I heard even more radical proposal (not in us) - cap the voting age. Reason is simple, by voting you decide about future, how can pensioners who, frankly, will die soon can reasonably decide about my future if I am 20 yo.
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
540 points (96.1% liked)
Asklemmy
47694 readers
627 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
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Maybe once you retire and get your pension you stop voting.
If it's capped on the other side of your life then it needs to be capped on that side too.
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.
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.
No, because democracy. But we shouldn't vote for these old guys
Needs to be a little lower
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)
60*
Their age doesn't affect me in the slightest.
Lmao what a wild take
No, because in a proper democracy any representative could be removed from office at anytime solely by their constituents voting to remove them. No I don't mean during a predetermined election cycle. I mean at any time.
That way each community can decide if someone should be out of office, and it transfers power back into the hands of the people rather than their representatives.