> Pensioners, children and other unemployed must be protected by laws instead of direct political influence.
Of course then nothing stops those that have the vote because they work to disenfranchise those pensioners and other unemployed (the children will be theirs as well so are likely going to be protected).
Indeed, but I see the self-interest element in our democratic systems, showing its nasty face, now we have demographics that are bisecting on what is in the socity's future interest.
I don't see why/how disenfranchising a large chunk of people that have contributed to society would improve this. After all you'd be telling the people that are working hard to keep things afloat that if they succeed that they will lose the vote too unless they continue to work forever. The net effect will be that the social safety net and pension schemes will be ultimately cancelled because only those that work get to vote.
Unlikely, unless you somehow convince people who work that they will be able to work forever.
Common sense says that sooner or later health fails and not everyone can work the same amount.
"It can't happen to me" might work on teenagers.
Of course then nothing stops those that have the vote because they work to disenfranchise those pensioners and other unemployed (the children will be theirs as well so are likely going to be protected).
Laws are indirectly made by those who vote!