150
More than a million adults have legal guardians. In seven states, they can't vote.
(www.motherjones.com)
this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
150 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2567 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Guardianships are very often for severe physical disabilities with no intellectual imparement. Those people can't vote either.
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'
I'm game for not letting people capable of basic life choices to either, to be honest.
Daily reminder that the average 15 year old is smarter than the average 70 year old by literally any psychometric standard.
Smarter maybe, but wiser?
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.
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.
“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.
Lead poisoning is a real bitch
15 year olds have much less knowledge.
This implies the people handing out these conservatorship judgements are infallible, which they aren't.
If they submit a properly completed voting document, their vote should count. (It should also be easy to vote.)
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.
As with the disenfranchisement of felons and inmates, there is a perverse incentive to put people you don't want to vote into conservatorship.