• Poggervania@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think we should also include term limits for these offices in addition to the age limit.

      You can’t be president for more than 8 years, but you can be in the same political office more or less for almost 40? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me lol.

      • hogunner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, term limits are a much better solution as age restrictions can be a slippery slope.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would also make you useless as your term comes to an end. Political capital and IOUs are the currency in the capitol

        • theragu40@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right, I mean those are the things we are saying are bad.

          The culture of the Senate and Congress would need to change, and I think it would rather quickly. Unfortunately this is an issue both Republicans and Democrats will never support because the very people entrenched in power would need to vote themselves out of power. It will literally never happen.

          • Wrench@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why do you think that term limits will solve it? If there’s no seniority whip, what other motivation do they have besides corporate donations? I.E., take all the bribes they can in their short tenure?

            Don’t tell me more idealistic politicians will make it to the top. I don’t believe that for a second.

            • theragu40@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess I’d flip that question. Why do you think being career politicians gives them motivation besides bribes and money?

              Because that’s the thing, they know they’re running another campaign in a couple years, they always need to be raising money for the next one. They always need to solicit donations. And they can’t do anything that rocks the boat because it affects the next election.

              Presidents very commonly get more done during their second term because they aren’t worried about the political impact of their actions affecting their ability to get elected again. I don’t see why this effect wouldn’t be the same for Congress and the Senate.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Can’t we just vote for younger candidates?

      Doesn’t make sense to subvert the will of the people when they clearly support this.

      Also, her age isn’t what makes her shit. She’s a corporate democrat just looking out for different rich people.

      • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The problem is that this isn’t the will of the people. Preliminaries don’t count as an election so your vote for which candidate that appears on the actual ballot is just a suggestion.

        The party committees gets final say on who’s on the ballot for that party to vote for.

        Which leads to the problem of the 2 party system where we vote for the least worst candidate

        • BoofStroke@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe in a true democracy. No more gerrymandered districts, ranked choice voting, and term limits would be a good start. Let’s kill citizens united while at it.

          • bobman@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In a true democracy, we’d have direct voting.

            Which I’m a huge fan of. Not sure why we’d vote for people who won’t agree with us on everything when we can just vote ourselves and get true representation.

            • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’d prefer a republic, what the hell do I know about complex foreign policies with the relationship between Sudan and Egypt, or which tax policy will spur economic growth?

              • bobman@unilem.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s fine. Just don’t complain when the people you elect go against what you think is right.

                Personally, I think direct voting would result in people voting for the matters they care about, while ignoring the ones they don’t.

                • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nah, I blame the Republicans for most of the nations current woes since, you know, they tend to be behind most of them.

                  Plus, how can you see how the average American acts and think we’re still good for a democracy? We need a more fitting class of people to rule, as Adams and Hamilton envisioned it.

                  • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What do you think should be the criteria to be included in “a more fitting class of people?”

                  • bobman@unilem.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Republicans are mostly to blame. Democrats are just the lesser evil.

                    Lo’ and behold, evil is still evil.

                    It doesn’t make sense to support the lesser evil when you could support no evil at all.

          • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I disagree. Fundamentally we have the final authority to elect our representation. Collectively we decide (and are ultimately responsible for) who is elected to office. Districts don’t vote, and corporations don’t vote. The people do.

            It is the collective responsibility of those not disenfranchised or otherwise excluded from the political system to rectify those problems. Failing to address those problems (or any political problem) isn’t a failure of the politicians–it’s a failure of us, as a collective, to choose the appropriate lawmakers. Especially when we repeatedly elect the same people over and over.

            I know it sounds naive to frame the system this way. But fundamentally the political system operates under the collective authority of voters.