Vote for sixteen year olds …

Every time the vote is proposed to 16-year-olds, a chasm opens, and a smear campaign against them starts. And each time, the smear campaign is based on the same concept: because they are sixteen, they are not mature or prepared or smart enough to vote for the best.

And you can see it right away, when you hit the papers today:

The stupidity of this propaganda is visible almost immediately, simply by comparison.

We start with "Aries", according to which the idea is very cool (please, very cool we used to say that in the 80s, do not put in your fifties to imitate the supposed youth jargon. Try to have the articles written by someone who really has 16 years old), but you have to give the kids the chance to form an opinion.

The objection seems reasonable, but one wonders what opportunity is given to adults. If we observe that there are millions of people who believe in homeopathy, chemtrails, aliens, QAnon, abbeppegrillo, one wonders if we should get adults to vote.

Continue to list all the requirements that 16-year-olds would miss to vote: but I would accept it only if these requirements are ascertained among adults.

I want to point out, however, that if "Aries" is true, the problem of adequacy is being posed: it is saying that one wonders if a young person is sufficiently trained in civics, for example (where the Constitution and the state organization). Has any adult ever raised this issue? No. So much so that we hear about "governments elected by the people" in a country where the government is NOT elected by the people, because it is elected by Parliament.

Let's face it: do we really think that an octogenarian (who also has the right to vote) has the lucidity, the understanding, and is more lucid than a sixteen-year-old boy? Have you ever dealt with seniors? Worse: have you ever read Scalfari in Repubblica?

One wonders if they are "informed" enough to vote: but if we go to the elderly population, all we see are people who are mainly informed on TV. And what a TV. Are they really "informed"? And how? With Vespa models?

We want to talk about the literacy rate by age? This would be enough to REMOVE the vote to 65+. Do we want to talk about computer literacy? How is it that as soon as someone wants to innovate and introduce a stupid credit card in the shops, the 73 year old woman turns up who can't use it because she is a decrepit old one. But she can vote, right?

The other thesis I read is that young people should not be given the right to vote because "they no longer want to become parents". Interesting. Reproduction as a source of political rights. If this non sequitur is a symptom of adult "lucidity", honestly my proposal is to vote ONLY between 16 and 20 years old. And honestly, I see too many of "non sequitur" in politics, not to suspect that the fault does not also come from those old decrepit people that I see writing against.

Assigning maturity to adults as if it were taken for granted is the biggest mistake our society is making. Assuming that a human being is like Grana Padano and improves with aging is bullshit that is already showing us the bill. An increasingly bigoted and senile society. People with Grana Padano instead of brains. And very, very seasoned.

I mean, I read people around who say "you become an adult at 21". But they are exchanging a necessary condition for a sufficient one. Even assuming that this biological assumption really weighs on "maturity" (and it would be enough to follow a day of work in the Italian parliament to exclude it), because to paralyze any group of Italians it is enough to ask "who takes responsibility?"

Then we have to ask ourselves what would change in politics.

So every birth year now weighs about one percent. It is a question of including two per cent of voters in the count. From that moment the spin doctors will arrive, and they will begin to ask themselves "how to get the votes of young people". Because two percent weighs.

But the problem is that at that point "how to have the vote of young people" will begin to become a relevant issue, because once they enter parliament the problem will become not to lose the vote of young people.

Salvini says it can be done because he thinks he has a more modern communication through Luca Sissy Morisi. Strange. Because his communication, although more modern than that of the PD, still does not fall below 25 years. Sixteen-year-olds today are on some Discord servers, on TikTok, twitch, and other dedicated social networks.

The second question would then be “and what do young people want”? Here the thing gets complicated, because from 16 to 18 is a period that is divided into two parts:

• those who have dropped out of compulsory school and are therefore queuing for subsidy. They just want a subsidy or an annuity.
• those who go to school, and live in a reality made up of classmates from many countries, many emerging social networks, thanks to which they know things that adults should not know, while they ignore others that adults need to know in order to power.

It is difficult to understand what the parties would do in the face of this awareness. And probably this idea would lead them to pervert television broadcasts in order to ston them as much as adults, however difficult it is since they watch little TV.

Honestly, I don't think it would change much: very radicalized people already go to the vote today, because rational people are fed up with a useless exercise. I don't think adding more voters would change much.

So why so much opposition?

Because the world of printing is in the hands of old men. The resources are in the hands of old people. The status quo is in the hands of old men.

And the old are afraid. They are afraid of everything. They live in fear. Some thieves. Of the niggers. Of foreigners. Of Europe. Of the future.

It is their mindset that pushes them to react. And to plunge the country into a debate on age, because otherwise we could also talk about a debate on Jus Soli, or on maturity.

For example, I would be of the opinion to grant the right to vote only to those who have passed the baccalaureate, so to speak. And if you have any qualms, let's raise to graduation. And if you still have some qualms because university is not what used to be, then to the doctorate.

So, instead of asking yourself if the voter ACTUALLY has what it takes to vote, it is better to ask yourself if they are of age.

It's simpler, and especially, more stupid. And adults like the stupid way a lot.