I would be happy with a voting age of 16, serving in public office at 26 and no voting or serving in public office at 70.
Sixteen year olds have the most skin in the game from the standpoint of having to live with the consequences of election outcomes. Sixteen year olds were allowed to vote in the Scottish independence referendum for exactly this reason.
Full brain maturation (fronto-cortical pruning) is not finalized until 26.
The incidence of cognitive impairment goes up significantly at 70 years old.
No voting at 70? Wow. That seems so tragically disrespectful towards the people in our community we should be regarding as our elders. I think you are exaggerating the extent of mental decline with age pretty significantly and not appreciating the benefits. One of the most politically active and motivated people I know is in her 70s.
16 year olds may have the most skin in the game, if one can handle such generalized statements, but clearly the thing that teenagers lack is perspective and experience.
Not all elderly people are Mitch McConnell, just like not all young people are George Santos.
I’m 65 and would happily take a hit for the team. I just retired from 30 years as a family doctor, and I see how people just start progressively losing their mental edge after 70. Not absolutely every single one, but most folks.
An alternative would be a test every voter takes to be able to vote. DMV-like 30-question multiple choice purely on facts of civics and current events. I don’t see that happening given the history of poll tests in our country.
It is incredibly agist. Plenty of 70 year olds are fully mentally cognizant still. Not allowing them to vote on things like NHS issues seems unfair when entering a time of their life when they’ll be using that service more.
Not that I agree with an age cap, but respect for elders isn’t really a value among young Americans. Like, we know that the idea that old people are inherently wise is a farce.
respect for elders isn’t really a value among young Americans
I’m sure it’s valued more or less across different sectors of the young American population, but yeah I think it’s pretty widely recognized that our culture doesn’t really treat our elders well. And we should feel ashamed about that.
we know that the idea that old people are inherently wise is a farce
Nobody is inherently anything, but everything is the way it is for a reason. There’s a reason why respect for one’s elders is a nearly universal maxim, to the extent that it extends beyond our species, and to disregard that ancient principle is to invite disaster. Old people aren’t the problem.
Why are elders deserving of more respect than anyone else? Other than reference to tradition, which was often formed by religion (“respect your elders” is from the bible, old, but not nearly ancient history) which was in turn used to cement power and money in a few old folks running the religion.
Surely the young deserve the same respect as the old, it isn’t like age makes you smarter or better able to handle new situations. It can mean you have wisdom but age alone has no bearing on that.
You can also respect someone but realize that they no longer understand what is going on in the world. I respect my grandfather who flew spy planes during the cold war, then came home and was an anti war activist. Do I think he should run for office today? Absolutely not. Vote? Honestly probably not. He’s certainly not able to make an informed decision anymore. But I will visit him when I can, take care of him as best I can, hear his stories, and learn from those stories as I can.
In this threads context young people don’t get to serve in office or vote but elders get to vote and serve until the day they die. This has directly and indirectly created a feeling of disenfranchisement with young (literally under 50 at this point) folks that shows itself in all aspects of politics.
Your belief is that respecting elders is unique to Christianity? That’s simply and obviously untrue. Painfully so when you compare the way the dominant Christian culture treats its elders compared with how First Nations cultures treat theirs.
Why 26? If an 18 year old can work full time, shouldn’t they also be able to serve in government. It’s not like you have no stake in the social contract until 26.
Brain maturation (fronto-cortical pruning) is not complete until 26 years of age.
Ever notice how you can work at 16, vote and be drafted/enlist at 18, drink at 21 but can’t rent a car without a co-signer until 26?
Now you know why. Car rental agencies don’t study human neurophysiology, but they damn well know there’s a difference between people who rent their cars before and after 26.
None of that matters, if an 18 year old has a stake in society by paying taxes, working full time, etc. Then they should have access to the workings of that society if they can get people to vote for them.
I think that part of the problem is we need to enable younger and poorer people to run for office. Potentially with a universal campaigning platform or something similar, there needs to be a way for less privileged people to run for office if we’re going to fix this country.
This is why Athenians considered representative electoral systems to be of the oligarchical political type rather than the democratic. It was apparently the understanding then that such a system is one in which the rich and powerful rule by way of money and influence, as opposed to a democracy in which rulership was determined by lottery.
It would be easier if they expanded the number of representatives to be proportional to the population of the states. Pretty much every small town would have at least one representative in Congress.
It wouldn’t even be as desirable as being on the local council.
You need money to run and young people done have the money.
I forget who it was, possibly Andre yang, who said that the money spent on campaigns should come from a pool and every vote you get in a primary translates to how much federal money you are granted or something.
I forget, but there are plenty of options, but it will only take power from the people who have it , so, of course nothing will change.
You need money to run and young people done have the money.
That’s one issue.
Another is that most people are unlikely to vote for someone with little-to-no life experience.
As mush as youth and enthusiasm are useful traits, so is experience working in a variety of tasks and situations. (Both employment and volunteer/community service types of experience)
Electing the equivalent of student council candidates won’t improve the situation.
To be realistic, I agree that nothing is likely to change in the short term. However, in the long term, I think things need to change or eventually the United States will face a revolution.
I agree, I don’t think people in the states life the worst quality life by almost any means, but the quality of life has changed very quickly and people are having trouble dealing with a sudden much lower quality of life.
I think this will cause things to break suddenly and violently when it happens. I’m happily living in a third would country. People ask me why I don’t movie back home, but I don’t really give much of an answer. It’s like everyone understands subconsciously that it’s not a good place to live.
To me it seems the United States is heading towards civil war more than revolution. There’s factionalism at play that is deeper than just class antagonisms. I read a book recently where the author was talking about how times when states are transitioning into or out of “democraticness” in when civil wars are most likely to occur. Factionalism and shifting democratic integrity means high risk for civil war. Apparently.
I largely agree with your points, but I would like to note a revolution is a type of civil war and I don’t think the United States is heading toward another war of secession, and thus whatever civil war it has might be a revolution (though unfortunately it may not be a left-wing revolution).
Australia sort of has a system like this. You have to have the money to campaign up front, but you can claim back a percentage based on how much of the vote you get. In practice it just means we end up with a ton of minor and single issue parties doing preference deals and trading favours in the senate.
Australia sort of has a system like this. You have to have the money to campaign up front, but you can claim back a percentage based on how much of the vote you get
Canada did as well for a few years. Then a conservative government got elected and cancelled it.
The money in politics and the fact that the Supreme Court can act unilaterally to decide that unethical-and-disastrous decisions are “OK” because they appointed 2 supreme court seats when one branch of the government suddenly decided they could not do their job, but only when it caused a constitutional crises in THEIR favor. Yes, the ones who lost out on that are the majority, even though we are made to believe that minority opinion should be respected in order to ensure “democracy” when it seems like the only people who actually see the benefits of all this equality and corrupt control of congress are “rich” people, in every single instance… there’s never a case where Mr. homelesss-guy-addicted-to-Fentenyl won the case and now the state pays him to rectify the horrible wrongs they had in not taking care of him when he needed it the most.
The problem with this is you have to win the presidential primary for a major party, which is almost as expensive as the general election. It’s no wonder why no one uses it, the only people eligible for this grant automatically don’t need it.
All these octagenarians all multimillionaires, it’s incredible the need of power. They’ve should’ve been enjoying the last years of their life in different way.
I don’t know that I fully support mandatory retirement age or term limits, but something has to be done about out how poorly the demographics of government align with the demographics of the nation
Young people are too busy trying to fucking survive in this economy to think about serving in government. The only people who can serve are the rich and elderly.
He’s fucking useless but he’s 43. Liz Truss is 48 and she still managed to tank an economy. Yes McConnel probably should retire but he’s a cunt and been fucking things up since he was a mere stripling elected to the Senate.
The problem is that wealth accrues to individuals over time and money buys politicians.
It’s just as likely that a super smart general/“sentient” AI would simply decide that the ultra-rich/powerful are the problem and would just get rid of them.
And to pay politicians! Doctors, lawyers, bottom -rung programmers, and ambitious plumbers all make more than the people who run the county–and aren’t expected to constantly fly themselves across the country and maintain multiple residences–at least one of them in one of the priciest markets in the country.
The only people who want that job are already rich, or are great at schmoozing and finding donors.
Pay them so well, all your best and brightest want to grow up to be legislators, and have no urgent need to start accepting graft. At least make it competitive with writing python scripts.
Yes, that is the status quo. If you want to change it, you need to accept higher pay so that more average Joes seek election and then vote to restrict trades by sitting politics.
Constricting pay only cements the status quo by making it so that only rich people or cheaters can make a living as a politician.
Is they pay not being high enough really the barrier to entry for most people? I would imagine the barrier is upfront cost more than eventual salary. Paying the politicians more just encourages them to stay longer.
Give them free food, housing, and health care, and a stipend for recreational spending. They are serving the people, I’m cool to foot the bill for that much. Use the rest of our money to help less rich and powerful people run for office in the first place.
Yeah, it’s a barrier. Factoring in cost of living, getting elected to congress would be a significant pay drop for just about any middle class person (unless, of course, they were willing to accept the legally-grey ‘benefits’ that come from the position, like early info on stock market movement along with freedom from prosecution).
It’s just weird to watch Americans complain that “All our politicians are old retirees and lifers, rich assholes, or thoroughly corrupt! Why is that? I don’t get it! Also, why are they getting paid a halfway-decent middle class salary (before factoring in cost of living), we should be paying them minimum wage–if that!”
Like…duh, guys.
You’re right that upfront costs are a problem, but that’s a hard problem to solve. Also, in the age of crowdfunding, it’s a less significant problem than it’s ever been before.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
They didn’t raise the issue, it’s already on top of the mountain… of bullshit… that is modern politics.
Get these fucking people out yesterday. Driving tests (and politician tests) annually, after 75.
I would be happy with a voting age of 16, serving in public office at 26 and no voting or serving in public office at 70.
Sixteen year olds have the most skin in the game from the standpoint of having to live with the consequences of election outcomes. Sixteen year olds were allowed to vote in the Scottish independence referendum for exactly this reason.
Full brain maturation (fronto-cortical pruning) is not finalized until 26.
The incidence of cognitive impairment goes up significantly at 70 years old.
No voting at 70? Wow. That seems so tragically disrespectful towards the people in our community we should be regarding as our elders. I think you are exaggerating the extent of mental decline with age pretty significantly and not appreciating the benefits. One of the most politically active and motivated people I know is in her 70s.
16 year olds may have the most skin in the game, if one can handle such generalized statements, but clearly the thing that teenagers lack is perspective and experience.
Not all elderly people are Mitch McConnell, just like not all young people are George Santos.
I’m 65 and would happily take a hit for the team. I just retired from 30 years as a family doctor, and I see how people just start progressively losing their mental edge after 70. Not absolutely every single one, but most folks.
An alternative would be a test every voter takes to be able to vote. DMV-like 30-question multiple choice purely on facts of civics and current events. I don’t see that happening given the history of poll tests in our country.
It is incredibly agist. Plenty of 70 year olds are fully mentally cognizant still. Not allowing them to vote on things like NHS issues seems unfair when entering a time of their life when they’ll be using that service more.
Not that I agree with an age cap, but respect for elders isn’t really a value among young Americans. Like, we know that the idea that old people are inherently wise is a farce.
I’m sure it’s valued more or less across different sectors of the young American population, but yeah I think it’s pretty widely recognized that our culture doesn’t really treat our elders well. And we should feel ashamed about that.
Nobody is inherently anything, but everything is the way it is for a reason. There’s a reason why respect for one’s elders is a nearly universal maxim, to the extent that it extends beyond our species, and to disregard that ancient principle is to invite disaster. Old people aren’t the problem.
Why are elders deserving of more respect than anyone else? Other than reference to tradition, which was often formed by religion (“respect your elders” is from the bible, old, but not nearly ancient history) which was in turn used to cement power and money in a few old folks running the religion.
Surely the young deserve the same respect as the old, it isn’t like age makes you smarter or better able to handle new situations. It can mean you have wisdom but age alone has no bearing on that.
You can also respect someone but realize that they no longer understand what is going on in the world. I respect my grandfather who flew spy planes during the cold war, then came home and was an anti war activist. Do I think he should run for office today? Absolutely not. Vote? Honestly probably not. He’s certainly not able to make an informed decision anymore. But I will visit him when I can, take care of him as best I can, hear his stories, and learn from those stories as I can.
In this threads context young people don’t get to serve in office or vote but elders get to vote and serve until the day they die. This has directly and indirectly created a feeling of disenfranchisement with young (literally under 50 at this point) folks that shows itself in all aspects of politics.
Your belief is that respecting elders is unique to Christianity? That’s simply and obviously untrue. Painfully so when you compare the way the dominant Christian culture treats its elders compared with how First Nations cultures treat theirs.
Why 26? If an 18 year old can work full time, shouldn’t they also be able to serve in government. It’s not like you have no stake in the social contract until 26.
Brain maturation (fronto-cortical pruning) is not complete until 26 years of age.
Ever notice how you can work at 16, vote and be drafted/enlist at 18, drink at 21 but can’t rent a car without a co-signer until 26?
Now you know why. Car rental agencies don’t study human neurophysiology, but they damn well know there’s a difference between people who rent their cars before and after 26.
None of that matters, if an 18 year old has a stake in society by paying taxes, working full time, etc. Then they should have access to the workings of that society if they can get people to vote for them.
I think that part of the problem is we need to enable younger and poorer people to run for office. Potentially with a universal campaigning platform or something similar, there needs to be a way for less privileged people to run for office if we’re going to fix this country.
This is why Athenians considered representative electoral systems to be of the oligarchical political type rather than the democratic. It was apparently the understanding then that such a system is one in which the rich and powerful rule by way of money and influence, as opposed to a democracy in which rulership was determined by lottery.
It would be easier if they expanded the number of representatives to be proportional to the population of the states. Pretty much every small town would have at least one representative in Congress.
It wouldn’t even be as desirable as being on the local council.
You need money to run and young people done have the money.
I forget who it was, possibly Andre yang, who said that the money spent on campaigns should come from a pool and every vote you get in a primary translates to how much federal money you are granted or something.
I forget, but there are plenty of options, but it will only take power from the people who have it , so, of course nothing will change.
That’s one issue.
Another is that most people are unlikely to vote for someone with little-to-no life experience.
As mush as youth and enthusiasm are useful traits, so is experience working in a variety of tasks and situations. (Both employment and volunteer/community service types of experience)
Electing the equivalent of student council candidates won’t improve the situation.
In this context a 40 year old person would count as a young person.
To be realistic, I agree that nothing is likely to change in the short term. However, in the long term, I think things need to change or eventually the United States will face a revolution.
I agree, I don’t think people in the states life the worst quality life by almost any means, but the quality of life has changed very quickly and people are having trouble dealing with a sudden much lower quality of life.
I think this will cause things to break suddenly and violently when it happens. I’m happily living in a third would country. People ask me why I don’t movie back home, but I don’t really give much of an answer. It’s like everyone understands subconsciously that it’s not a good place to live.
To me it seems the United States is heading towards civil war more than revolution. There’s factionalism at play that is deeper than just class antagonisms. I read a book recently where the author was talking about how times when states are transitioning into or out of “democraticness” in when civil wars are most likely to occur. Factionalism and shifting democratic integrity means high risk for civil war. Apparently.
I largely agree with your points, but I would like to note a revolution is a type of civil war and I don’t think the United States is heading toward another war of secession, and thus whatever civil war it has might be a revolution (though unfortunately it may not be a left-wing revolution).
Australia sort of has a system like this. You have to have the money to campaign up front, but you can claim back a percentage based on how much of the vote you get. In practice it just means we end up with a ton of minor and single issue parties doing preference deals and trading favours in the senate.
Canada did as well for a few years. Then a conservative government got elected and cancelled it.
The money in politics and the fact that the Supreme Court can act unilaterally to decide that unethical-and-disastrous decisions are “OK” because they appointed 2 supreme court seats when one branch of the government suddenly decided they could not do their job, but only when it caused a constitutional crises in THEIR favor. Yes, the ones who lost out on that are the majority, even though we are made to believe that minority opinion should be respected in order to ensure “democracy” when it seems like the only people who actually see the benefits of all this equality and corrupt control of congress are “rich” people, in every single instance… there’s never a case where Mr. homelesss-guy-addicted-to-Fentenyl won the case and now the state pays him to rectify the horrible wrongs they had in not taking care of him when he needed it the most.
You just need to spend the next 40 years grooming law students and infiltrating the judicial system. EZ PZ
There is actually a grant system for campaign finance. It’s anemic as all hell, and so restrictive that it’s never used, but it exists.
At least for presidential elections.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/understanding-public-funding-presidential-elections/receiving-public-funding-grant-for-general-election/
The problem with this is you have to win the presidential primary for a major party, which is almost as expensive as the general election. It’s no wonder why no one uses it, the only people eligible for this grant automatically don’t need it.
Yes, this exactly. The issue isn’t age, or disability, it’s the unfair entrenchment of power.
All these octagenarians all multimillionaires, it’s incredible the need of power. They’ve should’ve been enjoying the last years of their life in different way.
What better way is there to enjoy your last years than ruining the fucking planet for everyone that comes after you
I don’t know that I fully support mandatory retirement age or term limits, but something has to be done about out how poorly the demographics of government align with the demographics of the nation
By design the needs of the elite outweigh the people
The political system in the US is too entrenched towards aged personals and nepotism.
Or regular competence and health testing at the bare minimum.
Uhhhhh no. The issues have been raised for a long time. Mainstream is glomming on it now because it’s getting clicks.
If a pilot must retire at 65 for fear they will kill 200-300 people, you sure as hell should have to retire when 330 million lives are on the line.
I’d suggest that there’s a few billion more at stake.
Absofreakinglutely
Young people are too busy trying to fucking survive in this economy to think about serving in government. The only people who can serve are the rich and elderly.
Labour literally just got a twenty-five year old MP elected. Even our Prime Minister is only 43 at the moment.
He’s fucking useless but he’s 43. Liz Truss is 48 and she still managed to tank an economy. Yes McConnel probably should retire but he’s a cunt and been fucking things up since he was a mere stripling elected to the Senate.
The problem is that wealth accrues to individuals over time and money buys politicians.
Yeah our problem is that our voter turnout is too geriatric, not our politicians. More young people need to vote.
I’m ready for skynet to take over tbh.
Even if the SkyNet is created by Elon “kill the poor” Musk?
Let’s be real that ai will gain sentience and turn into “kill everyone” real quick if Musk gets his hands on it.
It’s just as likely that a super smart general/“sentient” AI would simply decide that the ultra-rich/powerful are the problem and would just get rid of them.
More likely it’ll think 1+1=5
Come on now, he never said that. He did say that the woke hive mind is taking over and will destroy the world.
Oh the humanity!
Anyways, fun fact: Elon musk is a key investor in chatGPT. 😯
We need age and term limits
And to pay politicians! Doctors, lawyers, bottom -rung programmers, and ambitious plumbers all make more than the people who run the county–and aren’t expected to constantly fly themselves across the country and maintain multiple residences–at least one of them in one of the priciest markets in the country.
The only people who want that job are already rich, or are great at schmoozing and finding donors.
Pay them so well, all your best and brightest want to grow up to be legislators, and have no urgent need to start accepting graft. At least make it competitive with writing python scripts.
Politicians don’t get rich from their salaries. They get rich from the connections they make.
I would accept paying them more if they weren’t allowed to actively trade stocks while in office
Yes, that is the status quo. If you want to change it, you need to accept higher pay so that more average Joes seek election and then vote to restrict trades by sitting politics.
Constricting pay only cements the status quo by making it so that only rich people or cheaters can make a living as a politician.
Is they pay not being high enough really the barrier to entry for most people? I would imagine the barrier is upfront cost more than eventual salary. Paying the politicians more just encourages them to stay longer.
Give them free food, housing, and health care, and a stipend for recreational spending. They are serving the people, I’m cool to foot the bill for that much. Use the rest of our money to help less rich and powerful people run for office in the first place.
Yeah, it’s a barrier. Factoring in cost of living, getting elected to congress would be a significant pay drop for just about any middle class person (unless, of course, they were willing to accept the legally-grey ‘benefits’ that come from the position, like early info on stock market movement along with freedom from prosecution).
It’s just weird to watch Americans complain that “All our politicians are old retirees and lifers, rich assholes, or thoroughly corrupt! Why is that? I don’t get it! Also, why are they getting paid a halfway-decent middle class salary (before factoring in cost of living), we should be paying them minimum wage–if that!”
Like…duh, guys.
You’re right that upfront costs are a problem, but that’s a hard problem to solve. Also, in the age of crowdfunding, it’s a less significant problem than it’s ever been before.