4 ms·

As a Canuck, I don't get why the US us trying to elect candidates, older than a pope typically is. Both candidates are ancient. Some want different candidates

by b112 2y ago

As a Canuck, I don't get why the US us trying to elect candidates, older than a pope typically is. Both candidates are ancient. Some want different candidates. On both sides.

bdcravens 2y ago
For the most part, the mechanics of the current bipartisan system. In the current election system of primaries (in place since 1972), an incumbent has never lost. They haven't even lost a state in 44 years. So basically the incumbent has a defacto first right of refusal when it comes to their party's nomination. The other party has been shaped by a political movement with a lot of power and momentum, and the founder of that movement more or less has the same defacto first right of refusal.
- adolph 2y ago
  I think the parent comment is commenting on presidential candidate ages, which has had two consecutive new records in age and incumbency didn't seem to factor. Prompt: list of us presidents and their year of birth and age when elected You will see a list with few year of birth regressions and most ages in 50-60. Two years of 70+ is an outlier.
  - bdcravens 2y ago
    Incumbency is why younger options aren't being considered. It's more of an "in spite of" rather than "because of" situation.
mejutoco 2y ago
If we are going to think bigger I suggest more than 2 viable parties.
- jonathankoren 2y ago
  You’re going to have to eliminate first past the post for that to work. Both parties are essentially coallitions. Christian nationalists and big business, and their apologists on one side, and everyone else on the other.
  - winphone1974 2y ago
    This obviously isn't true unless you think half the population is "evil". It doesn't help anyone's cause when you try and position it as "us vs. Them, and they're wrong"
    - jfengel 2y ago
      They may or may not be wrong, or evil, but they are almost certainly not going to take your opinion into account if they win. An election is fundamentally binary: it has one winner and everyone else is equally a loser. There are other structures that don't fall prey to that, such as multi member districts or party lists. As long as the election has a unique outcome, everyone else is equivalently irrelevant.
  - scottyah 2y ago
    hah, I see Unions/forced votes and bought naïve votes (anyone falling for "free" healthcare, student loan cancellation, $10k for a house, etc) on one side, everyone else on the other. That has changed in the last few years for sure.
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
One side is currently run like a cult, and the other has an incumbent with a massive fundraising apparatus behind him. Just because some people complain on the internet doesn't mean that there are enough of them to make a meaningful difference when it comes to selecting candidates.
doctor_eval 2y ago
A large part seems to also be the insane first past the post voting system. A presidential vote, as I understand it, is only counted against a single candidate (unlike preferential voting for example). This makes the risk of a third candidate much greater and really funnels the system into just two real candidates.
- doctor_eval 2y ago
  I'm unclear about why I'm being downvoted, since I'm just stating a fact. Let's say there are two main political ideologies, kittens and puppies. There are two kitten candidates and one puppy candidate. With a preferential voting system, if more people like kittens than puppies, a kitten will almost certainly win. With an FPP system, the puppy will almost certainly win regardless of people's preference. There are only two candidates in US elections because having a third candidate will almost certainly mean the least popular old codger will win. The two-candidate presidential system is a consequence of a broken voting system. Maybe someone can explain what I'm saying that incorrect.
jfengel 2y ago
Sure. Everyone prefers someone else. These are the candidates who are the least worst for a majority. There is no single candidate widely preferred by either party. The fact that they're both elderly is kind of a coincidence. It is true that older candidates are the ones with the longest track record of accomplishments and the most extensive alliances. But the GOP candidate had little government experience and somewhat dubious business experience. He is nonetheless popular for his style and positions. Both parties are very diverse and it's difficult to find someone tolerable to all. Many actively despise their party's candidate but the alternative to the consensus risks losing entirely. It is generally thought to be better to vote for a suboptimal candidate than a pessimal one, though some vocally disagree. A young, charismatic candidate could come up next time around, but to be honest neither party seems to have one getting ready.
- creato 2y ago
  I think social media has greatly thinned the pipeline for leaders. Political leaders are either old and developed their political career before social media was a big influence, or are dogmatic uncompromising idealogues seemingly produced by social media bubbles (or both...).
  - doctorwho42 2y ago
    I don't think it's popular media, I think it's the boomer generation (not the whole generation but those in positions of power). In my estimation and experience, there has been a severe lack of training the next generation and handing off the reins of power. Be it a middle management position, a leadership position in local government, or leadership positions in political parties. We have had a generation of leaders who took the reins and then either never trained their replacement or they did but held onto the reins for so long that replacement has aged out or left for another opportunity/path. So here we stand, with our leaders entering the high positions of power well after they should have retired. In the president's case, his first run for the presidency was 32 years before he eventually won it in 2020. That spacing is the bulk of most people's working life.
- duderific 2y ago
xanthor 2y ago
The candidates are chosen by donors.
rayiner 2y ago
We have Biden and Trump because neither party agrees on a direction for the future. Democrats are like the German stoplight coalition under the hood. It includes everyone from the Chamber of Commerce set who would rather have Liz Cheney or Nikki Haley, to educated identitarians who love Kamala Harris, to culturally conservative populists who like RFK Jr. to culturally liberal populists who like AOC.
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  To paraphrase the line from the late Paul Mooney on Chappelle, Nikki Haley makes Bobby Jindal look like Malcolm X.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I don’t get the comparison. Who’d be Indian Malcom X? I think of Nikki Haley as Indian Liz Cheney. Jindal is Indian Mike Pence. Kamala Harris is, of course, Indian Dan Quayle.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      I have a little trouble seeing Bobby Jindal writing on Gaza bound bombs
      - rayiner 2y ago
        I'm not sure Pence did, Snopes says the story is being corroborated and I'm only seeing it on Arab websites. Haley, meanwhile, was having fun with it: https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/israel-hamas/2024/06/06/nikki-haley-writes-finish-them-israel-bomb/73897266007/ https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/israel-hamas/2024.... Which is why your comparison doesn't make sense to me--Haley is obviously the spicy one in the comparison.
        selimthegrim 2y ago
        You’re missing the point, and taking it too literally - the context of the original was Wayne Brady being more “assimilated” (not necessarily freer) than Bryant Gumbel, from someone who famously had thought long and hard about the subject [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34FsIJFT6N8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34FsIJFT6N8 (For context see this excellent Jezebel article https://www.jezebel.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-an-all-american-catchphrase-free-1729621311 https://www.jezebel.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-an-all-american... [2] and accompanying video https://youtu.be/TxAlJq94-b8 https://youtu.be/TxAlJq94-b8) [2] which even cites Brother Malcolm himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsuaFmN2O98&t=3m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsuaFmN2O98&t=3m35s But now that you made me think about it, Indian Malcolm X is probably Kshama Sawant or someone like that

by b112 2y ago

As a Canuck, I don't get why the US us trying to elect candidates, older than a pope typically is. Both candidates are ancient. Some want different candidates. On both sides.

bdcravens 2y ago

For the most part, the mechanics of the current bipartisan system. In the current election system of primaries (in place since 1972), an incumbent has never lost. They haven't even lost a state in 44 years. So basically the incumbent has a defacto first right of refusal when it comes to their party's nomination. The other party has been shaped by a political movement with a lot of power and momentum, and the founder of that movement more or less has the same defacto first right of refusal.

adolph 2y ago
I think the parent comment is commenting on presidential candidate ages, which has had two consecutive new records in age and incumbency didn't seem to factor. Prompt: list of us presidents and their year of birth and age when elected You will see a list with few year of birth regressions and most ages in 50-60. Two years of 70+ is an outlier.
- bdcravens 2y ago
  Incumbency is why younger options aren't being considered. It's more of an "in spite of" rather than "because of" situation.

mejutoco 2y ago

If we are going to think bigger I suggest more than 2 viable parties.

jonathankoren 2y ago
You’re going to have to eliminate first past the post for that to work. Both parties are essentially coallitions. Christian nationalists and big business, and their apologists on one side, and everyone else on the other.
- winphone1974 2y ago
  This obviously isn't true unless you think half the population is "evil". It doesn't help anyone's cause when you try and position it as "us vs. Them, and they're wrong"
  - jfengel 2y ago
    They may or may not be wrong, or evil, but they are almost certainly not going to take your opinion into account if they win. An election is fundamentally binary: it has one winner and everyone else is equally a loser. There are other structures that don't fall prey to that, such as multi member districts or party lists. As long as the election has a unique outcome, everyone else is equivalently irrelevant.
- scottyah 2y ago
  hah, I see Unions/forced votes and bought naïve votes (anyone falling for "free" healthcare, student loan cancellation, $10k for a house, etc) on one side, everyone else on the other. That has changed in the last few years for sure.

MisterBastahrd 2y ago

One side is currently run like a cult, and the other has an incumbent with a massive fundraising apparatus behind him. Just because some people complain on the internet doesn't mean that there are enough of them to make a meaningful difference when it comes to selecting candidates.

doctor_eval 2y ago

A large part seems to also be the insane first past the post voting system. A presidential vote, as I understand it, is only counted against a single candidate (unlike preferential voting for example). This makes the risk of a third candidate much greater and really funnels the system into just two real candidates.

doctor_eval 2y ago
I'm unclear about why I'm being downvoted, since I'm just stating a fact. Let's say there are two main political ideologies, kittens and puppies. There are two kitten candidates and one puppy candidate. With a preferential voting system, if more people like kittens than puppies, a kitten will almost certainly win. With an FPP system, the puppy will almost certainly win regardless of people's preference. There are only two candidates in US elections because having a third candidate will almost certainly mean the least popular old codger will win. The two-candidate presidential system is a consequence of a broken voting system. Maybe someone can explain what I'm saying that incorrect.

jfengel 2y ago

Sure. Everyone prefers someone else. These are the candidates who are the least worst for a majority. There is no single candidate widely preferred by either party. The fact that they're both elderly is kind of a coincidence. It is true that older candidates are the ones with the longest track record of accomplishments and the most extensive alliances. But the GOP candidate had little government experience and somewhat dubious business experience. He is nonetheless popular for his style and positions. Both parties are very diverse and it's difficult to find someone tolerable to all. Many actively despise their party's candidate but the alternative to the consensus risks losing entirely. It is generally thought to be better to vote for a suboptimal candidate than a pessimal one, though some vocally disagree. A young, charismatic candidate could come up next time around, but to be honest neither party seems to have one getting ready.

creato 2y ago
I think social media has greatly thinned the pipeline for leaders. Political leaders are either old and developed their political career before social media was a big influence, or are dogmatic uncompromising idealogues seemingly produced by social media bubbles (or both...).
- doctorwho42 2y ago
  I don't think it's popular media, I think it's the boomer generation (not the whole generation but those in positions of power). In my estimation and experience, there has been a severe lack of training the next generation and handing off the reins of power. Be it a middle management position, a leadership position in local government, or leadership positions in political parties. We have had a generation of leaders who took the reins and then either never trained their replacement or they did but held onto the reins for so long that replacement has aged out or left for another opportunity/path. So here we stand, with our leaders entering the high positions of power well after they should have retired. In the president's case, his first run for the presidency was 32 years before he eventually won it in 2020. That spacing is the bulk of most people's working life.
duderific 2y ago

xanthor 2y ago

The candidates are chosen by donors.

rayiner 2y ago

We have Biden and Trump because neither party agrees on a direction for the future. Democrats are like the German stoplight coalition under the hood. It includes everyone from the Chamber of Commerce set who would rather have Liz Cheney or Nikki Haley, to educated identitarians who love Kamala Harris, to culturally conservative populists who like RFK Jr. to culturally liberal populists who like AOC.

selimthegrim 2y ago
To paraphrase the line from the late Paul Mooney on Chappelle, Nikki Haley makes Bobby Jindal look like Malcolm X.
- rayiner 2y ago
  I don’t get the comparison. Who’d be Indian Malcom X? I think of Nikki Haley as Indian Liz Cheney. Jindal is Indian Mike Pence. Kamala Harris is, of course, Indian Dan Quayle.
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    I have a little trouble seeing Bobby Jindal writing on Gaza bound bombs
    - rayiner 2y ago
      I'm not sure Pence did, Snopes says the story is being corroborated and I'm only seeing it on Arab websites. Haley, meanwhile, was having fun with it: https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/israel-hamas/2024/06/06/nikki-haley-writes-finish-them-israel-bomb/73897266007/ https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/israel-hamas/2024.... Which is why your comparison doesn't make sense to me--Haley is obviously the spicy one in the comparison.
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        You’re missing the point, and taking it too literally - the context of the original was Wayne Brady being more “assimilated” (not necessarily freer) than Bryant Gumbel, from someone who famously had thought long and hard about the subject [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34FsIJFT6N8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34FsIJFT6N8 (For context see this excellent Jezebel article https://www.jezebel.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-an-all-american-catchphrase-free-1729621311 https://www.jezebel.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-an-all-american... [2] and accompanying video https://youtu.be/TxAlJq94-b8 https://youtu.be/TxAlJq94-b8) [2] which even cites Brother Malcolm himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsuaFmN2O98&t=3m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsuaFmN2O98&t=3m35s But now that you made me think about it, Indian Malcolm X is probably Kshama Sawant or someone like that