Yeah, but Feinstein wasnt showing all that clear evidence when she was relatected last. Sure, now. But removing a Senator is not easy.
Or Liz Cheney. Or Joe Crowley. and many others.
It may not be what the Founding Fathers wanted but it’s what we have chosen.
If you want a real issue that needs to be addressed, it’s how Al Gore and Hillary Clinton got more votes and George W. Bush and Donald Trump were declared the winners. That’s a problem with our election system. But you don’t see conservatives talking about the need to fix that.
Ehh, these days, I’m seeing a lot of articles about how young people today don’t really understand technology either, especially in a world where “it just works” is emphasized…
Certainly, but it does not necessarily follow inequality makes it wrong. The kiddie fuckers are fond of saying “Age is just a number”; the answer to that is “Jail is just a place.”
There is advantage and then there is this. This is not really fair choosing. It can’t be. The playing field is tilted.
And…
Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates
I doubt you can convince me that people like their incumbents SO much that almost no else can get elected because no one else is likely to be better. The incumbent almost always has the very best ideas and represents you better than anyone else could. And when when incumbent retires/dies the next incumbent is now liked SO much that they keep office as long as they like because, somehow, the replacement that showed up at just the right time is also the very best. It’s almost magical (read: corrupt).
That’s crazy. Our democracy (republic if you prefer) is not served well by this.
Honestly, this reads of “the people aren’t voting the way I want them to; therefore, they must be wrong and need to be told who they are allowed to vote for”.
People who are popular enough to get elected in the first place are generally popular enough to get reelected, and voters aren’t going to spontaneously vote out someone they’re happy with because of some abstract notion that it’s Someone Else’s Turn Now.
They will, as has been demonstrated upthread, vote out an incumbent in the primary if someone new is able to convince them that they can do better.
That is not the takeaway. The data strongly suggests an unfair playing field. It is hard to think that 95%(ish) of the U.S. House gets re-elected every time because there just isn’t anyone better (almost) ever showing up to challenge them.
It’s like saying 95% of the people in the House are the best we can get. There just isn’t anyone better to be found. And that 95% is always maintained…we always have the best 95%.
Then it seems to me your energy is misdirected. Why not tilt for an amendment to provide universal public funding of campaigns, or to change the way candidates pursue nomination and election, rather than doting on about how politicians are just too dang old these days?
Nobody’s stopping you from running. I might even vote for you no matter how old you are.
I have lots of ideas I think could improve the US government. Age restrictions (and/or term limits) are not top of the list.
But, this thread is about age restrictions so, mostly, trying to keep to that here (in a completely different thread recently I strayed pretty far off topic and annoyed a mod so still feeling it and trying to be better).
ISTM congress has a way of weeding out the Boy Scouts in their midst. You either get with the program and play their game or they’ll find a way to be rid of you (or, at the least, marginalize you thoroughly).
Yes yes, you can vote for the person who’s been doing an ok job but at least they’ve been doing the job, or you can vote for the unproven person who might do better or who might suck.
People go to the same doctor for their whole lives. They don’t cross shop every few years. Do they really think they have the best doctor?
I won’t say that inequality is always wrong. But I think it’s reasonable to say that inequality is always unequal, which is the point I was making.
And I imagine that is also strongly influenced by how gerrymandering makes for a huge proportion of (relatively) “safe” districts. Which then would tilt the table in case of mandatory turnover towards whoever’s most similar to the last guy. Plus as mentioned, the problems of fundraising which will tend to favor whoever is already in a position of power.
As things stand, ISTM that primary “upsets” tend to not happen because of the voters getting tired of the superannuated, but rather come about as a result of ideological insurgencies or reactions to scandal.
Incumbents get free press in an amount that almost no challenger can touch. THAT is the power of incumbency.
It isn’t a “problem” it was designed specifically and intentionally that way. Democracy was clearly something to be avoided. Try as we might, one will search in vain to find even the word democracy in the Constitution. Nor the Bill of Rights, nor the Declaration of Independence. Not even once.
Suppose for the sake of argument, that we had global elections. Would you suggest that it is a good idea for the voters of India and China alone to decide everything for the rest of the world? Same principle.
Would you suggest that it is a good idea for the voters of Kentucky and Wyoming to decide everything for the rest of the nation? Because that’s the result of the system you’re defending.
[quote=“Little_Nemo, post:91, topic:989383”] I won’t say that inequality is always wrong. But I think it’s reasonable to say that inequality is always unequal
[/quote]
Well … OK. It seemed that was the implication.
Okay, let’s apply that idea to American politics. You argued we shouldn’t allow global voting (a suggestion nobody had made) because Indians and Chinese would outvote Americans. Who are the equivalent groups in American elections? Which “bad” group of Americans would be outvoting the “good” group of Americans? Or to put it more bluntly, which group of Americans do you feel shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
I’ll put my opinion out there; I feel every American over the age of eighteen should be allowed to vote and everyone’s vote should have equal weight. I might be willing to accept a few specific exceptions, like currently incarcerated people not voting, but I favor a general right to vote.
I was replying directly to Whack-a-Mole’s post that this proposed law would be applied equally to everyone by pointing out its inherent inequality.
As suggested by others, it’d be ludicrously simple to get half a dozen doctors to swear that a candidate is the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Almost as simple to find that number of physicians, never mind naturopaths, chiropractors, rug doctors, basement doctors and PhDs in English literature.
In the context of when the Constitution was written, they would have been the original states/colonies. If you’re Delaware or Rhode Island, you worry that “one man, one vote” means that Virginia or Pennsylvania get to decide everything and your state’s interests won’t matter. (Nowadays, we don’t think nearly as much in terms of the individual states and their competing interests.)
You’re missing at least part of @Common_Tater’s point, assuming I understand it correctly. It’s not that there are “good” groups and “bad” groups, or groups that shouldn’t vote and those that should. It’s a worry about the tyrrany of the majority, where the interests of smaller groups are drowned out by larger groups that inevitably outvote them.