[SUBMITTED] Whose Democracy is it Anyway?

[Jim the Baptist]

The issue
Another bill aimed at strengthening youth development activities, including the establishment of community centers and mentoring programs, was dismissed by the nation’s legislature. Outraged young people are now claiming that the rising age of politicians is causing youth issues to become sidelined.

Issue not valid for nations with the geronticide policy
Issue not valid for nations with autocracy policy
Issue not valid for nations with affirmative action (since anywhere with affirmative action might have age quotas for political representatives and thus is unlikely to be confronted by this issue)

1- "Has no one else noticed the systemic marginalisation of youth interests from politics?" rhetorically exclaims one of the outraged youths. "The current legislature consists almost entirely of geriatrics, most of whom require round-the-clock nurse aids. If we only have walking skeletons representing us, how can we trust them to protect the interests of us young people? Please, @@leader@@, bring in age quotas for our politicians to ensure equal representation for all!"
Effect: the sound of rattles and squeaky toys is known to regularly disrupt political debates

2- "Age quotas this one reckons!" one of your Cabinet Ministers scoffs, pointing to the youth. "That won't get us anywhere except having more uneducated, inexperienced and 'woke' juveniles telling us all how to suck eggs. The older generation raised you lot and have a wealth more knowledge of our history, legislation and political system. I say we bring in an age minimum for our political representatives to truly pacify these ignorant brats once and for all!"
Effect: most aspiring politicians retire before they are able to fulfil their career goals

3- "You're all missing the bigger picture," interjects young political activist @@randomname@@. "You see governments are much like apples - once they age they become sour and rotten. Similarly, our current leadership has become corrosive and decayed because it's barely changed in decades. If you introduced term limits, we could prevent these long-serving artefacts that you call 'representatives' from neglecting youth issues and prioritising their own self interests like pensions and aged care. Please, @@leader@@, show what a fair and democratic figurehead you really are by putting a used-by date on this tired, old and selfish government in the name of @@demonymplural@@ youth!"
Effect: the nation's politicians are famous for their 'last-day-on-the-job' pranks now they can no longer seek re-election
Must not have policy term limits

4- "There is another way we can address youth concerns while still being equitable at the same time," retorts politics lecturer of @@capital@@ University, @@randomname@@, as @@he@@ adjusts @@his@@ tweed jacket. "All you need to do is introduce weighted voting based on average remaining years of life expectancy - then politicians will have to agree to address young people's needs if they want to stand a chance of winning at the ballot box. It's only fair that young people should get more of a say because they are the ones who have to deal with the long-term consequences. I mean sure, young people aren't always the most responsible, and a lot of my students don't even know what voting is, but their tender little hearts at least are in the right place. In my educated opinion, weighted voting is worth a shot!"
Effect: polls predict that the hot favourite next election cycle is teenager mother and part-time model Catherine Gratwick

Young people are outraged after yet another bill aimed at strengthening youth development activities, including the establishment of community centers and mentoring programs, was dismissed by the nation’s legislature.

Issue not valid for nations with the geronticide policy
Issue not valid for nations with autocracy policy

1- "Has no one else noticed the systemic marginalisation of youth from politics?" exclaims young political activist @@randomname@@. "The current legislature consists almost entirely of geriatrics, most of whom require round-the-clock nurse aids. If we only have walking skeletons representing us, how can we trust them to protect the interests of us young people? Please, @@leader@@, bring in age quotas for our politicians to ensure equal representation for all!"
Effect: the sound of rattles and squeaky toys is known to regularly disrupt political debates

2- "Age quotas?" one of your Cabinet Ministers scoffs. “That won't get us anywhere except having more uneducated, inexperienced and 'woke' juveniles telling us all how to suck eggs. The older generation raised you lot and have a wealth more knowledge of our history, legislation and political system. I say we bring in an age minimum for our political representatives to truly pacify these ignorant brats once and for all!"
Effect: most aspiring politicians retire before they are able to fulfil their career goals

3- "You're all missing the bigger picture" interjects vocal politics student @@randmomname@@ of @@capital@@ University. "Young people are underrepresented because our current leadership has barely changed in decades. If we introduced term limits, we could prevent the legislature's corrupt and corrosive practices of gerrymandering used to secure consecutive terms. That should level the playing field and get some more young, fresh faces in politics. Or at least faces young people can easily vote out if they’re not happy with them."
Effect: the nation’s politicians are famous for their ‘last-day-on-the-job’ pranks now they can no longer seek re-election

THE ISSUE
Young people are outraged after another bill aimed at strengthening youth leisure and personal development programs was dismissed by your Cabinet.
They point out that your Cabinet consists almost entirely of "geriatrics", most of whom require round-the-clock nurse aids and walking assistants. With the average age of elected officials at an all-time high, citizens have gathered outside your office, debating whether @@NAME@@ needs more equal representation in politics.

Issue not valid for nations with the geronticide policy
Issue not valid for nations with autocracy policy

1. "This is blatant unfairness and ageism," exclaims young political activist @@RANDOMNAME@@. "These old geezers have been egg-nesting in their seats long enough. If we only have walking skeletons representing us, how can we trust them to protect the interests of our young people? Bring in age quotas for our politicians to ensure equal representation for all!"
Effect: the sound of rattles and squeaky toys continues to disrupt political debates

2. "Age quotas? That won’t get us anywhere except having more uneducated and inexperienced 20-something year-olds telling us all how to suck eggs," interjects one of your Cabinet Ministers, @@RANDOMNAME@@, inhaling a devilled egg salad. "I agree youth interests are unequally represented, which is why we should introduce weighted voting based on average remaining years of life expectancy. Young people get more of a say because they are the ones who have to deal with the long-term consequences. Then politicians will have to address their needs. Sound fair? Good. Oh, and stay away from my eggs."
Effect: Britney Pears is now running for political office

3a. Your political advisor interjects. "At the risk of sounding like a boring egghead, entrusting youth with weighted voting would be putting all your eggs into one basket. The problem is youth voter apathy. If we launch a campaign and egg on young people to vote more, then they'll feel more included in the political sphere. It makes you look like a good egg, plus my calculations suggest you would still hold a majority of votes come re-election. It's win-win!"
Invalid for nations with compulsory voting
Effect: youth are encouraged to vote but only if it’s for @@LEADER@@

3b. Your political advisor interjects. "At the risk of sounding like a boring egghead, entrusting youth with weighted voting would be putting almost all your eggs into one basket. The problem is youth voter apathy. Most of them would rather pay the fine than fulfil their civic duty. If we launch a campaign and egg on young people to vote more, then they'll feel more included in the political sphere. It makes you look like a good egg, plus my calculations suggest you would still hold a majority of votes come re-election. It’s win-win!"
Valid only for nations with compulsory voting
Effect: youth are encouraged to vote but only if it’s for @@LEADER@@

4. "I'm tired of walking on eggshells with these young people," argues prominent senior politician @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We've paid our debt to society, now they have to give back to us, so what about a little quid pro quo? Youngens commit to doing community service with the elderly, and in return we give them favourable outcomes on policy. You scratch my egg I scratch yours, no?"
Effect: young people must take classes in giving first-class foot rubs

[Drew Durrnil]

1. Add "issue not valid for nations with the geronticide policy"
2. Overlap with issue #54

[Terrabod]

Overlap with issue #54

The overlap is minimal; #54 is about term limits whereas this draft is about the underrepresentation of young people in politics.

As for validities, "no geronticide" is a good shout and "no autocracy" is also necessary. I wouldn't worry about average lifespan. Oh, and @@NATIONNAME@@ should just be @@NAME@@. And you have a couple of references to "Leader" that should be @@LEADER@@, since not all national leaders are referred to as "Leader".

[Australian rePublic]

Aren't these activities concerns of local governments?

[Jim the Baptist]

Added filter for geronticide policy and fixed some of the formatting issues, thanks everyone.

Aren't these activities concerns of local governments?

I think it's a national issue because we are talking about bills and policies addressing youth issues being ignored. The outcomes affect youth all over the nation, not just in one particular area. It would only maybe affect local governments if the nation had the "devolution" policy, but even then, bills and policies can still start at a national level before being actioned/implemented by local governments.

[Jim the Baptist]

Bump

[The Sakhalinsk Empire]

A political advisor would have studied political science, no? Thus you can call Mr. Advisor an egghead, e.g. "@@LEADER@@, I know you might think I'm a boring egghead, but..."

Otherwise, it looks great to me.

[Jim the Baptist]

A political advisor would have studied political science, no? Thus you can call Mr. Advisor an egghead, e.g. "@@LEADER@@, I know you might think I'm a boring egghead, but..."

Otherwise, it looks great to me.

Thanks, updated and bump.

[Jim the Baptist]

Bump

[Jim the Baptist]

Bump

[Electrum]

I think there's merit to including an issue on unrepresentative cabinets/politicians but I don't really like the choice of options here.

Options 2 to 4 don't really address the fact that the party/politicians keep selecting old people to be candidates. If young people have a greater say, that doesn't automatically translate to electing young people.

You also need to consider how this issue interacts with affirmative action, which is a policy we do track. Gender quotas for politicians are also introduced in issue 306.

[Jim the Baptist]

I think there's merit to including an issue on unrepresentative cabinets/politicians but I don't really like the choice of options here.

Options 2 to 4 don't really address the fact that the party/politicians keep selecting old people to be candidates. If young people have a greater say, that doesn't automatically translate to electing young people.

You also need to consider how this issue interacts with affirmative action, which is a policy we do track. Gender quotas for politicians are also introduced in issue 306.

With option 2, I agree with you that young people having a greater say doesn't necessarily lead to electing more young people. But just electing more young people isn't necessarily what the issue is. The age of the politicians is just part of the issue, but the central problem is that youth concerns are being neglected and bills that directly benefit them keep getting denied because old politicians have no incentive to pass them.
By giving young people a greater say, market forces dictate that politicians will have to compromise and start listening to what the youth want in order to get their votes. This will lead to more bills and legislation that support young people to be passed, thus resolving the original issue without having to address it from an 'elected age of officials' perspective.
So do you think that option is fine then, or do you think I need to make it clearer that the issue itself is not so much the age of politicians, but that that is just exacerbating the larger problem of youth concerns in politics being neglected?

I do agree though that option 3 doesn't really address the issue itself and honestly it just reads as a bit bland and boring. I'd be open to cutting it (unless anyone has any other ideas), and just making it a 3-option issue because the whole doppelgänger is honestly a bit awkward and unnecessary too.

I also just fixed some of the formatting.

[Jim the Baptist]

Bump

[The Marsupial Illuminati]

Why aren’t term limits an option?

[Sacara]

Young people are outraged after another bill aimed at strengthening youth leisure and personal development programs was dismissed by your Cabinet.
They point out that your Cabinet consists almost entirely of "geriatrics", most of whom require round-the-clock nurse aids and walking assistants. With the average age of elected officials at an all-time high, citizens have gathered outside your office, debating whether @@NAME@@ needs more equal representation in politics.

In your description, you're giving a lot of exposition. Well, I suppose that's what descriptions are supposed to do. However, the unnamed narrator is saying "they point out x, y , & z." Why not just have a young speaker point that out? Your options aren't too long, so you have room to work that in.

I like the premise, but I'm a bit confused. Does the Cabinet have the ability to dismiss bills? Maybe you should say that the legislature voted down a bill that would've given more funding to youth programs and the works, and as such youth across the nation are upset. No need to tell the reader why they are upset; that's what the speakers are supposed to do.

Turning to the options, should age quotas be the first option presented? I feel like that is a bit out there, and if that were to be an option, it should be saved until later. I think a better first option would be to have a young speaker ask @@LEADER@@ to appoint more young people to key government posts since they know the interests of the demographic. Also, I'm confused about how option two would be implemented. I think that is a bit out there in terms of what should be done, and why would a cabinet member be advocating for this if it reduces his own power? As for option three, how is issue one about political apathy? This one threw me for a loop, almost like a non-sequitur option.

Here's an idea of how to lay out the options that I think would flow better, feel free to use it or disregard:

[Premise] legislature votes down bill that would give more funding to youth programs, youth across country mad
[option] young person say there needs to be more young people in government, asks @@LEADER@@ to appoint more young people
[option] old cabinet member saying young people shouldn't be in government since old people are wiser, make it hard for youth to be in government
[option] someone saying there should be term limits since legislature if filled with same people forever

I would say make there be age limits instead of term limits, but since lifespans are different from nation to nation that might be hard. However, if you can find a way to work around that, it would have merit.

Overall, I like the premise, but I don't think the options presented are the best for the issue at hand.

[Jim the Baptist]

Young people are outraged after another bill aimed at strengthening youth leisure and personal development programs was dismissed by your Cabinet.
They point out that your Cabinet consists almost entirely of "geriatrics", most of whom require round-the-clock nurse aids and walking assistants. With the average age of elected officials at an all-time high, citizens have gathered outside your office, debating whether @@NAME@@ needs more equal representation in politics.

In your description, you're giving a lot of exposition. Well, I suppose that's what descriptions are supposed to do. However, the unnamed narrator is saying "they point out x, y , & z." Why not just have a young speaker point that out? Your options aren't too long, so you have room to work that in.

I like the premise, but I'm a bit confused. Does the Cabinet have the ability to dismiss bills? Maybe you should say that the legislature voted down a bill that would've given more funding to youth programs and the works, and as such youth across the nation are upset. No need to tell the reader why they are upset; that's what the speakers are supposed to do.

Turning to the options, should age quotas be the first option presented? I feel like that is a bit out there, and if that were to be an option, it should be saved until later. I think a better first option would be to have a young speaker ask @@LEADER@@ to appoint more young people to key government posts since they know the interests of the demographic. Also, I'm confused about how option two would be implemented. I think that is a bit out there in terms of what should be done, and why would a cabinet member be advocating for this if it reduces his own power? As for option three, how is issue one about political apathy? This one threw me for a loop, almost like a non-sequitur option.

Here's an idea of how to lay out the options that I think would flow better, feel free to use it or disregard:

[Premise] legislature votes down bill that would give more funding to youth programs, youth across country mad
[option] young person say there needs to be more young people in government, asks @@LEADER@@ to appoint more young people
[option] old cabinet member saying young people shouldn't be in government since old people are wiser, make it hard for youth to be in government
[option] someone saying there should be term limits since legislature if filled with same people forever

I would say make there be age limits instead of term limits, but since lifespans are different from nation to nation that might be hard. However, if you can find a way to work around that, it would have merit.

Overall, I like the premise, but I don't think the options presented are the best for the issue at hand.

Thank you so much for your detailed feedback. I have completely redrafted and rejuvenated this issue.

I took into account most of your ideas, especially about the structure of the issue, although I have kept option 1 as being about age quotas for now. I might change it to just appointing more young people to key government posts (as you suggested), but I do think the idea of age quotas could be interesting and kind of original so I’m keen to hear others’ thoughts on this.

Edit: Also, I should say that my only concern about changing this option to 'appointing more young people to key government posts', is that non-elected officials are only responsible for implementing policies/bills passed by the legislature. If the current policies already neglect youth interests, then it's doubtful if anything would really change in @@name@@ just by @@leader@@ appointing more young people as bureaucrats. So I feel like this option needs to present a solution from a higher-up, policy level where change is much more feasible.

For option 2, it currently introduces an age minimum to serve as an elected official, but as you point out I'm not sure how this would work with different nations' lifespans. Would this be an issue for editors? I could change it to suggesting that we simply make it harder for young people to get involved in politics, but I can't really think of a clear, specific way to do that other than through their age.

Why aren’t term limits an option?

Added.

[Jim the Baptist]

Bump

[Bears Armed]

For option 2, it currently introduces an age minimum to serve as an elected official, but as you point out I'm not sure how this would work with different nations' lifespans. Would this be an issue for editors? I could change it to suggesting that we simply make it harder for young people to get involved in politics, but I can't really think of a clear, specific way to do that other than through their age.

Maybe you could use '[age of majority] + [whatever]' years, or [age of majority] x [whatever; 3/2, perhaps?]' years....

[Jim the Baptist]

For option 2, it currently introduces an age minimum to serve as an elected official, but as you point out I'm not sure how this would work with different nations' lifespans. Would this be an issue for editors? I could change it to suggesting that we simply make it harder for young people to get involved in politics, but I can't really think of a clear, specific way to do that other than through their age.

Maybe you could use '[age of majority] + [whatever]' years, or [age of majority] x [whatever; 3/2, perhaps?]' years....

Those are good ideas, I'm not an editor but mathematically the second one sounds like it would work better. With the first it might be tricky to decide what number to add.

[Australian rePublic]

Define or provide examples of "youth leisure activities"

[Jim the Baptist]

Define or provide examples of "youth leisure activities"

Fair point, I’ve changed the premise to add a bit more detail about what sort of activities I’m talking about. Also made a few minor grammatical changes.
I think I’m pretty happy where this issue is for now. It has been up since March and I’ve applied almost the feedback so far so I’m putting it on last call.

[Homyland]

I think you should add "no term limits" as a validity clause.

[Jim the Baptist]

I think you should add "no term limits" as a validity clause.

Thanks for that pick up. Added.

I have completely rejuvenated this issue again and it's had some major overhauls.
It's now a 4-option issue, and I've brought back weighted voting at the end as a bit of an out-of-the-box extreme solution.
Policy filters have all been updated and added where necessary.
Option 3 I changed and removed the references to gerrymandering which didn't really make sense and just focused on the benefits of term limits.
I've taken on all the feedback so far and it's definitely improved a lot, so I will probably submit soon-ish as it's been on last call already for a while now.

[Tinhampton]

Half of your speakers are involved at @@CAPITAL@@ University's Department of Politics.

The real Britney Spears is in her forties and is now best known for conservatorship awareness; more modern Issuesverse celebrities can and probably do exist

[Jim the Baptist]

Half of your speakers are involved at @@CAPITAL@@ University's Department of Politics.

That’s true. I mean it’s only 2/4 options, and I kind of wanted people to realise they’re from the same place because I intentionally have the fourth speaker directly referring to the third so it flows nicely between the two options. Plus you don’t even get option 3 if you already have term limits so for some nations it’s really only 1/3 options with speakers from Capital university. What I just realized though is that if you don’t get option 3, what the fourth guy says would sound really weird because he directly refers to the third speaker. So I think I’ll change that.

The real Britney Spears is in her forties and is now best known for conservatorship awareness; more modern Issuesverse celebrities can and probably do exist

That’s a good point too, I’m open to any suggestions but I wasn’t really sure which real life celebrities exist in NS other than Britney Spears. Any ideas?