4 ms·

Why exactly should the elderly be exempt from proper representation? There are plenty of things to criticize Nancy Pelosi about, for example, but still she's mo

Why exactly should the elderly be exempt from proper representation? There are plenty of things to criticize Nancy Pelosi about, for example, but still she's more intelligent and coherent than 99% of Congress.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bell-cot 3y ago
Those in their first ~2 decades of life have long been exempted from proper representation, and I've never heard the elderly complain about that. Having both ends cut off sounds more fair and balanced to me.
- alphabettsy 3y ago
  Comparing a child to someone in their 70s with a lifetime of experience is silly. Maybe there should be limits once in office at a certain age, but not everyone ages the same.
  - firebat45 3y ago
    Having a lifetime of experience does not necessarily make someone smart, rational, or even coherent. It especially does not make someone interested in voting for changes that will improve the lives of people younger than them.
    - alphabettsy 3y ago
      That’s why we have elections. Being youthful doesn’t imply any of those things either and guarantees limited experience. I’m not arguing that young people shouldn’t be in office. I’m just not sure an arbitrary age limit is appropriate either.
  - pierat 3y ago
    "Adolescence" was a made-up term to remove personal sovereignty over younger people who know full well, and would do, but aren't legally permitted to do so. They're also subject to our laws. They should have their say as well. And then we see under-18 routinely be charged as adults. And yes, if 15 year olds could vote and run for office, I do think we'd see more issues aimed at the younger generations ALONG WITH longer views of how our government is run. And we're seeing the judicial side of this with youngsters suing for climate devastation, like https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/17/montana-climate-lawsuit-impact/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/1...
    - SamPatt 3y ago
      I used to believe this - and even advocate for change - then I watched my children become teenagers. There is truth to the idea that, whether due to life experience or brain development, teenagers struggle with proper decision-making. I don't like the arbitrary nature of age cutoffs, but I would no longer support the idea of giving more political power to anyone under 18.
      - pierat 3y ago
        Then why is anyone under 18 charged in criminal court as adults? If you get ages can be seen to have the same legal cognitive patters as an adult, why shouldn't they also have the same rights as an adult?
        SamPatt 3y ago
        Part of the criminal justice system is removing dangerous people from society. Sometimes you can make this determination before their 18th birthday. In general I agree with you though.
        alphabettsy 3y ago
        I don’t believe they should be.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  - schnebbau 3y ago
    My father is in his 70s and can barely remember what he had for breakfast. He should not be representing anyone, or even voting for that matter. There's no way to separate the able minded from the seniles fairly, so an age limit is the best way to do it.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Does your father continue to vote the same way he has most of his life?
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        can you call it voting if they have less idea what's going on around them than a teenager?
      - schnebbau 3y ago
        Yes. But his party has changed a little in the last few years and I feel he would not be voting for them now if he could understand that.
    - alphabettsy 3y ago
      > There's no way to separate the able minded from the seniles fairly, so an age limit is the best way to do it. Sorry about your father, but there are plenty of 70 year olds who are extremely competent, capable and that also bring valuable connections and experience.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    If you've been around many kids, you know that "18" is completely arbitrary, and adult-ish maturity comes to some far sooner than to others. (And to a few, it never does seem to come.) And if you've been around many elderly people, you know that quite a few are less competent to vote than the average 14-year-old student council member, and that letting ~all of them do so is no less arbitrary than that "18".
jfengel 3y ago
They shouldn't, though Congress has a massive skew towards them. The median senator is on Social Security. The median House member is just shy of being able to make tax-free withdrawals from their 401(k)s. The minimum ages necessarily put an upward skew on it, but very few are anywhere near the minimum. There is little need to ensure representation for the elderly. And meantime, anybody of working age is badly under-represented.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Very few young people have the privilege to afford campaigning. It makes sense most people able to do so are old enough to have the savings, skills or passive income that allows them the freedom to hit the campaign trail.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    Which is yet more reason to give us something to put a thumb on the younger side of the scale. An age limit would be a crude form of that. So would a term limit. We could alter the seniority system that gives much more weight to people who have been there the longest. But that's a rule Congress passes for itself, and it's hard to imagine many incumbents giving up on a privilege they've been waiting for.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bell-cot 3y ago

Those in their first ~2 decades of life have long been exempted from proper representation, and I've never heard the elderly complain about that. Having both ends cut off sounds more fair and balanced to me.

alphabettsy 3y ago
Comparing a child to someone in their 70s with a lifetime of experience is silly. Maybe there should be limits once in office at a certain age, but not everyone ages the same.
- firebat45 3y ago
  Having a lifetime of experience does not necessarily make someone smart, rational, or even coherent. It especially does not make someone interested in voting for changes that will improve the lives of people younger than them.
  - alphabettsy 3y ago
    That’s why we have elections. Being youthful doesn’t imply any of those things either and guarantees limited experience. I’m not arguing that young people shouldn’t be in office. I’m just not sure an arbitrary age limit is appropriate either.
- pierat 3y ago
  "Adolescence" was a made-up term to remove personal sovereignty over younger people who know full well, and would do, but aren't legally permitted to do so. They're also subject to our laws. They should have their say as well. And then we see under-18 routinely be charged as adults. And yes, if 15 year olds could vote and run for office, I do think we'd see more issues aimed at the younger generations ALONG WITH longer views of how our government is run. And we're seeing the judicial side of this with youngsters suing for climate devastation, like https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/17/montana-climate-lawsuit-impact/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/1...
  - SamPatt 3y ago
    I used to believe this - and even advocate for change - then I watched my children become teenagers. There is truth to the idea that, whether due to life experience or brain development, teenagers struggle with proper decision-making. I don't like the arbitrary nature of age cutoffs, but I would no longer support the idea of giving more political power to anyone under 18.
    - pierat 3y ago
      Then why is anyone under 18 charged in criminal court as adults? If you get ages can be seen to have the same legal cognitive patters as an adult, why shouldn't they also have the same rights as an adult?
      - SamPatt 3y ago
        Part of the criminal justice system is removing dangerous people from society. Sometimes you can make this determination before their 18th birthday. In general I agree with you though.
      - alphabettsy 3y ago
        I don’t believe they should be.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
- schnebbau 3y ago
  My father is in his 70s and can barely remember what he had for breakfast. He should not be representing anyone, or even voting for that matter. There's no way to separate the able minded from the seniles fairly, so an age limit is the best way to do it.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Does your father continue to vote the same way he has most of his life?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      can you call it voting if they have less idea what's going on around them than a teenager?
    - schnebbau 3y ago
      Yes. But his party has changed a little in the last few years and I feel he would not be voting for them now if he could understand that.
  - alphabettsy 3y ago
    > There's no way to separate the able minded from the seniles fairly, so an age limit is the best way to do it. Sorry about your father, but there are plenty of 70 year olds who are extremely competent, capable and that also bring valuable connections and experience.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  If you've been around many kids, you know that "18" is completely arbitrary, and adult-ish maturity comes to some far sooner than to others. (And to a few, it never does seem to come.) And if you've been around many elderly people, you know that quite a few are less competent to vote than the average 14-year-old student council member, and that letting ~all of them do so is no less arbitrary than that "18".

jfengel 3y ago

They shouldn't, though Congress has a massive skew towards them. The median senator is on Social Security. The median House member is just shy of being able to make tax-free withdrawals from their 401(k)s. The minimum ages necessarily put an upward skew on it, but very few are anywhere near the minimum. There is little need to ensure representation for the elderly. And meantime, anybody of working age is badly under-represented.

edgyquant 3y ago
Very few young people have the privilege to afford campaigning. It makes sense most people able to do so are old enough to have the savings, skills or passive income that allows them the freedom to hit the campaign trail.
- jfengel 3y ago
  Which is yet more reason to give us something to put a thumb on the younger side of the scale. An age limit would be a crude form of that. So would a term limit. We could alter the seniority system that gives much more weight to people who have been there the longest. But that's a rule Congress passes for itself, and it's hard to imagine many incumbents giving up on a privilege they've been waiting for.