Theoretical constitutional amendment for age restrictions on politicians

[Little_Nemo]

@Thudlow_Boink

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.

I’m all in favor of guaranteed constitutional rights for individuals. But that doesn’t seem to be a relevant issue here. We’re specifically talking about elections in this thread, which by their nature are a collective action. In elections, you either have a majority ruling over a minority or you contrive a system so a minority can rule over a majority. Of the two possibilities, I feel the first is the better one.

Anyone who doesn’t feel the majority should win in elections, I feel has the burden of explaining why they favor a system where the minority wins elections.

[DrDeth]

@Whack-a-Mole

This is not really fair choosing. It can’t be.

It is fair.

Look what happened when some people took a flyer on trump.
You have an incumbent, he/she is doing okay, why replace with someone who could prove to be a nutcase?

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

We have given examples of incumbents who lose.

@Smapti

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.

Exactly.

@Czarcasm

Incumbents get free press in an amount that almost no challenger can touch. THAT is the power of incumbency.

And if they do badly, that press is bad,

In any case, this isnt about incumbents, it is about bigoted age restrictions.

[Chingon]

Are all political age restrictions bigoted? Why not?

[Little_Nemo]

Personally, I don’t feel it’s an issue of bigotry. I feel it’s an issue of partisanship. I think there is a widespread tendency to choose a candidate and then retroactively declare support for principles that favor your chosen candidate over their opponent.

If your favored candidate is the incumbent, you declare your support for the principle that experience is good. But you never mentioned that principle a few years back when your candidate was challenging the incumbent from the other party. Back then you were declaring support for the principle of getting fresh ideas into politics and getting rid of insiders who were out of touch with the voters.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@DrDeth

We have given examples of incumbents who lose.

No one ever said otherwise. I showed you the data though that shows how lopsided it is.

[DrDeth]

@Whack-a-Mole

I showed you the data though that shows how lopsided it is.

And several of us dont care.

Why do you think a new candidate will automatically be better?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@DrDeth

And several of us dont care.

Not sure why you are replying then.

@DrDeth

Why do you think a new candidate will automatically be better?

No way to know for certain in advance. But I think locking in one person for a political position for literal decades is not healthy for democracy and the country (state/county/city).

I think genuine competition for these positions is healthy and to be encouraged. Same as in business. Competition is desirable for the consumer (the American voter in this case). Not running off the competition and then coasting.