencies. Infants also ***** in their pants, but we learn not to do this as we grow. Where the "teaching" comes in is in whether this tendency is reinforced or curbed. Being exposed to more diversity, and viewing it as normal, helps with the latter. Society has been on a generally more inclusive and tolerant trend for centuries, with more rights for blacks, women, gays, trans, disabled, etc.

 

This is why the younger generations are generally less discriminatory than their predecessors -- they don't just pick up what their parents did, they also learn from peer groups and the media.

 

But denying the vote to elderly people because they're more likely to be racist would simply be wrong. Every demographic group has some biases, we can't legislate which biases should disenfranchise them. It's bad enough that we have gerrymandering.

[jjbrr]

our higher brain functions allow us to override these instinctual tendencies

 

absolutely, god wouldn't have created us any other way. we're perfect.