4 ms·

We should seriously consider mandatory retirement ages for all high public offices. We have them in the Foreign Service, and of course it would be bad for a dip

by abeppu 3y ago

We should seriously consider mandatory retirement ages for all high public offices. We have them in the Foreign Service, and of course it would be bad for a diplomat to be in mental decline while negotiating a complex treaty. Multiple states have retirement ages for judges. The work of a senator or federal judge should be similarly protected from disruption due to the predictable age-related decline of individual office holders.

bombcar 3y ago
The fact that we can even have a discussion around this indicates a fundamental problem with mass-market voting, it's just a popularity contest with certain rules. It's probably likely that nobody voted for her in the last 20 years, instead voting for the party she represents. And they're probably roughly satisfied with the results, which means she provided little that an AI couldn't have done (a very simple one, something like VOTE=D). This is likely true of almost all representatives. It's likely hard to find one that you can't simply predict how they will act.
kube-system 3y ago
I tend to think it should be up to voters to decide. I feel picking any one number is too arbitrary.
- abeppu 3y ago
  I think whether and when during a senatorial term senility starts to set, or accelerates in is also pretty arbitrary. Picking one number, based on input from experts in psychology and medicine, and applying it to all high-level public trust jobs, and putting it in law in our normal democratic processes would be no more arbitrary than the rule that the President must be at least 35. I will point out that civilians who want "public trust" positions within the federal government or even as contractors are checked for a range of attributes which may make them potentially unfit for the responsibilities in question. Currently, my understanding is that subsequent to a clearance check, they must sign an agreement to not use substances like marijuana for the duration of their employment. This policy is _also_ not something that Americans voted for. I would argue that Feinstein, who often seemed not to know where she was, or McConnell, who is sometimes unaware that he was making remarks, are far more impaired than someone who occasionally enjoys an edible.
- cameldrv 3y ago
  The way the voting and political systems work create a huge advantage for the incumbent, particularly in a state like California where there's a huge Democratic majority. Primaries usually work on a plurality system, so even if the voters don't like the incumbent due to age, they have to all agree on the replacement, or the incumbent will win with less than 50%. Primaries also don't have a very high turnout rate, and so the incumbent can magnify their advantage in fundraising, political connections, etc. This goes double for a very old Senator that has had a long time to build up that political capital. There are also political costs to opposing the incumbent from within the same party. Running a competitive race will be seen as disloyal by many people in the party. It's much less risky to just wait out the incumbent and then run. For similar reasons, it's really suboptimal for the governor to be choosing Feinstein's interim replacement. Effectively one person will get to choose California's senator for the next 20-30 years.

by abeppu 3y ago

bombcar 3y ago

The fact that we can even have a discussion around this indicates a fundamental problem with mass-market voting, it's just a popularity contest with certain rules. It's probably likely that nobody voted for her in the last 20 years, instead voting for the party she represents. And they're probably roughly satisfied with the results, which means she provided little that an AI couldn't have done (a very simple one, something like VOTE=D). This is likely true of almost all representatives. It's likely hard to find one that you can't simply predict how they will act.

kube-system 3y ago

I tend to think it should be up to voters to decide. I feel picking any one number is too arbitrary.

abeppu 3y ago
I think whether and when during a senatorial term senility starts to set, or accelerates in is also pretty arbitrary. Picking one number, based on input from experts in psychology and medicine, and applying it to all high-level public trust jobs, and putting it in law in our normal democratic processes would be no more arbitrary than the rule that the President must be at least 35. I will point out that civilians who want "public trust" positions within the federal government or even as contractors are checked for a range of attributes which may make them potentially unfit for the responsibilities in question. Currently, my understanding is that subsequent to a clearance check, they must sign an agreement to not use substances like marijuana for the duration of their employment. This policy is _also_ not something that Americans voted for. I would argue that Feinstein, who often seemed not to know where she was, or McConnell, who is sometimes unaware that he was making remarks, are far more impaired than someone who occasionally enjoys an edible.
cameldrv 3y ago
The way the voting and political systems work create a huge advantage for the incumbent, particularly in a state like California where there's a huge Democratic majority. Primaries usually work on a plurality system, so even if the voters don't like the incumbent due to age, they have to all agree on the replacement, or the incumbent will win with less than 50%. Primaries also don't have a very high turnout rate, and so the incumbent can magnify their advantage in fundraising, political connections, etc. This goes double for a very old Senator that has had a long time to build up that political capital. There are also political costs to opposing the incumbent from within the same party. Running a competitive race will be seen as disloyal by many people in the party. It's much less risky to just wait out the incumbent and then run. For similar reasons, it's really suboptimal for the governor to be choosing Feinstein's interim replacement. Effectively one person will get to choose California's senator for the next 20-30 years.