351–360 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My father is in his 70s and can barely remember what he had for breakfast. He should not be representing anyone, or even voting for that matter. There's no way to separate the able minded from the seniles fairly, so an age limit is the best way to do it.
Does your father continue to vote the same way he has most of his life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is truth to the idea that, whether due to life experience or brain development, teenagers struggle with proper decision-making. I don't like the arbitrary nature of age cutoffs, but I would no longer support the idea of giving more political power to anyone under 18. while that's just an anecdote, even if it were the norm, it is also the norm for old people of a sufficient age if it makes you feel better, we…
There is much less variance on cognitive ability on the younger end of our lives than the higher end. Arbitrary age limits in youth are unfair, but less unfair than the same on the upper end of life. I had a friend who remained sharp until her mid 90s. I have family members who shouldn't be voting in their early 70s. That range is massive, whereas we can mostly agree that nearly all 14 year olds aren't capable, but m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should seriously consider mandatory retirement ages for all high public offices. We have them in the Foreign Service, and of course it would be bad for a diplomat to be in mental decline while negotiating a complex treaty. Multiple states have retirement ages for judges. The work of a senator or federal judge should be similarly protected from disruption due to the predictable age-related decline of individual off…
I tend to think it should be up to voters to decide. I feel picking any one number is too arbitrary.
There are also political costs to opposing the incumbent from within the same party. Running a competitive race will be seen as disloyal by many people in the party. It's much less risky to just wait out the incumbent and then run.
For similar reasons, it's really suboptimal for the governor to be choosing Feinstein's interim replacement. Effectively one person will get to choose California's senator for the next 20-30 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Between her and McConnell and the other gerontocrats in Washington, I’m really baffled. Why do these people grip the reins of power until their knuckles turn white? What is so important about political horse trading that they have to literally haul you out of office on a stretcher?
I can offer one piece of puzzle: the demographics of registered votes has increased significantly. Take a look at "Age and generation" at https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-... . > The U.S. electorate is aging: 52% of registered voters are ages 50 and older, up from 41% in 1996. This shift has occurred in both partisan coalitions. More than half of Republican and GOP-leaning voters (56%) are…
Their underlings support them because they lose access to a great influencer in case of removal.
It's more difficult for young people to rise up when there's very little influence to be had. However, in times of great upheaval young people tend to rise up much faster as the incompetent people at the top get removed.
Can someone give a QRD on all of the political ramifications that will come from this? I've heard things about judges being harder to appoint, what else is there?
From everything I could tell, one of the reasons Sen Feinstein was sticking around was that the GOP had indicated it would not allow Senate Democrats to replace her on the Judiciary committee. This would deadlock the committee, effectively stalling all judicial appointments and confirmations. That was in the case of a retirement. This is a death and reappointment. I am unsure if the new Senator would assume Sen Feins…
The purpose of a senator is to represent the state, not the people. That's why in the US Constitution it says that senators will be elected by state legislators (later changed by the 17th amendment to be elected by the people).
Representatives represent the people. That's why the number of representatives is proportional to the population of the state, and the senators are proportional to the states (there's approx. 1 state per state).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The median age of a registered voter is >50
sure but the senate doesn't just legislate for registered voters. my point is how out of touch congress potentially is based on age (and from other comments, net worth).
She was mentally unfit to serve for the last couple years. It was a travesty many countries seem to have no mental bar required to serve or even reasonable age limits (Feinstein was 90!) Any decision "she" was made in the last couple years was made by her aids and not her. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. Details: > Four U.S. senators, including three Democrats, as well as three former Feinstein staffer…
Between her and McConnell and the other gerontocrats in Washington, I’m really baffled. Why do these people grip the reins of power until their knuckles turn white? What is so important about political horse trading that they have to literally haul you out of office on a stretcher?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You understand that there were years before 2016, right? In some of them, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in Congress. I still remember the plethora of articles about RBG's supercool workout regimen dating back to the early 2010s because she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009 . The fixation on her health was largely because everyone knew this woman was getting ready to kick the bucket at some point, but s…
This is true, but the same time, she was 79 in 2012, which was also the AVERAGE life expectancy at the time. And you would think the wealthy well connected 'important' members of society have a noticeably longer life expectancy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Church, which is certainly something of a gerontocracy, excludes the elderly Cardinals from Papal elections too. It's not intrinsically unjust anymore than excluding the very young is.
To be fair, that limit is 80 and likely has more to do with not forcing elderly Cardinals to travel (many would and even still do out of a feeling of duty; it's basically literally the only "job" a Cardinal has that's not just him being a bishop).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's now literally the only person who cannot be affected by vitriol. Nevertheless attempts to pin the blame on her for things her constituency was obviously happy or oblivious to is misguided. Term limits give more power to the lobbyists and other back-room powers, because they are never term limited, and they quickly learn how to be exceptionally persuasive to newbie representatives. At least a non-limited represe…
> She's now literally the only person who cannot be affected by vitriol. You feel like heaping vitrol on a recently deceased person is an acceptable thing to do? My point was about reacting with class. You don't have to live that way, but practicing it makes your life and the lives of those around you better. I agree with your other points though. One of the unintended consequences of term limits is the strengthening…
But heaping vitriol does much more against the heaper than the heapee, in almost all cases.