Younger Politicians
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
michael said:
I don't think this is impossible but I think it needs to start with a lowering of the voting age. One might conjur with more social progressiveness without a Cold War for example, an open field to develop without a conservative backlash against such things as being dangers to national security or traditional morality or what-not
However you could possibly IMHO get there by avoiding the First World War. In many countries the democratic left was on the rise - the Labour Party within Britain and the SPD within Germany. Remove war, Communism, revolution and all the fear of change that brings and instead have perhaps slower and more gradual changes but in a way that does not challenge the establishment so overtly, but instead brings them along and allows a continuum of social progressiveness
If you could then postulate a mixture of voting age coming down steadily, age of consent not rising, and educational reform placing the age of school leaving at 14 instead of 16, then you could build an earlier politically active and younger population
This would provide the framework for a continuing revision of the laws governing the age of members of parliament and national leaders, which come down in response to this
Grey Wolf
NapoleonXIV
Banned
More of this age group and make them more successful. Or have less of the oldsters.
A disease killing everyone over 35 would be the simplest and quickest but have substantial repercussions in most other areas.
Possibly a continuation of the dot. com revolution with more and greater Internet apps being found daily but a consequent greater turnover of OS platforms so that 18 month old training is worthless. While this certainly wouldn't knock older people out of the running entirely the advantage would quickly move to youth. After some time of this, 25-35 year old managers, owners, CEO's etc would become commonplace and accepted so that people would feel comfortable about electing them.
Repercussions: Mainly less knee-jerk dogmatism on many issues. Drugs would be legalized on at least a trial basis. Many other things would be done on a trial basis. However, I would also expect somewhat lesser sympathy for able-bodied people who cannot work for a living. Also a tightening of debtor-creditor law as these people would be from a more rough and tumble economic environment where many would use sympathertic debt laws to get out of paying rather than as a shield to adversity.
Probably a looser sexual morals code legally. Many of these people would either be sexually active themselves and/or have children of lower nondating ages so their attitudes to sexuality would be more realistic.
Religion in politics would remain about the same but tend more to be honestly felt rather than to get votes.
A disease killing everyone over 35 would be the simplest and quickest but have substantial repercussions in most other areas.
Possibly a continuation of the dot. com revolution with more and greater Internet apps being found daily but a consequent greater turnover of OS platforms so that 18 month old training is worthless. While this certainly wouldn't knock older people out of the running entirely the advantage would quickly move to youth. After some time of this, 25-35 year old managers, owners, CEO's etc would become commonplace and accepted so that people would feel comfortable about electing them.
Repercussions: Mainly less knee-jerk dogmatism on many issues. Drugs would be legalized on at least a trial basis. Many other things would be done on a trial basis. However, I would also expect somewhat lesser sympathy for able-bodied people who cannot work for a living. Also a tightening of debtor-creditor law as these people would be from a more rough and tumble economic environment where many would use sympathertic debt laws to get out of paying rather than as a shield to adversity.
Probably a looser sexual morals code legally. Many of these people would either be sexually active themselves and/or have children of lower nondating ages so their attitudes to sexuality would be more realistic.
Religion in politics would remain about the same but tend more to be honestly felt rather than to get votes.
Inevitability of child politicians
We are developing genetic engineering. Soon we will be able to make children that are guaranteed happy, healthy, huggable, athletic, artistic, and academically inclined, industrious, intelligent, and inquisitive. Perfect children. And then, who would you vote for?
The lying, thieving, cheating, murdering, treasonous, scumbags we have now, or would you say...
DON'T TRUST ANYBODY OVER THIRTEEN!
We are developing genetic engineering. Soon we will be able to make children that are guaranteed happy, healthy, huggable, athletic, artistic, and academically inclined, industrious, intelligent, and inquisitive. Perfect children. And then, who would you vote for?
The lying, thieving, cheating, murdering, treasonous, scumbags we have now, or would you say...
DON'T TRUST ANYBODY OVER THIRTEEN!
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
michael said:
Just allow 12-year old girls to vote. If you had a POD of AD 2000, we would have President Timberlake right now.
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Oh dear GOD!!! *pulls outs .375 Magnum and shoots himself*
Don't be afraid... I don't know how in US, but here eople under 30' vote more rarely than those over 60'.
So, maybe that could be POD? More-interested-in-politics "generation something".
So, maybe that could be POD? More-interested-in-politics "generation something".
The Constitution in the US says that one must be 35 to be elected President. Perhaps the Founders have the age @ 30 or so instead.
Or perhaps there's a sudden burst of civic-mindedness in folks of my generation. The ramifications of this will be large (firstly, Social Security reform will probably be able to pass and scaring old people won't be a viable electoral tactic--the current batch of politicos know that older people vote and younger people don't), but I imagine it might lead to more JFK-type Presidents.
Or perhaps there's a sudden burst of civic-mindedness in folks of my generation. The ramifications of this will be large (firstly, Social Security reform will probably be able to pass and scaring old people won't be a viable electoral tactic--the current batch of politicos know that older people vote and younger people don't), but I imagine it might lead to more JFK-type Presidents.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
SurfNTurfStraha said:GOOD LORD!!
To give credit where credit is due, did you see SNL when he hosted? He was hilarious - he really has great comic timing. And as long as he promised not to sing, could he be any worse than what we have now?
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Landshark said:
I'd much rather watch her than him. 'course I turn the sound off to the TV
David S Poepoe
Banned
Since campaigning takes alot of money I would suggest that for one of 25-35 years of age to be elected to office one would have to come from Money to begin with. Then again who would elect them? Voter apathy in general will sink their chances. I guess the general idea of electing someone with some experience doesn't really matter. One day cooking fries at McDonald's, the next a US Senator.
The idea works great when one considers Britain of the late 19th and early 20th century - but allowing the unwashed mob to elect anyone that young is a disaster. Thats why hereditary Peerages would work.
The idea works great when one considers Britain of the late 19th and early 20th century - but allowing the unwashed mob to elect anyone that young is a disaster. Thats why hereditary Peerages would work.
A modest proposal
Let's divide voting by age and gender.
In this sense: males vote males, women vote women (ermaphrodites can choose, not vote twice ).
Young people votes young people, older people votes older people. So the Parliament would respect sex and age as they are in the nation.
And, more important of all, POOR people elect THEIR representants, (evn if they can abrely read and write, they won't do more damage than now), and so do the rich and the middle class.
You'd recognize no more the Parliaments seeing 'em. That would be TRUE democracy, not the farce it's today.
Let's divide voting by age and gender.
In this sense: males vote males, women vote women (ermaphrodites can choose, not vote twice
).Young people votes young people, older people votes older people. So the Parliament would respect sex and age as they are in the nation.
And, more important of all, POOR people elect THEIR representants, (evn if they can abrely read and write, they won't do more damage than now), and so do the rich and the middle class.
You'd recognize no more the Parliaments seeing 'em. That would be TRUE democracy, not the farce it's today.