540
submitted 1 year ago by robocall@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year 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.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Needs to be a little lower

[-] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago

No, because democracy. But we shouldn't vote for these old guys

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

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.

Yep, no question.

[-] rando895@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago
[-] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Their age doesn't affect me in the slightest.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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)
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
540 points (96.1% liked)

Asklemmy

48130 readers
807 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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 6 years ago
MODERATORS