= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Good_Burning_Plastic comments on Crazy Ideas Thread - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (92)
(had the idea after seeing this)
Each person's vote should be weighed by their life expectancy given their age.
(ETA: I will downvote any comment in this subthread discussing the object-level issue of whether Britain had better stay in the EU, no matter how reasonable and insightful it is.)
That gives political power to those who calculate life expectancy. Should they get that power?
This seems like a slippery slope. Minorities tend to have shorter life expectancies than whites, at least in the U.S. and U.K. Do their votes then count for less?
At the bottom of that slippery slope is an ice floe.
I'm not sure that's worse than what present-day Americans do.
You do realize that getting onto that ice floe is not voluntary, right?
We can go even further: children's life expectancy could be added to their parents' voting weights.
However most decisions are about the short term rather than the long term, and only very rarely life expectancy is relevant.
Obvious problems arise when aging is eliminated/fixed.
But beyond that, why should one give those with least life experience & acquired wisdom the most vote? That seems entirely backwards. My initial expectation is that the reverse (one's personal voting weight vesting into increasingly higher influence over time) would lead to more harmonious societies, at odds with your suggestion.