{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014166666666666666, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.190721649484536, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Enfranchising Minors and the Mentally Impaired

In this paper I argue that outcome-based claims fail to justify the disfranchisement of minors and the mentally impaired. The available evidence does not support the idea that even entirely removing age and sanity requirements would produce undesirable electoral results. Having discarded the main instrumental reason for excluding minors and the mentally impaired, I argue that two fairness considerations — fairness in the allocation of voting rights and fairness in the conduction of the electoral process - should alone guide us in determining the proper competency qualifications for voting (i.e., qualifications based on mental traits). Fairness in the first sense requires the inclusion of all individuals who are capable of enjoying the benefits of enfranchisement. Fairness in the second sense prima facie requires the disfranchisement of persons who lack this capacity - individuals who may be trained to deposit a ballot but not be able to vote proper should be excluded to ensure integrity. Finally, I discuss the general policy implications of the argument and claim that current age and sanity requirements should be considerably relaxed.