3 ms·
There is an argument that in a well functioning democracy voters should be able to decide who is qualified to lead them. It shouldn't matter if the person is 20
by shirro 2y ago
There is an argument that in a well functioning democracy voters should be able to decide who is qualified to lead them. It shouldn't matter if the person is 20 or 80 if they are able to fulfill their obligations and win the support of voters. With a well informed population and an electoral system that fairly represents voter preferences there should be no need for arbitrary rules.
- groby_b 2y agoSetting aside the argument if any electorate is really capable of making that decision - the world has elected many questionable leaders - the big question is "what if the conditions change halfway through". That likelihood increases with age, and even the most well-informed population does not have the ability to withdraw their consent if it does.
- webninja 2y agoWas there a primary election this year in your state? This question is open to anyone to answer.
- groby_b 2y agoHow does a primary help with the "conditions changed" part? As for electing questionable leaders, no, primaries don't necessarily address that either. If you look back through US presidents, you can find a good sampling of really bad choices. (Season according to party preference). I don't think that second part is completely fixable in democracies. I do think some systems are more vulnerable to it than others, and primaries in a first-past-the-post world are one of the worse systems.
- zerocrates 2y agoOf course we already have the undemocratic age limit, just only on the low side.