540
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
540 points (96.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43917 readers
1483 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
So it's ok to discriminate against young people but not old people?
Where did I ever say that? Age discrimination is age discrimination. Either you're qualified for the job or not, independent of your age. It seems like OPs question is a one-size-fits-all reaction to the geriatric choices forced upon us by the two party system. The real solution is to open the system up. Ranked-choice voting does that. You don't have to vote for the candidate who has the best chance of beating the opposition. You rank your choices. First choice is the person who best represents you. After the votes are tallied, the candidate who gets >50% wins. If nobody achieves that, the candidate with the least votes is removed and the second choice of those who voted for them is used. This process continues until someone achieves the supermajority.
It has the advantage of doing away with the idea that you're wasting your vote by not voting for the candidate who has the best chance of prevailing against the opposition. If your candidate is removed, your second choice receives your vote. Your vote ALWAYS counts. A side benefit is that we no longer need runoff elections. Everyone's second (and third and fourth) choices are already taken into account.