Too old to vote? A democratic analysis of age-weighted voting

Poama, Andrei; Volacu, Alexandru

doi:10.1177/14748851211062604

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…See also Poama and Volacu (2021) for a similar conceptualization of equal opportunity for political influence. I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this text to me.…”

Section: Neo-republicanism and The Problem Of Elitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

10. A Neo-Republican Argument for Limitarianism

Icardi

2023

Having Too Much

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, I argue that limitarianism should be advocated within neo-republicanism. For the neo-republican ideal of freedom as non-domination is jeopardized by the presence of the super-rich in a democracy. By possessing much more resources than their fellow citizens, the super-rich enjoy disproportionate political power, thus dominating the democratic process. Moreover, formal institutional constraints in this regard work only to a limited extent. For the sake of non-domination, therefore, excessive individual wealth should be limited. This, I argue, can be done through a limitarian threshold. However, such a threshold should be put where the problem itself arises. That is, it should not limit the wealth that people do not need for their full flourishing. Rather, it should limit the wealth that allows people to dominate public decision-making even when formal barriers are in place. Hence, I offer a novel argument for limitarianism from the neo-republican perspective.

show abstract

“…See also Poama and Volacu (2021) for a similar conceptualization of equal opportunity for political influence. I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this text to me.…”

Section: Neo-republicanism and The Problem Of Elitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

10. A Neo-Republican Argument for Limitarianism

Icardi

2023

Having Too Much

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Citizens might, for instance, be treated as equals by their queen, thus experiencing an equal status to one another, but if they do not enjoy any opportunity to take part in the queen's decision-making process concerning public matters, such an equality of status will only occur if she has enough goodwill to allow it. In that case, they will be exposed not only to the actual vertical domination of their queen but also to the potential horizontal domination of their fellows, since their equal status to one another could change at any time depending on the queen's 7See also Poama and Volacu (2021) for a similar conceptualization of equal opportunity for political influence. I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this text to me.…”

Section: Neo-republicanism and The Problem Of Elitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Having Too Much

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Having Too Much is the first academic volume devoted to limitarianism: the idea that the use of economic or ecosystem resources should not exceed certain limits. This concept has deep roots in economic and political thought. One can find similar statements of such limits in thinkers such as Plato, Aquinas, and Spinoza. But Having Too Much is the first time in contemporary political philosophy that limitarianism is explored at length and in detail. Bringing together in one place the best writing from key theorists of limitarianism, this book is an essential contribution to political philosophy in general, and theories of distributive justice in particular. Including some of the key published articles as well as new chapters, Having Too Much is necessary reading for scholars and students of political theory and philosophy, as well as anyone interested in questions of distributive justice.

show abstract

The Voting Rights of Senior Citizens: Should all Votes Count the Same?

Bengtson,

Albertsen

2023

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1970, Stewart advocated disenfranchising everyone reaching retirement age or age 70, whichever was earlier. The question of whether senior citizens should be disenfranchised has recently come to the fore due to votes on issues such as Brexit and climate change. Indeed, there is a growing literature which argues that we should increase the voting power of non-senior citizens relative to senior citizens, for reasons having to do with intergenerational justice. Thus, it seems that there are reasons of justice to disenfranchise senior citizens, or at least to grant them a lower voting weight than non-senior citizens. In this paper, we investigate whether there are democratic reasons to do so. To answer this question, we turn to the boundary problem in democratic theory, i.e., the question of who should be included in democratic decision-making. Two prominent solutions, and a more recent one, are particularly relevant: the all-affected principle, the all-subjected principle, and the relational egalitarian principle. When it comes to the all-affected principle and the all-subjected principle, we argue that there is reason to grant most senior citizens a lower voting weight than most non-senior citizens in most decisions. Whether that is the case on the relational egalitarian principle depends on how people relate to each other in society. Indeed, it is sometimes in accordance with the relational egalitarian view to grant senior citizens a greater voting weight than non-senior citizens.

show abstract

Too old to vote? A democratic analysis of age-weighted voting

Cited by 8 publications

References 40 publications

10. A Neo-Republican Argument for Limitarianism

10. A Neo-Republican Argument for Limitarianism

Having Too Much

The Voting Rights of Senior Citizens: Should all Votes Count the Same?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About