this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
540 points (96.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43932 readers
496 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 8 points 6 months ago

No. Some of the worst politicians are young. Some of the best politicians are old. Age isn't a problem. Undemocratic systems and bad politics are problems.

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I don't think so. One you'd lose Bernie. Two it's a bit harsh to assume anyone over a certain age isn't mentally capable of governing or changing with the times.

I think term limits would serve you much better.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 7 points 6 months ago

I'd love to see a diversity in age requirement

[–] kevincox@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I wonder if it would be better to have a term limit. I don't really care if you are 125, but there should be a limit to how long you sit there with huge amounts of power. Especially since they aren't directly re-elected.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago

What, no president?

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean, as long as we're dreaming... We need a hell of a lot more representatives. It used to be proportional to population, but it was capped at 435 (in the 1930s?). Way more reps would probably help more parties emerge as well.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

That seems like a lot of reps... Do you know of any comparisons with other democracies and their legislatures?

As far as letting parties emerge I think we should have proportional representation / ranked choice voting.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Say, greedy old guy, would you mind giving up the power you so prominently covet? Why, no? Well geeze.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago

We do not need people like Mitch McConnell who genuinely think 600 dollars is this crazy large amount of money you can live comfortably on for years. This is a real argument he has made.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 months ago (7 children)

60-65.

Make it the average retirement age.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] notaviking@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Not an American but if you should have and every country should have a minimum age, like 21 because of mental and physical maturity, and a maximum age like 75, because of the risk of possible stamina and mental decline.

[–] lemmus@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Benjamin Franklin was 70 when he signed the Declaration of Independence, the oldest person to do so.

If that’s a fact Americans might see as meaningful, the US could cap taking office as President if over 70 on election day (effectively 74 is oldest at end of term), same for the House (oldest 72), Senate (oldest 76), and the Supreme Court… just force retirement at 70 instead of death.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

mandatory retirement is never the answer; that's just ageism plus there are a ton of shitty 30 year old politicians.

term limits especially for unelected positions is a must though

also national elections for supreme court justices instead of presidential picks.

[–] Hello_there@fedia.io 4 points 6 months ago
[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Younger than that. 65

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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.

[–] plactagonic@sopuli.xyz 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.


load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

Yes. Our country is run by geriatrics who, among other things related to modern society, legislate on technology they don't understand. We need younger members with more flexible minds who have at least spent some part of their younger lives dealing with problems we have a modern variation of today.

But especially SCOTUS members. Any kind of term limit on them would be better than what we have.

load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί