MCViewPoint

Disenfranchisement of legitimate voters is an inescapable issue with raising the voting age, but nonetheless the sentiment of the policy proposal should be welcomed. In fact, because of decreasing rational ignorance, it would likely be a net good rather than a net bad.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/i-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-vote/

by Benjamin Seevers 

I just turned 22, and I should not be allowed to vote.

I agree with Vivek Ramaswamy that the voting age probably should be increased, but the good intentioned policy misses the mark because it does not go far enough. Raising the voting age would be a step in the right direction, but the criterion for voting should not be age, but instead if one owns property in land.

Ramaswamy, a candidate in the 2024 Republican primaries, stated that the voting age should be increased to 25 years of age, granting exceptions to those that serve in the military, work as emergency responders, or pass the naturalization test.

It is easy to decry this as disenfranchisement (it is), but that is precisely why we should be cheering on this proposal. If people under 25 years of age are barred from voting, then the vote of everyone else becomes more valuable. Therefore, a single vote has a higher chance of swinging an election. The relative worthlessness of the single vote is why the public is ignorant about what policies work and what policies don’t; learning what policies are good and which are bad just is not worth the reward. Bottom line: If you increase the effectiveness of an individual vote, people will do more research because there is a higher chance their vote matters.

If raising the voting age can be accomplished, why stop at 25? Raise it to 30, 35, 40…Doing so will only make the marginal vote more impactful, thereby decreasing rational ignorance of the average voter.

See the rest here

Be seeing you