4 ms·

"Professionals" arbitrarily deciding whose psychological functions are passable in order to allow an elected person to take office sounds horrendous to me, impa

"Professionals" arbitrarily deciding whose psychological functions are passable in order to allow an elected person to take office sounds horrendous to me, impartial panel or not. If there's anything 2020-2021 and the 4th branch of the gov't taught me, it's that we need to quit putting authority figures in positions of power over the people, for the sole reason of being an authority figure.

mc32 3y ago
Why? I don’t want people with decreased mental abilities serving in important gov positions. Do public companies let aging incompetent leaders stay on as senior executives? I'm not asking for stringent qualifications. Bare minimum. Have time awareness, place awareness, be aware of the connection between action and consequences, have control over bodily functions. I'm not asking for a Chess champion or math wiz.
- jeromegv 3y ago
  The point is that there is no good system that would allow a committee to decide if a politician is fit for office or not. Just look how Trump tried to destroy the electoral system for his own gain before and on January 6th. Now apply his tactics to to a "committee" to decide if a democrat can seek reelection. There is a good system to decide if the CEO is fit or not, it's the board of director. Those are entirely different systems.
- all2 3y ago
  So vote. Or better yet, run for office. Be the change you want to see.
  - abeppu 3y ago
    Publicly advocating for a policy change is also part of how democracies work. The "just vote" response as a mode of "don't talk about policy ideas" is silly for this reason; _how_ we vote is informed by our conversations with others, and what policies we put on the table is informed by what we all want and prioritize. But I think this can't realistically be just an issue of voting or not voting for individual elderly senate candidates, for a couple reasons: - a 6 year term is a long time, and a lot can change during that period - tenure in the Senate comes with placement on important committees; if your state wants their legislators in positions of power, you're pressured to allow them to accrue more tenure _so long as legislatures from other states are allowed to do the same_. Institutional-level limits on age or fitness must apply across the board. - X is too old to serve is literally an ad-hominem attack in any given race and individuals competing for office choose not to use it because making that argument comes with real costs. We _should_ try to keep discourse in these races about policy issues. But retirement ages or fitness standards as an across-the-board policy proposal is an appropriate way to safeguard offices without descending into a personal attack about a person's un-chosen attributes.
- argiopetech 3y ago
  I also don't want people with decreased mental abilities representing me in government, so I don't vote for them to be elected to those positions. The people of California elected Senator Feinstein for years, so they get what they voted for. Edit: I don't disagree with you in theory, but I don't think the system you propose is practicable.

mc32 3y ago

Why? I don’t want people with decreased mental abilities serving in important gov positions. Do public companies let aging incompetent leaders stay on as senior executives? I'm not asking for stringent qualifications. Bare minimum. Have time awareness, place awareness, be aware of the connection between action and consequences, have control over bodily functions. I'm not asking for a Chess champion or math wiz.

jeromegv 3y ago
The point is that there is no good system that would allow a committee to decide if a politician is fit for office or not. Just look how Trump tried to destroy the electoral system for his own gain before and on January 6th. Now apply his tactics to to a "committee" to decide if a democrat can seek reelection. There is a good system to decide if the CEO is fit or not, it's the board of director. Those are entirely different systems.
all2 3y ago
So vote. Or better yet, run for office. Be the change you want to see.
- abeppu 3y ago
  Publicly advocating for a policy change is also part of how democracies work. The "just vote" response as a mode of "don't talk about policy ideas" is silly for this reason; _how_ we vote is informed by our conversations with others, and what policies we put on the table is informed by what we all want and prioritize. But I think this can't realistically be just an issue of voting or not voting for individual elderly senate candidates, for a couple reasons: - a 6 year term is a long time, and a lot can change during that period - tenure in the Senate comes with placement on important committees; if your state wants their legislators in positions of power, you're pressured to allow them to accrue more tenure _so long as legislatures from other states are allowed to do the same_. Institutional-level limits on age or fitness must apply across the board. - X is too old to serve is literally an ad-hominem attack in any given race and individuals competing for office choose not to use it because making that argument comes with real costs. We _should_ try to keep discourse in these races about policy issues. But retirement ages or fitness standards as an across-the-board policy proposal is an appropriate way to safeguard offices without descending into a personal attack about a person's un-chosen attributes.
argiopetech 3y ago
I also don't want people with decreased mental abilities representing me in government, so I don't vote for them to be elected to those positions. The people of California elected Senator Feinstein for years, so they get what they voted for. Edit: I don't disagree with you in theory, but I don't think the system you propose is practicable.