Technically, it looks like the minimum age requirement is 4.
From his website, which is linked to in another comment:
Is This Legal?
Yes! According to the Vermont Constitution and the Vermont Attorney General, you only have to have lived in Vermont for 4 years or more on the day before the election. Ethan has lived here for 14 years.
I'd rather vote in someone who is young and perhaps naive, if they happen to be altruistic and are at least attempting to work for the common good to the best of their ability... in contrast to (some but not all) more experienced candidates who know how to kiss babies and work a crowd, but who are ultimately making promises they don't intend to deliver on, in order to gain a position of power for selfish reasons.
At the very least, this guy probably has better written and verbal communication skills than certain well-known politicians... seems like a decent start.
I've been really wary of novelty candidates since 2016.
Probably best to go negative on this kid right out of the gates. Really play up the worst grades on his report card, and make him explain any unexcused absences.
But on the upside, he probably hasn't ever even considered sexual harassment or racist comments. Yet.
Not sure. My intent was to draw a parallel between the fitness to serve of Trump and an 14-year old candidate for governor. If one is a serious, electable candidate, so too is the other, except the 14-year old might actually be a better choice, because it's still possible that he'll respect women and minorities, eat his vegetables, and earn the "Citizenship in the Nation" merit badge.
With the speculation that Trump might have been defeated if anyone took him seriously as a candidate earlier and invested more in ads to discredit him, and in the current political climate where public bullying is accepted as normal, sure, you can go negative against a kid. And as he has no voting record, the only source material for attack ads would have to be his public school permanent record--or, as mentioned elsewhere, maybe the Discord chat logs for some MMO guild full of 14-year-old boys.
> he probably hasn't ever even considered sexual harassment or racist comments. Yet.
Based on my experience in multiplayer online games, I'd argue his age is in no way support of that particular assumption. Toxic doesn't even begin to describe things.
I understand your cation, but I'm hesitantly optimistic about this campaign.
I won't commit until I hear his stance on chores, are they necessary, does he do them, what is a fair allowance and should that allowance be connected to chores or independent from it?
Someone that young, my big question would be "who's advising you".
Still, good luck kid, it'll be interesting to see if he gets involved in politics on a slightly less ambitious scale after this effort fails. Hope he doesn't end up Vermont's Goodspaceguy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodspaceguy)
I wrote in to Vermin Supreme asking for endorsement when I ran for hugh school president, promising to make a whole bunch of whacky and unsustainable rules.
Unfortunately (and understandably) I wasn't elected, but getting to say that I was backed by a US presidential candidate over the PA system was fun. I still have his email printed out in a memory box somewhere.
Check out Rick Mercer - Talking to Americans. Its on YouTube. The whole show is great, but aging now. But he gets various members of congress to endorse Canada building a national igloo among other things.
There is also Jacob Haugaard. [0] He was actually elected to the Danish parliament in 1994 on the promises such as better weather, more tailwind on bicycle paths and shorter queues in supermarkets.
Ha, in order to contribute financially to his campaign you have to be at least 18 years old. :)
On a more serious note... why not? I would love it if my daughter/son wanted to do something like this. What a life experience! I am positive this will peak his interest / make him likely to be interested in politics / global & current events now because he's had this experience and IMO that's the best way to learn!
Honestly, thats how I learned about software engineering, I picked something (a game) that I was extremely interested in, and programming was just my conduit to make modifications to the game. Only later did I learn that programing was interesting apart from that game and was the start of a big career.
And in TFA, the expression should be “not old enough to drive, let alone vote.” The more restrictive criterion should come first, otherwise the expression doesn’t really work.
I’m curious if he would have the legal capacity to sign anything as governor. My understanding is that as a minor he doesn’t have capacity to enter into a contract.
You should only do politics once you have done something in your life. At 14 you cant seriously claim any knowledge of anything about life, so the idea of ruling over others is extremely pretentious at an early age. Just like you would not be fit to manage a team of programmers at the same age.
I doubt that anybody would even consider for a second making him the actual govenor, but going through the process of trying indicates that the kid has initiative and some understanding of how government works in his state.
I wonder how many politicians only really have knowledge of politics, how many have an understanding of the Industries and Technologies they are regulating, and how many have any knowledge of what the reality of life is for their constituents.
I think the lack of knowledge among our government representatives is a far larger issue then one person a bit short on life experience.
There's a 24 year old woman who's a member of parliament in New Zealand: Chlöe Swarbrick [1]. One of the criticisms of her during the election was that she's young and literally just finished university.
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. We need more fresh faced optimism in politics, rather than a bunch of old cynics. Also, if politics is only for those who have done something in their life and attained some status, you're just filtering for old white men, which is largely what the US Congress, the UK Parliament, and many other western countries' governments are made of.
>You should only do politics once you have done something in your life.
So a test to whom is allowed to be in government other than someone the voters choose? How is that different from me suggesting banning demographics from being allowed in government because I personally think they don't deserve it, despite what the voters actually say?
I say there should only be a single test for who can govern, that they are picked by the voters. If the voters pick a 14 year old over anyone else then someone saying they don't deserve the position because of some demographic they can't change is no different than saying a woman, someone poor, someone childless, or a Muslim doesn't deserve the position.
This feels like a natural "rookie of the year"-esque extension of living in a post-trump, nothing matters world, and frankly I'm pretty excited about it.
Perhaps the incongruity isn't that a 14-year old is running for office, but that a 14-year old can't vote? A 14-year old has the maturity to run for office, but is judged to be too immature to vote? There is a cohort of children who are already more mature than a lot of adults. Most of the arguments about children being incapable of voting were once applied to women and aborigines. Maybe the rules should be that if a child is capable of engaging with the political process by registering to vote then they are capable of voting?
Lack of representation means politicians care about children only to the extent required to get a parental vote. Take the lot of a child in my country (Australia):
* Childcare is a political football. The primary aim of the system is to allow parents to work rather then provide the best environment for children. Excellence is a result of individual centres rather than a product of the system.
* Children are taxed at 45%. If you want to prevent parents from putting investments in children's names, write laws about parents exploiting their children rather than penalising the child.
* Schools are a political football, with politicians debating funding, testing regimes and curriculum and the children nowhere to be heard.
* Old men (and a few old women) are making decisions that will affect the world long after they are dead. The currently disenfranchised children are the ones who are going to be stuck with the mess.
Adults wouldn't (and don't) put up with it, so why should children?
One argument I've heard against this is that kids are usually wards of their parents, sadly giving the parents a large lever to influence their child's vote.
The same arguments could be applied to any child/parent relationship. How many adult children are under the influence of their parents? The ballot is secret, so a child would be free to vote as they wish. Children would have to be treated as any other voter meaning parents should not be allowed to be in the polling booth with their children.
This is definitely the case here in Spain. I've been to the voting centers a few times and they have tables outside the voting rooms with piles of voting slips similar to[0]. You see families come in and the younger members have no ability to secretly vote for whom they desire as the slip you pick is for a party and you are selecting that in front of anyone else that is there.
Being from the UK where we mark who we are voting for in a private booth, on a slip with all candidates [1] fold the paper in half so no one can see and post that into a box, the Spanish system makes me uncomfortable. Let alone that people mess with the stacks of slips, hiding smaller party's slips under other piles…
Certainly teenagers, especially older ones (such as 16 or 17 year olds), are more than capable of having political views diametrically opposed to their parents.
I can remember as a 17 year old trying to convince my Dad to vote a certain way in a referendum which I myself was too young to vote in, and he ended up voting the way I wanted him to (although, it is entirely possible that he might have still voted that way even without my input.) I think my reasons for wanting to vote that way (despite not being allowed to) were likely better informed and better thought-out than those of most of the voters who were old enough to vote.
This is fascinating - I'm not particularly sold on this line of reasoning to begin with, having both secret balloting and the privilege to have been able to dramatically disagree with my parents politically as a child. Certainly by high school the majority of my classmates were qualified to vote.
Yes and I wonder if media consumers should lose the right to vote too, since their opinions will often be strongly influenced by the media that they read - effectively Murdoch has millions of votes even though he isn't a citizen of this country any more. Surely the only independent people are the MP's themselves, and so they should be able to vote for whomever they please.
Would be an interesting study to conduct, most families I know vote similar but is that actually the case and does family influence how you vote or does who you vote for influence who you live with as family?
This is a common argument in the UK regarding Brexit. Enough people have turned 18 already since the 2016 referendum to outnumber Leave's tiny winning margin.
Legally this is analogous, although I don't see us extending the franchise to 14 year olds. It's a pity, really, as I suspect allowing a 16 year old to vote isn't any more unreasonable than allowing a 90 year old to vote; especially on issues that are far more real to a 16 year old. At least in Australia a lot of the really abjectly dim climate denialism came from people who would be lucky to see all those 2030-2040 dates that folks toss around. Yes, I do understand that some older people are voting idealistically and not voting their narrow interests, but historically this is a very self-interested bloc.
My 12 year-old son is a supporter of denying the franchise to the elderly. He may just be trolling.
Overall I think older people have collectively (yes, there are exceptions) shown a shocking lack of concern for the conditions of the young (education and otherwise). Collectively the grey vote has been overwhelmingly about preserving and expanding the role of government in helping out the elderly and everyone else can go to hell (while spouting endless mythology about how much they put into the system, etc). I doubt there's any way to educate (indoctrinate?) young people to vote for the big intergenerational wealth transfers that old people have collectively achieved.
Do you truly believe that. Considering that that those same oldies are the ones who put the young through school, which even in public schools is expensive.
I know that both my parents put in considerable time, effort and funds to give my siblings and me the opportunities to develop ourselves in whatever way we leaned towards, whether that be apprenticeships or university or something else. There was no mythology of what they put in. Likewise, my wife and I have put out considerable effort to have our children well educated and and have helped facilitate their life directions. My children have reflected on their realisation of just how hard it is, now that they are going through the same things with their own families.
With all the young people we are involved with, our common refrain is to look carefully at what is going on in society, learn all you can and make decisions based on careful thought. Part and parcel of this is about respecting those who have gone before them, even if they don't deserve it, and respecting other people even if there is no agreement with what they might say or do.
As far as wealth transfers are concerned, how often do we see stories of the young who have made considerable inroads into making their own fortunes by dint of wise savings and investments and doing the hard yards to learn how to do this. I have watched many who just fritter away their wealth with the latest fashions, gizmo's, parties and lattes, without thinking about what they could do instead. But hey, that's their choice.
One would need to think very, very carefully before taking the franchise away from some group of people because you may think they are now to old. There will be unintended consequences that will cause more problems than one may have ever thought possible.
This is where education is important. Let’s vote for education or learn how to educate the younger population, so that we can better communicate with the younger population, and work together to improve the city/state/country! I think that pushing to remove a voting right feels like an attack and not a cooperating move. Maybe making voting more accessible so that the younger population participates more would be a better development
I'm not actually supportive of taking the franchise away from the old. However, it's an interesting concept given how badly (collectively) older voters have behaved on matters of financial and environmental responsibility. Après moi, le déluge.
I would point out that nearly everything you are raising about 'looking after the young' is about the idea of your own children and looking after yourselves. You've done the sleight of hand of shifting the topic to 'leaving money to, and looking after, your own kids'. What I'm talking about is the way older voters have collectively demanded more from society (generous governmental benefits) while collectively denying the same sort of benefits to younger people (there are way more small children growing up in poverty than old people in poverty).
The mythology to which I refer is that older people are taking way more out of the retirement systems than they typically paid into it. So every time there's a thread like this people jump on and yell "what about my social security and all my tax contributions"; however, the books are not balanced - younger taxpayers carry older ones.
I'm sure you have done the right thing by your own parents and children and I respect you for that. I am doing the right thing also.
But there's a big difference between responsibility to ones own and civic responsibility, and a lot of old people have decided that bringing up the young is somehow a raw naked capitalist process while looking after the old should be done with the gentlest principles of socialistic redistribution.
For a great demonstration of the elderly lacking concern for the young, just watch the local news when they're covering some city/town/community meeting about building a new school, taking note of the demographics of the folks who actually oppose it.
Almost all of them will be geriatrics complaining about traffic or property values or somesuch, with complete disregard for children's well-being.
Older people, in general, have far more time to devote to political pursuits. The primary reason it's mostly older people talking about politics on TV is that they can be out at a political event at 2pm and stand in front of the camera crew.
It may be rhetorically dishonest, but it's also true. People voting down, say, bond issues for schools skew old.
The approach can be summarized as: "government is a vending machine to serve my interests; I put taxes in and a equal or greater pile of stuff comes out and goes directly to me". It's possible a large number of people of any age group believe this but it certainly looks much more stark when someone 65+ believes it (and acts on it, often in a well-organized bloc).
I'm not trying to argue so much that older people skew more fiscally conservative (and therefore more frequently oppose things like this) - I'm saying that they are over-represented in the public perception.
The other thing that spurred my comment is the statement "with complete disregard for children's well-being." That's the truly dishonest part, as it completely misrepresents the political position of about half the country. It's a strawman.
Agree that the rhetoric is extreme, but it's a fairly extreme situation.
I wouldn't worry about the idea that old people skew fiscally conservative; they are typically enthusiastic socialists, at least as far as redistributing money from younger people to pay for their ever expanding benefits.
They aren't just over-represented in perception; they are a self-interested bloc that is over-represented in terms of redistributive policy. The furore that emerges whenever someone delicately suggests that we means-test benfits so middle-class oldies (and above) can't help themselves to the public pot (well in excess of what they have contributed) is proof of that.
The fact that children (who have had almost zero opportunity to shape their current financial situation) now live in poverty at a substantial higher rate than 65+ people does suggest something a bit closer to "complete disregard". The political position of about half the country (or more) in most Western countries is a strange combination of rugged individualism applied to others and an outsize enthusiasm for unearned handouts for oneself.
Why should someone who only has a decade or so of expected life have a vote if someone with numerous decades of life does not get a vote? Why should those who face the potential of being drafted by the next president get no say? It gets down to the question of who really deserves a vote and why don't minors get one, but I've found the arguments for minors not voting fall apart when examined.
But that age isn't 18, and this holds true of other groups yet we still allow them to vote. If we are going to be applying some rational test where only people who vote for the 'right' reasons vote, then we should do so uniformly and not discriminate based on a demographic that people have no control over.
To the people saying he's too young to lead, it is a child who says "The emperor has no clothes." The grownups know better than to say something like that.
Sometimes, being young and stupid and not knowing that "you can't do X" is an asset.
What is the legal quirk here? What was the oversight?
My PR company makes these counterinuitive clickbait articles about my products too, its great I just can't tell if I am supposed to be perceiving something or just enjoying the entertainment.
You don't need to be a voter to be a candidate. A bill was introduced earlier in the year to change that but didn't go anywhere, which is probably how he found out he was eligible.
You just need to be a resident of the state for four years. No other requirement. In particular, no age requirement.
The headline sounds like it's specific to him in some narrow way, but almost any 14 yo (or 4 yo) in Vermont is probably eligible to stand as a candidate.
honestly if there it's bottom limit there should be also upper limit or no limits at all, often if not mostly 17yo it's more qualified than 85yo with their set of mental problems (it's just statistic, don't take it personally)
my stance regarding this didn't change in past 20 years and i still think it would be more appropriate to pass some general knowledge test for voters to benefit from democracy
weighing vote strength based on paid taxes (with some upper limit) it's just distant dream
91 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 164 ms ] threadFrom his website, which is linked to in another comment:
Is This Legal?
Yes! According to the Vermont Constitution and the Vermont Attorney General, you only have to have lived in Vermont for 4 years or more on the day before the election. Ethan has lived here for 14 years.
It would 3 years and 3.25 months if you want to actually be accurate.
Blatant ageism!
uncommon != inappropriate
I’m only slightly kidding. I am thoroughly impressed with his comments thus far and would like to hear more of what he has to say.
On one hand, I remember thinking I knew a lot more than a I did when I was 14. On the other hand, he is not me!
At the very least, this guy probably has better written and verbal communication skills than certain well-known politicians... seems like a decent start.
Probably best to go negative on this kid right out of the gates. Really play up the worst grades on his report card, and make him explain any unexcused absences.
But on the upside, he probably hasn't ever even considered sexual harassment or racist comments. Yet.
~
With the speculation that Trump might have been defeated if anyone took him seriously as a candidate earlier and invested more in ads to discredit him, and in the current political climate where public bullying is accepted as normal, sure, you can go negative against a kid. And as he has no voting record, the only source material for attack ads would have to be his public school permanent record--or, as mentioned elsewhere, maybe the Discord chat logs for some MMO guild full of 14-year-old boys.
Have you ever been a teenager or been on an American schoolyard? That stuff starts much earlier than 14.
You're taking the fact that he is running for governor as evidence that he doesn't play any online multiplayer games?
Based on my experience in multiplayer online games, I'd argue his age is in no way support of that particular assumption. Toxic doesn't even begin to describe things.
I won't commit until I hear his stance on chores, are they necessary, does he do them, what is a fair allowance and should that allowance be connected to chores or independent from it?
:-)
Good luck to him and to democracy
Still, good luck kid, it'll be interesting to see if he gets involved in politics on a slightly less ambitious scale after this effort fails. Hope he doesn't end up Vermont's Goodspaceguy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodspaceguy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme
Unfortunately (and understandably) I wasn't elected, but getting to say that I was backed by a US presidential candidate over the PA system was fun. I still have his email printed out in a memory box somewhere.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Haugaard
That seems like a great question for candidates of any age.
(They have, or used to have, a question on when did you hack a non-computer system to your advantage)
On a more serious note... why not? I would love it if my daughter/son wanted to do something like this. What a life experience! I am positive this will peak his interest / make him likely to be interested in politics / global & current events now because he's had this experience and IMO that's the best way to learn!
Honestly, thats how I learned about software engineering, I picked something (a game) that I was extremely interested in, and programming was just my conduit to make modifications to the game. Only later did I learn that programing was interesting apart from that game and was the start of a big career.
Good on him!
Pique: stimulate (interest or curiosity)
Peak: 1. (of a person) gaunt and pale from illness or fatigue and 2. reach a highest point, either of a specified value or at a specified time.
They are both pronounced the same, \ ˈpēk \.
I’m curious if he would have the legal capacity to sign anything as governor. My understanding is that as a minor he doesn’t have capacity to enter into a contract.
I think the lack of knowledge among our government representatives is a far larger issue then one person a bit short on life experience.
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. We need more fresh faced optimism in politics, rather than a bunch of old cynics. Also, if politics is only for those who have done something in their life and attained some status, you're just filtering for old white men, which is largely what the US Congress, the UK Parliament, and many other western countries' governments are made of.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chl%C3%B6e_Swarbrick
You remind me of when I was in my late 30s and being mistaken for someone much younger online by people who perceived me as *young naive go-getter."
I'm now 53. In some sense, I haven't changed much. :)
Ah, so basically the majority of our elected officials should be disqualified.
So a test to whom is allowed to be in government other than someone the voters choose? How is that different from me suggesting banning demographics from being allowed in government because I personally think they don't deserve it, despite what the voters actually say?
I say there should only be a single test for who can govern, that they are picked by the voters. If the voters pick a 14 year old over anyone else then someone saying they don't deserve the position because of some demographic they can't change is no different than saying a woman, someone poor, someone childless, or a Muslim doesn't deserve the position.
The US political system isn't designed to "rule over" others. It's supposed to "represent" them.
Lack of representation means politicians care about children only to the extent required to get a parental vote. Take the lot of a child in my country (Australia):
* Childcare is a political football. The primary aim of the system is to allow parents to work rather then provide the best environment for children. Excellence is a result of individual centres rather than a product of the system.
* Children are taxed at 45%. If you want to prevent parents from putting investments in children's names, write laws about parents exploiting their children rather than penalising the child.
* Schools are a political football, with politicians debating funding, testing regimes and curriculum and the children nowhere to be heard.
* Old men (and a few old women) are making decisions that will affect the world long after they are dead. The currently disenfranchised children are the ones who are going to be stuck with the mess.
Adults wouldn't (and don't) put up with it, so why should children?
Being from the UK where we mark who we are voting for in a private booth, on a slip with all candidates [1] fold the paper in half so no one can see and post that into a box, the Spanish system makes me uncomfortable. Let alone that people mess with the stacks of slips, hiding smaller party's slips under other piles…
[0] https://c8.alamy.com/comp/KN3EHD/a-hand-pick-a-voting-paper-... [1] https://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/images/Ballot_Papers_General_...
I can remember as a 17 year old trying to convince my Dad to vote a certain way in a referendum which I myself was too young to vote in, and he ended up voting the way I wanted him to (although, it is entirely possible that he might have still voted that way even without my input.) I think my reasons for wanting to vote that way (despite not being allowed to) were likely better informed and better thought-out than those of most of the voters who were old enough to vote.
Literally everybody has the maturity to run for office because there's no maturity requirement to run for office.
Legally this is analogous, although I don't see us extending the franchise to 14 year olds. It's a pity, really, as I suspect allowing a 16 year old to vote isn't any more unreasonable than allowing a 90 year old to vote; especially on issues that are far more real to a 16 year old. At least in Australia a lot of the really abjectly dim climate denialism came from people who would be lucky to see all those 2030-2040 dates that folks toss around. Yes, I do understand that some older people are voting idealistically and not voting their narrow interests, but historically this is a very self-interested bloc.
Overall I think older people have collectively (yes, there are exceptions) shown a shocking lack of concern for the conditions of the young (education and otherwise). Collectively the grey vote has been overwhelmingly about preserving and expanding the role of government in helping out the elderly and everyone else can go to hell (while spouting endless mythology about how much they put into the system, etc). I doubt there's any way to educate (indoctrinate?) young people to vote for the big intergenerational wealth transfers that old people have collectively achieved.
I know that both my parents put in considerable time, effort and funds to give my siblings and me the opportunities to develop ourselves in whatever way we leaned towards, whether that be apprenticeships or university or something else. There was no mythology of what they put in. Likewise, my wife and I have put out considerable effort to have our children well educated and and have helped facilitate their life directions. My children have reflected on their realisation of just how hard it is, now that they are going through the same things with their own families.
With all the young people we are involved with, our common refrain is to look carefully at what is going on in society, learn all you can and make decisions based on careful thought. Part and parcel of this is about respecting those who have gone before them, even if they don't deserve it, and respecting other people even if there is no agreement with what they might say or do.
As far as wealth transfers are concerned, how often do we see stories of the young who have made considerable inroads into making their own fortunes by dint of wise savings and investments and doing the hard yards to learn how to do this. I have watched many who just fritter away their wealth with the latest fashions, gizmo's, parties and lattes, without thinking about what they could do instead. But hey, that's their choice.
One would need to think very, very carefully before taking the franchise away from some group of people because you may think they are now to old. There will be unintended consequences that will cause more problems than one may have ever thought possible.
I would point out that nearly everything you are raising about 'looking after the young' is about the idea of your own children and looking after yourselves. You've done the sleight of hand of shifting the topic to 'leaving money to, and looking after, your own kids'. What I'm talking about is the way older voters have collectively demanded more from society (generous governmental benefits) while collectively denying the same sort of benefits to younger people (there are way more small children growing up in poverty than old people in poverty).
The mythology to which I refer is that older people are taking way more out of the retirement systems than they typically paid into it. So every time there's a thread like this people jump on and yell "what about my social security and all my tax contributions"; however, the books are not balanced - younger taxpayers carry older ones.
I'm sure you have done the right thing by your own parents and children and I respect you for that. I am doing the right thing also.
But there's a big difference between responsibility to ones own and civic responsibility, and a lot of old people have decided that bringing up the young is somehow a raw naked capitalist process while looking after the old should be done with the gentlest principles of socialistic redistribution.
Almost all of them will be geriatrics complaining about traffic or property values or somesuch, with complete disregard for children's well-being.
Older people, in general, have far more time to devote to political pursuits. The primary reason it's mostly older people talking about politics on TV is that they can be out at a political event at 2pm and stand in front of the camera crew.
The approach can be summarized as: "government is a vending machine to serve my interests; I put taxes in and a equal or greater pile of stuff comes out and goes directly to me". It's possible a large number of people of any age group believe this but it certainly looks much more stark when someone 65+ believes it (and acts on it, often in a well-organized bloc).
The other thing that spurred my comment is the statement "with complete disregard for children's well-being." That's the truly dishonest part, as it completely misrepresents the political position of about half the country. It's a strawman.
I wouldn't worry about the idea that old people skew fiscally conservative; they are typically enthusiastic socialists, at least as far as redistributing money from younger people to pay for their ever expanding benefits.
They aren't just over-represented in perception; they are a self-interested bloc that is over-represented in terms of redistributive policy. The furore that emerges whenever someone delicately suggests that we means-test benfits so middle-class oldies (and above) can't help themselves to the public pot (well in excess of what they have contributed) is proof of that.
The fact that children (who have had almost zero opportunity to shape their current financial situation) now live in poverty at a substantial higher rate than 65+ people does suggest something a bit closer to "complete disregard". The political position of about half the country (or more) in most Western countries is a strange combination of rugged individualism applied to others and an outsize enthusiasm for unearned handouts for oneself.
It's not strange, nor is it a combination. It's just one thing, called "FYIGM."
Not an argument for anything, just a consideration.
Sometimes, being young and stupid and not knowing that "you can't do X" is an asset.
My PR company makes these counterinuitive clickbait articles about my products too, its great I just can't tell if I am supposed to be perceiving something or just enjoying the entertainment.
You just need to be a resident of the state for four years. No other requirement. In particular, no age requirement.
The headline sounds like it's specific to him in some narrow way, but almost any 14 yo (or 4 yo) in Vermont is probably eligible to stand as a candidate.
my stance regarding this didn't change in past 20 years and i still think it would be more appropriate to pass some general knowledge test for voters to benefit from democracy
weighing vote strength based on paid taxes (with some upper limit) it's just distant dream