why 73? which 74 year old are you wanting to oust? lol
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
536 points (96.2% liked)
Asklemmy
49344 readers
806 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
This was an engagement bait question on Reddit that was frequently posted. It seems so far Lemmy is overwhelmingly in favor just like reddit probably as the population is not old (I'm not either).
I don't know how I feel about it as the constant repost and bait question were something I disliked on Reddit.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Simple, if you can't get elected before a age X then you shouldn't be able to get elected after (life expectancy - X)
Example: Can't become president before 35? Life expectancy is 75 for men and 80 for women, men can't become president after 40, women after 45.
Just watch how fast life improves in the USA if you put a measure like that in place, not just from having younger politicians but also from wanting to be able to get elected later in life.
Same for voting right, can't vote before 18, can't vote after 57 and 62.
That brings back some memories of a former US president. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7FKO5DlV0
And to answer OP question :
spoiler
Yes, more younger politicians. Make retirement age 50. And more diversity as well, less white males.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=Yq7FKO5DlV0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Not for House or Senate. Age just isn't a close enough metric for what you're trying to fix.
If you're concerned with age-related decline, vote them out if you see signs of it, or if they would reach whatever age your limit is during the term.
If you're concerned about longevity in office, use term limits or reform campaign finance such that longevity in office doesn't grant too high of an incumbent advantage.
SCOTUS, sure. I think Canada has appointments until 75. Does not seem meaningfully different from appointments for life except less randomness on open slots.
certainly. even lower. Some people can be vigorous in their seventies but they are not the majority, 50's many go down. That is one problem with raising the retirement age in general. There is only a subset that can keep working as age goes up.
Needs to be a little lower
No, because democracy. But we shouldn't vote for these old guys
60*
Yep, no question.
No. That's age discrimination. If you're concerned that a person could be suffering from mental degradation, require annual testing for it. I know folks in their 90's who are better critical thinkers than a lot of 20-somethings.
The problem we have is not that a bunch of old people run the country. It's that a bunch of young people put them there because they were the only real choices they had. Fix the two-party system first by employing ranked-choice voting. That will break the stranglehold that Republicans and Democrats have on the US political system.
load more comments
(2 replies)