this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
81 points (82.9% liked)

Asklemmy

44615 readers
1397 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An older leader often has fewer long term stakes in the decisions they make, if they were to destabilize the economy or lead the country into conflict, they may not experience the full consequences of their actions, as their personal future is less affected compared to younger generations. Leadership at that level requires making decisions that will shape the long term future of a nation, and it’s crucial that those in power have a vested interest in that future. Additionally, presidents and politicians are public servants, and like any profession, there should be an age limit or retirement age to ensure the vitality, adaptability, and long term accountability necessary for effective leadership. At what age do you think they need to retire?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Please outline your political/electoral strategy to accomplish this.

You would basically have to pass a constitutional ammendment if you wanted this to not just immediately be overturned by the next administration.

That means you need either:

2/3rds of the State Houses and Senates to call for a Constitutional Convention.

or

2/3rds of the Federal House and Senate to do the same.

... and then your new amendment(s) have to be approved by 3/4th of the State Houses and Senates.

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-amend-the-constitution-3368310

Unless you have a plan to somehow get a supermajority of support from a supermajority of States, this is magical thinking and will never happen.

My generation, Millenials, tried but ultimately failed to overhaul first past the post voting to break the two party duopoly death grip, and rework the Presidential Electoral College into a popular vote.

Probably both of those are prerequisites for a durable Presidential max age.

At the end of the day, most of what people care about isn't age, it's cognitive function (though age itself is important; why care about the America of 2040 if you won't live to see it).

Many of these people in power would fight age limits, but they are usually so sure of their abilities, that they may not fight cognitive tests with published results.

For example, if you give someone a Montreal cognitive assessment, and their reaction to it is:

Yes, the first few questions are easy, but I'll bet you couldn't even answer the last five questions. I'll bet you couldn't, they get very hard, the last five questions

And those last 5 questions are:

What month are we in? What year are we in? What day of the week is it? Where are you right now? What city are you in?

You might think that person shouldn't be in charge of the country.

Oops.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Sounds a lot harder then working to pass electoral reform one state at a time.

Videos on alternative voting systems

First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)

Videos on alternative electoral systems we can try out.

STAR voting

Alternative vote

Ranked Choice voting

Range Voting

Single Transferable Vote

Mixed Member Proportional representation