Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Reverse age limit on political office.

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 11:12:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In most of the democratic countries, there often be age limit on who can sit on political position such as MP, PM, President etc. Normally a person who are to young is not allow to hold such an office while a person who is too old is always welcome.

I actually found this aspect of modern democracy to be quite odd. There isn't any real need to disqualified a young and able person from occupying political office at any level, a minor whose brain function is not fully developed but has proven to be more capable than other adult candidate is representing less risk than elder or even adult politician because his brain is growing, he is more capable of learning, and is more likely to improve with experience gain from holding a real working office.

Elder politicians on the other hands, despite years of experience , will only decline physically and mentally, and have very limited learning capacity compare to politician with younger age. In fact, most of the elder politician will have to hire some sort of younger aid-de-camp to facilitate his strategy (or even draft the strategy themselves). So when we elected an elder politician as our leader, we do not exactly elect him as our executive but actually elect his top adviser to manage our government under his guidance (if any). So why shouldn't we elect those young adviser to manage our country at the first place?

In my opinion the age limit on political office should be reverse. Provide that he can prove himself capable, there shouldn't be any limit on how young the men are to hold a political office, rather, elder politician should be placed under restriction from active political office and should be allow to serve only as an adviser on the younger one who would actually do the job. Aside from questionable management capability, there are also a medical and health risks which make elder politician on high political office a dangerous gambit. In fact, it is because the presidency of elder Politician like Paul von Hindenburg that allow Hitler to rise in to his position of power.

Even an insurance companies would be reluctant to offer their service to an elder person, why should we?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 3:38:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Youth are likely to be more idealistic and less politically connected.

That can be good or bad depending on the context.

I would go for it.

I don't think it matters too much though.

I think lowering the voting age to 16 would be more important, even if only for symbolic purposes.

Britain has some pretend youth congress I saw on TV where they make official proclamations as representatives of youth. They demanded the voting age be lowered to 16 and gave a lot of reasonable explanation. I thought that was pretty cool.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 7:01:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
True on that.

It's not really that important here (not many youth would be interested in politic). Although, if the 16 years old is deem mature enough to give political vote, they should also be allow to drive, drink, or smoke too. I could never agree with the idea that age can be an indicator on what people can and can't. If they can, they simply can why bother with how young they actually are?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 10:56:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
considering how much attractiveness plays to winning office, people would be inclined to vote for the hottest candidate, which would be the younger one, despite his or her lack of experience.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:51:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree that the voting age should be lowered. The youth are going to live in the world in the future. However, I would propose only allowing people who can pass a quiz stating what each candidate stands for so that someone doesn't get elected because they are a woman or are black.
Personally, I do not think any name or picture should be given to the candidates and everything was just stances. That way people only get elected based on the logic of their stances.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 12:28:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I remember back in 2008, people were saying McCain was too old to represent the youth of America. WTF! Agism is more rampant than racism in today's society. I would rather have a president who represents the greatest generation than one who represents the duck-face swaggers.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 1:35:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 3:38:11 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Youth are likely to be more idealistic and less politically connected.

That can be good or bad depending on the context.

I would go for it.

I don't think it matters too much though.

I think lowering the voting age to 16 would be more important, even if only for symbolic purposes.

Britain has some pretend youth congress I saw on TV where they make official proclamations as representatives of youth. They demanded the voting age be lowered to 16 and gave a lot of reasonable explanation. I thought that was pretty cool.

Did you see me there? I was in the back telling people how useless UKYP is (United Kingdom Youth Parliament). This was Dec. 2011 I think. If you don't know, it's useless. We get no money, we get no publicity, and I almost didn't go because there's no-one propagating it. It's terrible, and we do nothing.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 1:59:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the US, only a few of the most senior offices have age limits. (The mayor of Pittsburgh is 27.) That's perfectly reasonable, because experience is required to make sound judgements. One may love President Obama's leftist ideology, but when the answer to every question about scandal or poor management is "I didn't know about that until I read it in the press," you can be sure he has no experience in running an organization.

It would be reasonable to add an executive experience requirement to the age requirement for president. Every candidate for president should have, say, ten years experience as an executive running an organization. The organization could be a business, a state or city, or a charity. That would at least ensure some knowledge of communication methods within an organization.