Why are so many people in the US in positions of power so old?

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm giving my opinion and the reasons for it. No need for you to resort to name calling without even attempting to offer a counter argument.

I personally think you are acting the boll1x but anyway.

Here's my rationale for thinking your idea is dumb. Not saying you are dumb by the way, just the idea of taking the vote/deminishing the value of the vote of old people.

1. Not all old people are senile. Many are many multiples more intelligent than you or I. Warren Buffet being one example. I would imagine that if an old person is senile, they probably don't have the wherewithall to go vote in the first place.

2. Many young people are not interested in voting. That's not the fault of an older person nor is it a reason to deminish an older person's vote.

3. Older people have more life experience than a young person so why should their vote be deminished.

4. Most older people have established the country, paid taxes and worked damned hard for what they have. Most young people haven't a clue about hardship etc.

5. Lots of older people have had to make tough decisions etc. Decisions with real life consequences. The most difficult decision many young people 18/20 have had to make is whether to use Snapchat or WhatsApp.

Like I said I'm not claiming you are dumb but your idea is.

By the way, what's the age cut-off for old people's voting rights?

El_Duderino 09

fly_agaric wrote: »

I think the idea of "gearing" citizens' votes makes most people a little queasy to be honest. Seems a slippery slope.

It might make politicians pay more attention to the concerns of younger people.
However a weighted ballot paper is still worth zero if the voter cannot bother their arse to show up on the election day to fill it in. Old people vote.

Don't think it fixes the issue OP raised of an over-representation of the elderly in high political office either

Yeah i'd love if young people voted in greater numbers. But the research shows that young people always voted at about the current rate so it's the norm for people to vote more as they age. The thing that's not normal is how old people get and how many times they get to vote as older and older people becoming further and further out of touch with the current and future needs of the country.

I think old people are far more inclined to vote for older candidates. People tend to vote for candidates they perceive as being like themselves. Fewer old votes would almost certainly mean a reduction in mean successful candidate age.

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah i'd love if young people voted in greater numbers. But the research shows that young people always voted at about the current rate so it's the norm for people to vote more as they age. The thing that's not normal is how old people get and how many times they get to vote as older and older people becoming further and further out of touch with the current and future needs of the country.

I think old people are far more inclined to vote for older candidates. People tend to vote for candidates they perceive as being like themselves. Fewer old votes would almost certainly mean a reduction in mean successful candidate age.

Using the States as an example, do you think young people over there should be voting for Kanye so?

suicide_circus

Aside from the Logan's Run fantasies of some posters, thankfully we live in a world where older people still have a voice and respect.

BattleCorp

suicide_circus wrote: »

Aside from the Logan's Run fantasies of some posters, thankfully we live in a world where older people still have a voice and respect.

Soylent Green. That's what we should do with old people.

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

I personally think you are acting the boll1x but anyway.

Here's my rationale for thinking your idea is dumb. Not saying you are dumb by the way, just the idea of taking the vote/deminishing the value of the vote of old people.

1. Not all old people are senile. Many are many multiples more intelligent than you or I. Warren Buffet being one example. I would imagine that if an old person is senile, they probably don't have the wherewithall to go vote in the first place.

2. Many young people are not interested in voting. That's not the fault of an older person nor is it a reason to deminish an older person's vote.

3. Older people have more life experience than a young person so why should their vote be deminished.

4. Most older people have established the country, paid taxes and worked damned hard for what they have. Most young people haven't a clue about hardship etc.

5. Lots of older people have had to make tough decisions etc. Decisions with real life consequences. The most difficult decision many young people 18/20 have had to make is whether to use Snapchat or WhatsApp.

Like I said I'm not claiming you are dumb but your idea is.

By the way, what's the age cut-off for old people's voting rights?

I know, i know. On boards you have to say my idea is dumb as a proxy insult. I get it and i register your intent.

Some of those are valid points, Some are just hyperbole. For example 18-20 year olds covers 3 years and they're probably the least engaged and least likely of any 3 year age group to vote. I'd prefer id they were more engaged in voting, and I'd support encouraging them to get more engaged in voting so they vote more reliably.

I actually know someone who was flown, by a relative, to another country to vote when they were in early stages of dementia. He had no engagement with the issues at stake, he just knew which candidate he wanted to vote for based on the fact that he'd voted for that party all his life and had completely stopped engaging in the discussion 30 years before. That's not good for democracy.

I don't think everyone should vote. I often hear people say things to the effect of "you should go and spoil your vote if you don't know who to vote for". I totally disagree. I think if you're not engaged then you shouldn't vote. I think old people tend to be retired and have free time to vote but that doesn't mean they're engaged in the needs of the countries and how to address them. Old people are the most likely to vote for the two main parties without having a clue what they campaign on or how those campaign topics map onto the actual current and future needs of the country.

I haven't proposed an age at which votes should be geared down.

El_Duderino 09

Terms of Reference wrote: »

Why are you so fearful of equality?

Bit of a leading question, wouldn't you agree?

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Bit of a leading question, wouldn't you agree?

tis a fair point though

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

Using the States as an example, do you think young people over there should be voting for Kanye so?

Where did you get that question from the post you quoted?

Lads, the randomness of responses is staggering.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Where did you get that question from the post you quoted?

Lads, the randomness of responses is staggering.

in what way?

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

tis a fair point though

I'm not fearful of equality so it's not even a good question let alone a good point.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not fearful of equality so it's not even a good question let alone a good point.

how do you create a more equal society, by changing the weighting of votes?

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

Aside from the Logan's Run fantasies of some posters, thankfully we live in a world where older people still have a voice and respect.

It's got nothing to do with respect for older people.

El_Duderino 09

Terms of Reference wrote: »

It sounds like you are fearful of equality, your attitude towards the elderly is bigoted.

Ok. Well, that's not the case.

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think everyone should vote.

I haven't proposed an age at which votes should be geared down.

I agree with you in that I don't think everyone should get a vote. That's the problem with democracy. Every idiot gets a vote. Democracy has its flaws. I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".

But equally I don't think an old person should not be entitled to a vote or to have their vote halved just because they reach a certain age. A senile old person shouldn't be allowed to vote, this I agree with but people don't become senile at a fixed age so what's your solution?

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

in what way?

In the way you demonstrated by posting rhetorical questions, series of full stops and eventually got around to asking a coherent question.

In the way other posters have only engaged to ask a leading question and another poster asked if i though old people should vote for Kanye, apropos of nothing i had said. Very strange.

Wanderer78

BattleCorp wrote: »

I agree with you in that I don't think everyone should get a vote. That's the problem with democracy. Every idiot gets a vote. Democracy has its flaws. I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".

But equally I don't think an old person should not be entitled to a vote or to have their vote halved just because they reach a certain age. A senile old person shouldn't be allowed to vote, this I agree with but people don't become senile at a fixed age so what's your solution?

do we truly have democracy? who should be the only ones to vote, and how to we decide who gets to vote, and who doesnt?

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

In the way you demonstrated by posting rhetorical questions, series of full stops and eventually got around to asking a coherent question.

In the way other posters have only engaged to ask a leading question and another poster asked if i though old people should vote for Kanye, apropos of nothing i had said. Very strange.

i was trying to get you to think, i think it failed....

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

how do you create a more equal society, by changing the weighting of votes?

Yeah well i answered your questions earlier and I asked you a couple of questions and I'll answer you if you do me the courtesy of answering me. Thanks.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You mean like the way older voters are currently voting for policies that have led to some of the major problems we have now? A whole generation who struggle to afford a house or starting a family and that problem gathering pace. Do you know the average age of buying a first house, and starting families are going up and up and up and do you know the reasons why that's happening?

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i was trying to get you to think, i think it failed....

I was trying to get you to finally ask your question so i could answer it and i succeeded. It was an entry level, yes/no question. It wasn't a three pipe problem.

BattleCorp

Wanderer78 wrote: »

do we truly have democracy? who should be the only ones to vote, and how to we decide who gets to vote, and who doesnt?

I think we do have democracy. It's not perfect, but it's democracy.

The only fair way to decide who gets to vote is by doing it on an age basis. Once you are 18 you get to vote for the rest of your life.

I'd prefer if gobsh1tes and people who are senile weren't allowed to vote but there's no way to accurately identify who is a gobsh1te and who is senile so we have to put up with them voting. And I'm ok with that.

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

I agree with you in that I don't think everyone should get a vote. That's the problem with democracy. Every idiot gets a vote. Democracy has its flaws. I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".

But equally I don't think an old person should not be entitled to a vote or to have their vote halved just because they reach a certain age. A senile old person shouldn't be allowed to vote, this I agree with but people don't become senile at a fixed age so what's your solution?

We already decided that a whole huge group of people shouldn't be allowed to vote. The old person who is completely disengaged from the modern world and has dementia has a vote but the politically engaged teenager doesn't have a vote. That's bonkers and young people are the big losers because they have a cutoff but old people can vote for the rest of their lives regardless of how detached they become from the issues at hand.

I've already said my solution is to gear down the weight of old people's votes. I'd also reduce the voting age and really encourage young people to engage in the discussions and become interested in voting and voting reliably - in other words, I'd want to reward politicians who are ambitious and plan for the medium and long term future rather than the current situation.

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think we do have democracy. It's not perfect, but it's democracy.

The only fair way to decide who gets to vote is by doing it on an age basis. Once you are 18 you get to vote for the rest of your life.

I'd prefer if gobsh1tes and people who are senile weren't allowed to vote but there's no way to accurately identify who is a gobsh1te and who is senile so we have to put up with them voting. And I'm ok with that.

And you're so comfortable with disenfranchising everyone up to the age of 18? That's outrageous in my view.

How can you be so comfortable with a lower age limit and no upper age limit? Is it just for practical reasons that you can't weed out the senile older ones? If so then the consistent thing to do is to not have a lower age limit either because you cant weed out the ones who are engaged and care about the issues and the country. But we are nonchalant about disenfranchising young people from voting. That's not right.

I'd be surprised if you can make a consistent argument for why no one under 18 should be entrusted with a vote and everyone over 80 should be entrusted with a vote

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We already decided that a whole huge group of people shouldn't be allowed to vote. The old person who is completely disengaged from the modern world and has dementia has a vote but the politically engaged teenager doesn't have a vote.

If the politically engaged teenager is 18 then they have a vote. It's a pity so few of them are bothered to use it.

Like I said, people with dimentia shouldn't be allowed to vote but can you prove to me that every single old person has dementia? Because that's what it would take to remove/deminish an old person's vote. In other words, it aint happening.

Mules

Whatever about being old, they are all really rich. Why is that? We have loads of politicians from working and middle class backgrounds but the big deal American politicians all seem to be millionaires.

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

If the politically engaged teenager is 18 then they have a vote. It's a pity so few of them are bothered to use it.

Like I said, people with dimentia shouldn't be allowed to vote but can you prove to me that every single old person has dementia? Because that's what it would take to remove/deminish an old person's vote. In other words, it aint happening.

I haven't claimed every single old person has dementia. That's another red herring similar to your Kanye point a few pages back.

Why should the politically engaged person be 18 to vote? (I know it's the law, I'm asking you if you think it should be the case). The 80 year old doesn't have to be politically engaged and you won't consider reducing their voting power.

So being politically engaged is not relevant to your point (as the old person doesn't have to be politically be ganged to vote) and being compos mentis isn't important to the law (as being senile doesn't preclude an old person from voting). So what's the consistent argument?

Fact is that NOT everyone has a vote any you're fine with that. A whole domographic in our aociety have NO vote and you're fine with that, but called me a troll for wanting to giving other people a half vote.

So are we agreed that you can't make consistent argument for the current situation of people under 18 having no votes and every old person having a vote?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So are we agreed that you can't make consistent argument for the current situation of people under 18 having no votes and every old person having a vote?

Property. Wealth. Assets. Anyone under 18 doesn't have a stake in the country, the same way someone over 18 does. They have a personal stake beyond simply living there, in that they've accumulated assets that should be protected and which contribute towards the overall structure of the nation. The vast majority of those under 18 are supported by parents/guardians or the state.. whereas those above 18, will be contributing to the state, through employment (past/present), ownership, and in turn, taxation.

ProfessorPlum

screamer wrote: »

Have you ever been to the US to see people in their 70s and older packing bags in Walmart?
Why not? Age should only be a number, if the person is able and experienced, their age should not be held against them. I’d actually ask why Ireland is so against older people working.

May have been said already, but health insurance is often tied to a job, so if an older person stops working, they may lose their insurance.
I often see an older woman, probably well into her 70’s working the til in CVS, hooked up to her oxygen tank. If that’s what she wants to do, great. But if that’s what she has to do because she’s terrified that she won’t be able to literally pay for oxygen if she retires, then that’s incredibly sad. The US could do with a little European ‘socialism’.

Dravokivich

BattleCorp wrote: »

I agree with you in that I don't think everyone should get a vote. That's the problem with democracy. Every idiot gets a vote. Democracy has its flaws. I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".

But equally I don't think an old person should not be entitled to a vote or to have their vote halved just because they reach a certain age. A senile old person shouldn't be allowed to vote, this I agree with but people don't become senile at a fixed age so what's your solution?

Democracy doesn't require everyone to have a vote. That's only a fairly recent thing since Woman's Suffrage about 100 years ago. You can cut out 90% of people from the electoral register and still have a democracy.

BattleCorp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I haven't claimed every single old person has dementia. That's another red herring similar to your Kanye point a few pages back.

If they don't have dementia and they are perfectly capable of making sensible decisions, why do you want to take the vote from them or deminish their vote?

It doesn't make sense to take or deminish an old person's vote if they are mentally sound so your idea is unworkable because you can't identify which old people are mentally sound.

Why should the politically engaged person be 18 to vote? (I know it's the law, I'm asking you if you think it should be the case).

Someone under 18 is not considered mature enough to make important decisions. Examples being the purchase of cigarettes and alcohol, entering into a contract etc. 18 is a good age to allow people to vote as you are legally an adult and entitled to make decisions for yourself.

So being politically engaged is not relevant to your point (as the old person doesn't have to be politically be ganged to vote) and being compos mentis isn't important to the law (as being senile doesn't preclude an old person from voting). So what's the consistent argument?

Yep, that's democracy. You don't have to be interested in politics to vote. I personally believe that someone senile shouldn't be allowed to vote but I'm not in charge. If the law allows them to vote, then so be it. Campaign and get the law changed.

But here's your problem. How the fcuk do you know they are senile? How do you prove it? And how do you do that for hundreds of thousands of older people? Here's a hint, it's not possible. So you just have to put up with it for now unless you want to go into politics yourself and get it changed.

Fact is that NOT everyone has a vote any you're fine with that. A whole domographic in our aociety have NO vote and you're fine with that, but called me a troll for wanting to giving other people a half vote.

Yep, I'm perfectly fine with a 6 month old baby not having a vote. I'm also perfectly fine with a 5 year old not having a vote. And I'm also perfectly fine with a 16 year old not having a vote. Actually, for clarity, I'm perfectly fine with anybody under 18 not having a vote.

Everone over 18 can vote if they bother so that's good enough for me.

So are we agreed that you can't make consistent argument for the current situation of people under 18 having no votes and every old person having a vote?

Dude, we are certainly not agreed.