~One thing to bear in mind is that FPTP limits the influence of “extreme” parties on elections (see UKIP’s vote share in 2015), but at the expense of requiring more mainstream parties to pander to those voters to avoid splitting the vote share. Jury is still out I think on what’s “best” here and probably depends on what “best” means to the person forming an opinion.~

Edit: turns out the above is at best contested, at worst disproven.

Better idea should just be that you should be a taxpayer to vote. No tax = no vote. Why should people who aren't contributing decide how to spend the money of those contributing?

A 16 year old who works has a bigger stake than a 21 year old jobless bum stuck in their parents home smoking weed and playing vidya games.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test

It’s the right that are shifting, not the left.

To the extent this is true, I would phrase it the other way: women are becoming less conservative, while young men are drifting towards the extreme right.

Liz Truss was only PM for 49 days. How much impact on the economy did she have?

> Or even if they did, the amount of effort they'd put in...

This is actually quite an interesting area if you look into the game theory of making choices in a group setting. Strong strategies typically often don't involve doing much research, but they are rather frustrating for the people who take an interest in politics. Real-world behaviours are arguably quite reasonable on this front too, although they are limited by the ability of the average person to reason their way through the policy suggestions being made by though leaders.

Although I do agree that more voters isn't better. There is a certain level of objective correctness in political decisions if we admit basic ideas like "policies should be tested to see whether they achieve the goals that they were intended to" as a measure of success and the point should be to design systems that optimise on it to some degree.

I really hate when these ideas come of that effectively boil down to creating some kind of litmus test for who can be "trusted" to vote. We have an age limit, maybe the UK wants a lower limit, but at least that's a pretty simple and clear line to be drawn.

> A growing body of research strongly suggests that brain development continues well into people’s 20s and beyond. ... There is strong scientific consensus that people’s decision-making abilities can evolve between their early and late 20s

https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/teen-brains-neuroscienc...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/legal-age-of-marriage-in-...

So how far down in age would you go and why would you stop at that age?

I don't think we're being ambitious enough here. I should be able to vote while drink-driving.

What's absurd is allowing a minor to vote.

So you're allowed to vote, but you don't need to pay your taxes. You're still considered a child regarding justice law, but considered adult regarding voting?

So basically you're not allowed to camp somewhere without the consent of your parents but you're "suddenly old enough" to judge about some laws?

I think the consensus is missing if voting is permitted by 16, but everything else stays the same.

I don't think children should have a say in the matter, they lack the critical thinking skills that adults do, which is why we limit their freedoms.

Granted, most adults also lack deep critical thinking skills but they have more capable brains than children.

Further, children are easier to manipulate than adults, which is very dangerous when it comes to something as critical as voting.

More that voting egotistically (in contrast to trying to predict what is best for society as a whole) is sufficient to create the incentives that benefit the many, as long as the number of voters makes up a high enough share of the population.

Youth and parents get an extra vote on school stuff. Those whose education or career are related to a field get an extra vote. In some cases, you may hold 5x the voting power of someone who is removed and unfamiliar with a topic.

No idea if anything like that has been explored.

At least when you are forced to be in school you are in an environment to likely absorb... something. We regularly kept up with current events in school.

I know many adults that have basically zero idea what is going on in the world.

Also I should note that I did not claim anything about intelligence, but just an awareness of what is going on and the impact of it.

I would possibly even argue that a 16 year old being in school likely has a fresher recollection of history than many adults. I mean how many adults remember all of the math they learned compared to 16 year olds.