I really doubt this proposal would ever actually be implemented, but still it is an interesting idea to ponder-in the abstract it seems fairer than a semi-arbitrary cutoff based on chronological age
Of course, I totally see how it might lead to unintentional indirect discrimination (“disparate impact”)-but there is a difference between that, and what was essentially direct discrimination covered with a thin veneer of “plausible deniability”.
[1] They are actually private and selective.
Better idea should just be that you should be a taxpayer to vote. No tax = no vote. Why should people who aren't contributing decide how to spend the money of those contributing?
A 16 year old who works has a bigger stake than a 21 year old jobless bum stuck in their parents home smoking weed and playing vidya games.
It could be an NGO obeying the people, not govenment.