7 ms·

I have trouble predicting how public sentiment will evolve over time. I'm not that young, and still and the last 10 years have left me with an absolutely blist

by RickS 4mo ago

I have trouble predicting how public sentiment will evolve over time. I'm not that young, and still and the last 10 years have left me with an absolutely blistering distrust of the 70+ crowd on any matter pertaining to positions of authority. I'd like to see ~67 and ~72 become the other 18 and 21: hard lines beyond which the law progressively rescinds the presumption of total competence. It's not a pretty solution. There are certainly some 14 year olds who are more deserving of a drivers license than many of legal age. I would welcome a world where we can actually establish and enforce criteria that allow us to move beyond such crude numeric thresholds. But in the meantime, the bulk of us need protection from statistics. Desperately.

johngossman 4mo ago
Go look at the demographics of the last election and then tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote.
- RickS 4mo ago
  That's a response to an opinion I don't hold, but I could have been more clear. The claim I'm making is about the fitness to hold office. Specifically: septo/octogenarians belong at the ballot box, but not on the ballot. If you'd like to dissuade me of something, that's the meat of it.
  - jgeada 4mo ago
    What is the justification? Why can someone vote for a future they're not likely have to endure? We don't allow under 18s to vote, so clearly some age restrictions are legitimate.
- mylifeandtimes 4mo ago
  Hey, I hear you, but the age cutoff could also be on holding office. As someone just hitting the 60 yr old mark, and looking at my parents who are still pretty sharp in their late 80s, -- so definitely talking about myself and my capacity here, No-one over 70 has any business in a high ranking government office. The mental flexibility isn't there. Which means no one over 66 should be allowed to run office (yes, I know this puts senators in office until 72, and kicks out representatives at 68, but it also gives a single number which is easier to understand). It's also a question of accountability. A 40 year old politician will expect/have to live with their choices for another 40 years.
  - newsclues 4mo ago
    It’s not just mental ability it’s a set of perverse incentives: the old robbing the future of the young, instead of planting trees whose shade the old will never personally enjoy.
- Der_Einzige 4mo ago
  Go look at recent changes to how young men vote and tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote in the future.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - throw-234 4mo ago
    > You're overlooking that the geriatric people are carrying on the traditional liberal/conservative debate on both sides of the aisle. Workers skew young, capital skews old. When politics is money literally the only thing the left / right actually agree on is fucking over young people. That's what it takes to collectively focus on inflating real-estate / stocks that the youth is locked out of, while ignoring the labor market, and the cost of education, and periodically blowing up the economy on behalf of interest groups, with outsourcing or the like previously, next with AI. We've probably been in a job recession for years, and we only just noticed.
  - mindslight 4mo ago
    I think that's exactly what OP meant? While Trump's policies take the long term gerontocratic/anarcho-capitalist dynamics strangling of our society and crank them to 11, a lot of younger people ended up buying into his "burn it all down" messaging imagining it would result in some principled evenly-applied reform that might get the boot off their own necks. And that level of foolishness seems straight from the naive rashness of youth.
    - rayiner 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - mindslight 4mo ago
        There is too much to unpack here. Perhaps you'd like to make your point in something other than identity politics anecdotes and personal attacks? If you don't like my phrasing of "boot on their necks", feel free to substitute your own when constructively responding to the point. The frustrations that have led to Trumpism are certainly palpable and understandable, so don't feign like I'm using hyperbolic language out of nowhere. But no, in general I am comfortable modeling Trump's second term as a complete self-own on the part of voters - regardless of whether they've realized it yet, or ever will. As a libertarian who partook in both red and blue tribe media and was both sidesing through 2020, I have not come to this conclusion lightly. There has simply been no way I've been able to steelman it.
- CalRobert 4mo ago
  Of course, when I go to my local city planning meetings and see the demographics shouting down any new housing my feelings are different.
- antisthenes 4mo ago
  > Go look at the demographics of the last election and then tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote The group that uses the rhetoric like "which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote". You tell me which one that is.
coldpie 4mo ago
I completely agree. With so many high profile cases of people suffering from some form of dementia being elected to important offices (McConnell and Feinstein; Biden and Trump), it's clear that the intended electoral mechanism isn't working to replace people who are not fit to serve. Name recognition & incumbency advantage are just too strong to allow the right thing to happen. The version of the fix that I like is, if you would be 65 or older on the day you would begin holding the office, you are ineligible to be in the election or the appointment process. This gives some room for acknowledging that there isn't a clear cut-off where one immediately becomes unfit to serve. If you're a healthy 64, you can serve all the way to 70 for an office with a lengthy term; but if you're going soft at 65, then you don't need to make the difficult decision of whether or not to run. The decision has been made for you, way ahead of time, and you can make plans to retire and support a successor, avoiding a really nasty, personal primary process. This would have nicely avoided Biden's awkward "will he, won't he" decision that led to the 2024 disaster we're still suffering from. Feinstein & McConnell would have retired well before their brains transformed into cottage cheese, turning them into jokes and destroying whatever legacies they worked to build. It's better for everyone.
- mindslight 4mo ago
  Characterizing the problem as the electoral mechanism, wouldn't it make sense to push for better voting systems that don't empower the two party duopoly (eg Ranked Pairs) ? It feels that while gerontocracy is a valid critique to illustrate the problem, it doesn't fully capture why our processes actively choose such bad leaders. Rather it kind of papers over the problem assuming that mental faculties mean good policies [0], give us a comforting thought that most of the recent relevant candidates would have been out of the picture, while not actually addressing the "shit sandwich vs turd torta" dynamic. As for the Senate itself, I'd propose increasing the number of senators to 6 per state to dilute this effect of a strong senator being a boon to state regardless of how bad their politics are. Perhaps straight term limits for the Senate and the House as well. [0] while it certainly means better policies than what we have now, the bar is currently on the floor.
  - coldpie 4mo ago
dfxm12 4mo ago
Testing is expensive, subjective and favors people with resources to game the test. When thinking about stuff like this, we should aim for something more universal, with the understanding that this is not a moral judgement on a person. In the context of the article and of controls, I think we should worry more about controls on those in power (i.e., politicians) than others (i.e., voters).

by RickS 4mo ago

johngossman 4mo ago

Go look at the demographics of the last election and then tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote.

RickS 4mo ago
That's a response to an opinion I don't hold, but I could have been more clear. The claim I'm making is about the fitness to hold office. Specifically: septo/octogenarians belong at the ballot box, but not on the ballot. If you'd like to dissuade me of something, that's the meat of it.
- jgeada 4mo ago
  What is the justification? Why can someone vote for a future they're not likely have to endure? We don't allow under 18s to vote, so clearly some age restrictions are legitimate.
mylifeandtimes 4mo ago
Hey, I hear you, but the age cutoff could also be on holding office. As someone just hitting the 60 yr old mark, and looking at my parents who are still pretty sharp in their late 80s, -- so definitely talking about myself and my capacity here, No-one over 70 has any business in a high ranking government office. The mental flexibility isn't there. Which means no one over 66 should be allowed to run office (yes, I know this puts senators in office until 72, and kicks out representatives at 68, but it also gives a single number which is easier to understand). It's also a question of accountability. A 40 year old politician will expect/have to live with their choices for another 40 years.
- newsclues 4mo ago
  It’s not just mental ability it’s a set of perverse incentives: the old robbing the future of the young, instead of planting trees whose shade the old will never personally enjoy.
Der_Einzige 4mo ago
Go look at recent changes to how young men vote and tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote in the future.
rayiner 4mo ago
[flagged]
- throw-234 4mo ago
  > You're overlooking that the geriatric people are carrying on the traditional liberal/conservative debate on both sides of the aisle. Workers skew young, capital skews old. When politics is money literally the only thing the left / right actually agree on is fucking over young people. That's what it takes to collectively focus on inflating real-estate / stocks that the youth is locked out of, while ignoring the labor market, and the cost of education, and periodically blowing up the economy on behalf of interest groups, with outsourcing or the like previously, next with AI. We've probably been in a job recession for years, and we only just noticed.
- mindslight 4mo ago
  I think that's exactly what OP meant? While Trump's policies take the long term gerontocratic/anarcho-capitalist dynamics strangling of our society and crank them to 11, a lot of younger people ended up buying into his "burn it all down" messaging imagining it would result in some principled evenly-applied reform that might get the boot off their own necks. And that level of foolishness seems straight from the naive rashness of youth.
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mindslight 4mo ago
      There is too much to unpack here. Perhaps you'd like to make your point in something other than identity politics anecdotes and personal attacks? If you don't like my phrasing of "boot on their necks", feel free to substitute your own when constructively responding to the point. The frustrations that have led to Trumpism are certainly palpable and understandable, so don't feign like I'm using hyperbolic language out of nowhere. But no, in general I am comfortable modeling Trump's second term as a complete self-own on the part of voters - regardless of whether they've realized it yet, or ever will. As a libertarian who partook in both red and blue tribe media and was both sidesing through 2020, I have not come to this conclusion lightly. There has simply been no way I've been able to steelman it.
CalRobert 4mo ago
Of course, when I go to my local city planning meetings and see the demographics shouting down any new housing my feelings are different.
antisthenes 4mo ago
> Go look at the demographics of the last election and then tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote The group that uses the rhetoric like "which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote". You tell me which one that is.

coldpie 4mo ago

I completely agree. With so many high profile cases of people suffering from some form of dementia being elected to important offices (McConnell and Feinstein; Biden and Trump), it's clear that the intended electoral mechanism isn't working to replace people who are not fit to serve. Name recognition & incumbency advantage are just too strong to allow the right thing to happen. The version of the fix that I like is, if you would be 65 or older on the day you would begin holding the office, you are ineligible to be in the election or the appointment process. This gives some room for acknowledging that there isn't a clear cut-off where one immediately becomes unfit to serve. If you're a healthy 64, you can serve all the way to 70 for an office with a lengthy term; but if you're going soft at 65, then you don't need to make the difficult decision of whether or not to run. The decision has been made for you, way ahead of time, and you can make plans to retire and support a successor, avoiding a really nasty, personal primary process. This would have nicely avoided Biden's awkward "will he, won't he" decision that led to the 2024 disaster we're still suffering from. Feinstein & McConnell would have retired well before their brains transformed into cottage cheese, turning them into jokes and destroying whatever legacies they worked to build. It's better for everyone.

mindslight 4mo ago
Characterizing the problem as the electoral mechanism, wouldn't it make sense to push for better voting systems that don't empower the two party duopoly (eg Ranked Pairs) ? It feels that while gerontocracy is a valid critique to illustrate the problem, it doesn't fully capture why our processes actively choose such bad leaders. Rather it kind of papers over the problem assuming that mental faculties mean good policies [0], give us a comforting thought that most of the recent relevant candidates would have been out of the picture, while not actually addressing the "shit sandwich vs turd torta" dynamic. As for the Senate itself, I'd propose increasing the number of senators to 6 per state to dilute this effect of a strong senator being a boon to state regardless of how bad their politics are. Perhaps straight term limits for the Senate and the House as well. [0] while it certainly means better policies than what we have now, the bar is currently on the floor.
- coldpie 4mo ago

dfxm12 4mo ago

Testing is expensive, subjective and favors people with resources to game the test. When thinking about stuff like this, we should aim for something more universal, with the understanding that this is not a moral judgement on a person. In the context of the article and of controls, I think we should worry more about controls on those in power (i.e., politicians) than others (i.e., voters).