American Presidents Thread I: What Went Wrong?

[Makko Oko]

Citizens that have indicated an interest in the position, or all citizens - like with jury duty?

There's arguments for both.

If you limit it to those who are interested, that body of people is inevitably going to look different than the general population.

If you put all eligible adults into the pool, you're going to be forcing people to engage in this process against their will.

With juries, we select people at random, then we go through a jury selection process whereby jurors can be dismissed according to a set of rules. That could be another option.

What about a 2-ballot system (2-round system) instead of what we have now which is a 1-round system, or whoever reaches the line first? I think that would provide for more proportional representation by allowing more minority candidates such as independents more of a shot to win, maybe not by much, but it'd be a start.

For those who don't know, a 2-ballot system is that in which in both rounds of an election conducted using runoff voting, the voter simply marks their preferred candidate. If no candidate has an absolute majority of votes (i.e. more than half) in the first round, then the two candidates with the most votes proceed to a second round, from which all others are excluded. In the second round, because there are only two candidates, and absent a tie vote, one candidate will achieve an absolute majority. In the second round, each voter may change the candidate he or she votes for, even if his/her preferred candidate has not yet been eliminated but he or she has merely changed his/her mind.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

I don't think that will work. The establishment would respond by flooding the system with people like Mayor Pete. Young elitists who will keep the status quo intact.

[New Eestiball]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

50 is overdoing it. 60 or 65.

[Sordhau]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

I don't think that will work. The establishment would respond by flooding the system with people like Mayor Pete. Young elitists who will keep the status quo intact.

Which is why I support razing the establish to it's foundations and building a Socialist Republic on the ashes.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I don't think that will work. The establishment would respond by flooding the system with people like Mayor Pete. Young elitists who will keep the status quo intact.

Which is why I support razing the establish to it's foundations and building a Socialist Republic on the ashes.

I don't think you'd need an age limit then, nor do I think it would be helpful, unless you're talking about situations where someone is outright senile.

[Sordhau]

Which is why I support razing the establish to it's foundations and building a Socialist Republic on the ashes.

I don't think you'd need an age limit then, nor do I think it would be helpful, unless you're talking about situations where someone is outright senile.

True enough.

[PhilTech]

The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

"Tech-savvy" wise, yes. But in terms of competency as a politician, I don't think so. Yes maybe they are less progressive than the current generation but I do think this is most likely due to the fact (or myth, idk I just heard it from somewhere) that Conservatism increases as you age.

[Sordhau]

The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

"Tech-savvy" wise, yes. But in terms of competency as a politician, I don't think so. Yes maybe they are less progressive than the current generation but I do think this is most likely due to the fact (or myth, idk I just heard it from somewhere) that Conservatism increases as you age.

It's a myth invented by Conservatives (mostly Boomers, but also much of Gen X) who unironically say "With age comes wisdom." so they can stroke their own egos.

[The Archregimancy]

"Tech-savvy" wise, yes. But in terms of competency as a politician, I don't think so. Yes maybe they are less progressive than the current generation but I do think this is most likely due to the fact (or myth, idk I just heard it from somewhere) that Conservatism increases as you age.

It's a myth invented by Conservatives (mostly Boomers, but also much of Gen X) who unironically say "With age comes wisdom." so they can stroke their own egos.

I'm remain both moderately amused and mildly bemused.

[Sordhau]

It's a myth invented by Conservatives (mostly Boomers, but also much of Gen X) who unironically say "With age comes wisdom." so they can stroke their own egos.

I'm remain both moderately amused and mildly bemused.

Conservatism is higher among those two generations (at least in the U.S., sorry if I'm being too Americentric here), and Boomers (at least the American ones) are known for being exceptionally arrogant.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm remain both moderately amused and mildly bemused.

Conservatism is higher among those two generations (at least in the U.S., sorry if I'm being too Americentric here), and Boomers (at least the American ones) are known for being exceptionally arrogant.

And of course there's nothing remotely generationally arrogant about dismissing and generalising us oldies as out of touch and incapable of governing.

I'd gently suggest that there might be a middle ground to be found here.

[The Alma Mater]

The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

"Tech-savvy" wise, yes.

Oh, I dunno about that. Personal computers have been around for 40 years now - while the oldies might be less willing to embrace all the new shiny tablet stuff; they tend to have a vastly superior knowledge of the inner workings of operating systems and internet safety.

learning from eachother may be beneficial to all.

[Antipatros]

If we were going to set an upper age limit, what should it be? Should it be an arbitrary number that we "set and forget", or should it be regularly updated according to some kind of formula/calculation?

If the Founders lived in our current circumstances, would they still set the minimum age to be President to be 35, or would they raise it?

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm remain both moderately amused and mildly bemused.

Conservatism is higher among those two generations (at least in the U.S., sorry if I'm being too Americentric here), and Boomers (at least the American ones) are known for being exceptionally arrogant.

There's truth to that. It's not too Americentric either, as many Boomers do act like that in other western countries.

If we were going to set an upper age limit, what should it be? Should it be an arbitrary number that we "set and forget", or should it be regularly updated according to some kind of formula/calculation?

If the Founders lived in our current circumstances, would they still set the minimum age to be President to be 35, or would they raise it?

Honestly, I think term limits are a better solution. It doesn't arbitrarily prevent people holding office but it gets the old timers out who have been in power far too long.

[Makko Oko]

Conservatism is higher among those two generations (at least in the U.S., sorry if I'm being too Americentric here), and Boomers (at least the American ones) are known for being exceptionally arrogant.

There's truth to that. It's not too Americentric either, as many Boomers do act like that in other western countries.

If we were going to set an upper age limit, what should it be? Should it be an arbitrary number that we "set and forget", or should it be regularly updated according to some kind of formula/calculation?

If the Founders lived in our current circumstances, would they still set the minimum age to be President to be 35, or would they raise it?

Honestly, I think term limits are a better solution. It doesn't arbitrarily prevent people holding office but it gets the old timers out who have been in power far too long.

I mean we do have term limits, are you suggesting we change them?

[The Reformed American Republic]

There's truth to that. It's not too Americentric either, as many Boomers do act like that in other western countries.


Honestly, I think term limits are a better solution. It doesn't arbitrarily prevent people holding office but it gets the old timers out who have been in power far too long.

I mean we do have term limits, are you suggesting we change them?

We add term limits to members of Congress. There are people who have been there for decades.

[San Lumen]

Conservatism is higher among those two generations (at least in the U.S., sorry if I'm being too Americentric here), and Boomers (at least the American ones) are known for being exceptionally arrogant.

There's truth to that. It's not too Americentric either, as many Boomers do act like that in other western countries.

If we were going to set an upper age limit, what should it be? Should it be an arbitrary number that we "set and forget", or should it be regularly updated according to some kind of formula/calculation?

If the Founders lived in our current circumstances, would they still set the minimum age to be President to be 35, or would they raise it?

Honestly, I think term limits are a better solution. It doesn't arbitrarily prevent people holding office but it gets the old timers out who have been in power far too long.

We have term limits they are called elections.

[The Orwell Society]

I've seen some of the big threads here and I'd like to try and start one of my own, specifically about the American Presidential system. I'm going to start it off with one of my questions, do any of you think, honestly, that old people should be barred from the presidency to make way for younger candidates?

I have some prime examples here, how about President Eisenhower, who in 1969, died of heart failure and who can forget President Jackson who died in 1845 from heart failure and chronic dropsy, and not to mention he had multiple problems including rotting teeth, failing eyesight, internal bleeding in the lungs, etc.

I think that there should be a limit on how old a person can be when running for office, much like there is a limit for how young.

[Saiwania]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

The US politicians tend to be older because the US population at large is older on average and aging. People are going to gravitate to voting for whoever has more experience or is seen as competent or familiar. Plus the US has lots of age requirements for higher office, like every POTUS needing to be 35 years of age or older. We know the average politician likes to stay in for longer than just 10 or even 20 years. So a cap of 50 years is unacceptable if you only just got in during your 30s or later.

Plus it is against the law to be ageist in terms of hiring. You have to use other excuses.

What else is an old but rich and accomplished individual going to do, other than to run for office and becoming POTUS or something else prestigious to make a name for themselves? Or in the event that they're the loser, to be able to get a book deal or be on the speaking tour circuit and profit from doing that?

[PhilTech]

I've seen some of the big threads here and I'd like to try and start one of my own, specifically about the American Presidential system. I'm going to start it off with one of my questions, do any of you think, honestly, that old people should be barred from the presidency to make way for younger candidates?

I have some prime examples here, how about President Eisenhower, who in 1969, died of heart failure and who can forget President Jackson who died in 1845 from heart failure and chronic dropsy, and not to mention he had multiple problems including rotting teeth, failing eyesight, internal bleeding in the lungs, etc.

I think that there should be a limit on how old a person can be when running for office, much like there is a limit for how young.

Still I find this too subjective. Of course, those with diseases (that can hamper their decision making) inherent with age should find themselves under scrutiny.

But I am still finding a good objective reason why young hopefuls are (plausibly) much better in leadership roles than the oldies. All I am getting at, as of the moment, is that old people can't "keep up" - whatever that means, and that young people are much more open minded - but mind you there is a difference between being open minded and being naive.

[Necroghastia]

FDR was good, I believe Abraham Lincoln was the best President.

I have my doubts about Lincoln being the best President, because if he really was the best, why'd he get assassinated? I mean, sure, you could make the case that not everybody is going to like a President, there will always be dissenters, but none mad enough to kill them surely

i mean if you're pissing off racists enough to inspire that kind of bloodlust you have to be doing something right

[The Alma Mater]

I have my doubts about Lincoln being the best President, because if he really was the best, why'd he get assassinated? I mean, sure, you could make the case that not everybody is going to like a President, there will always be dissenters, but none mad enough to kill them surely

We just had an 18 year old boy shoot up a school filled with kids.
Do you believe those kids did anything bad to upset him?

[The Reformed American Republic]

There's truth to that. It's not too Americentric either, as many Boomers do act like that in other western countries.


Honestly, I think term limits are a better solution. It doesn't arbitrarily prevent people holding office but it gets the old timers out who have been in power far too long.

We have term limits they are called elections.

You've said this BS constantly and it's false.

[San Lumen]

We have term limits they are called elections.

You've said this BS constantly and it's false.

No it isn’t.

[Necroghastia]

You've said this BS constantly and it's false.

No it isn’t.

Lumen, what precisely do you think the definition of "term limit" is?