• shirasho@feddit.onlineEnglish
    7·
    1 day ago

    The arguments against this are that old people pay taxes and should have their fair share of representation in government.

    The problem here is that olds are going to nominate olds and the ideals of the young are being completely ignored, so the younger populations are not being fairly represented. The DNC and GOP are both putting their worst and oldest candidates forward.

    All offices need an age cap of 65, and the Supreme Court justices need an age cap of 60 and have term limits of no longer than 5 years. Supreme Court justices should be nominated elected by the people to make sure they balance the needs of the people with the wants of the president.

    • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      8 hours ago

      It’s as simple as this(if only to me anyways). Experience DOES matter. Let me attempt to explain where I’m coming from, no promise I’ll succeed

      Forging relationships and networks with hundreds of people and organizations is incredibly valuable to getting things done. Doing something for a long time generally makes you better at something.

      When that something is talking to people and convincing them of things you are trying to accomplish, being known to the levers that you need to push and pull lets you get better results.

      I’m personally not opposed to much better cognitive checks before, and also beyond a certain age for all public positions that have real affect on how everyone else will have to live, but there are centenarians with full and complete faculties, not many for sure, but knowledge is power, even if the flesh is weak that knowledge is still very valuable.

      If if I’m not wrong, then arbitrarily throwing away close to a century of experience just because of a number, and not competency is crazy to me. I fully admit I don’t know how to responsibly design and implement such a thing though. It could easily be abused/corrupted so that’s a problem to figure out unfortunately. But I do think it’s possible to design such check from people much better than myself. And yes I realize nothing is perfect but that’s okay because life is change and any system needs to be able to adapt to changes of modernity

      That being said there are also other things we could do. One thing I’ve always thought would be good is we could revive the concept of an Council of Elders and give it some influence on the processes we employ our leadership. Something like an appeals approval thing or oversight committee with some type of usable lever they can flex when needed. I don’t really know how it would work, just thinking out loud a little here. Kind of like a jury but not too much with power. I’m from North America and First Nations here still have long way to go to before past injustices are reconciled but I think as a nation we should include more of their cultural traditions in the way we govern the country.

      I think I’ll stop this stream of consciousness here since most people have probably dipped anyway and I’m running out of steam anyways

      • MangoCats@feddit.itEnglish
        1·
        15 minutes ago

        The real issue with these candidates is: we’re not electing the person, we’re electing the team they putatively command, the network you refer to - all the people they work with and trust and will continue to use into the future if re-elected. And that’s the twist, the candidate can be a total figurehead, a loose cannon moron even, but who’s behind them is what’s really important.

        Reagan demonstrated this in spades: the lead actor of Bedtime for Bonzo? Really? We finally topped that absurdity with 45, but it was still an unprecedented doozie - his job was to read the script (teleprompter) deliver the lines, end of story - the machine behind him was what put “his” policies into motion.