Now that I'm of pensionable age, I've had time to look at the actions of my generation and their predecessors in public office; their actions as corporate stakeholders; their typical voting tendencies; and come to the inescapable conclusion that their attentions for the limited remainder of their time here would be better focused elsewhere. Gardening or reading shallow, rose-tinted recollections of the good old days.

Let's face it, their performance in these areas has been woeful and one cannot help but come to the conclusion that their declining mental faculties and limited personal investment in anything but the immediate future may be the root cause.

So if I felt sufficiently deserving of a vote, it would be to ban us all from public and military office, corporate directorships, and permanently remove our political and share holder voting rights.

Our interests should still be protected out of self-preservation by those approaching retirement age, and there would be some incentive to curry favour with the remainder by breaking the mould and actually being pleasant to others. Don't you agree?...

... Donald?

8 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Now that I'm of pensionable age, I've had time to look at the actions of my generation and their predecessors in public office; their actions as corporate stakeholders; their typical voting tendencies; and come to the inescapable conclusion that their attentions for the limited remainder of their time here would be better focused elsewhere. Gardening or reading shallow, rose-tinted recollections of the good old days.

Let's face it, their performance in these areas has been woeful and one cannot help but come to the conclusion that their declining mental faculties and limited personal investment in anything but the immediate future may be the root cause.

So if I felt sufficiently deserving of a vote, it would be to ban us all from public and military office, corporate directorships, and permanently remove our political and share holder voting rights.

Our interests should still be protected out of self-preservation by those approaching retirement age, and there would be some incentive to curry favour with the remainder by breaking the mould and actually being pleasant to others. Don't you agree?...

... Donald?

Except for the judges, at least in Britain.

However, if you look at demographic polling data, you'll notice that younger people got us into the current mess

2024 Post-Election Survey: Gender and Age Analysis of 2024 Election Results

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

However, if you look at demographic polling data, you'll notice that younger people got us into the current mess

2024 Post-Election Survey: Gender and Age Analysis of 2024 Election Results

How do you make that out? Your link shows that a significantly higher proportion of elderly voters chose Trump than those in the 28-44 age group, both men and women.

Perhaps it's the way we use representative democracy that causes the problem of advancing age within it. If our elected officials were more like a committee instead of individuals, we'd benefit from older, wiser heads while still having input from younger representatives with a more vested interest in progressive change. So many of our processes are rooted in misogyny and Christian hierarchies that glorify the individual rather than the group. We keep asking for a great leader instead of demanding fair representation of all our views.

I also think capitalist strategies favor conservatism, but only after a company has a good model in place and therefore doesn't want the applecart upset. Then they start looking for older politicians to support, with the idea of keeping things just the way they are. Perhaps a more socialist strategy could enjoy the benefits of "git wisdom" without simply putting us all out to pasture?

“Older, wiser heads” seem to be quite susceptible to manipulation - by scammers, and lies from propaganda machines. And as we get older we seem to be more set in our ways and more prone to be in denial about our condition. We decide that the young aren’t capable of informed decisions, which is backed up by science, so I think there’s an argument for doing it for the aged if there’s similar science to support it.

Voting age ranges sounds like one of those political hot potatoes that people would fight over for a long time. While I can understand the theoretical basis, disenfranchisement has not had a happy history. I also note the way it strongly punishes wise, savvy and alert octogenarians for the mental sclerosis of their peers. We've fought so long and hard to get the vote for every adult, I feel any attempts to start clawing back voting rights could go to some really bad places. Especially if it removes people from the voter rolls who have spent their lives developing better ability to judge character - old folks may lose their mental math skills and knowing where they left their keys or remembering names, but that doesn't mean they will also lose powers of judgment - and often they gain in such wisdom.

If our elected officials were more like a committee instead of individuals, we'd benefit from older, wiser heads while still having input from younger representatives with a more vested interest in progressive change.

... @Phi for All

Intentionally, I put no ban on younger heads having eminence gris advisors. Just - given an equal footing there was a saying

The strength and enthusiasm of youth is no match for the guile and treachery of old age.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by sethoflagos

It seems to me the biggest problem is ignorance rather than age. It amazes me how many people can't tell you what the parties and candidates they are voting for want to do when they get into office. Current occupant of the Oval Office is a prime example, I don't see why anyone is surprised by the things being done...

Afterthought:

The fact that 54% of voters over 50 went for Turnip in 2024, has more to do with the demographics of older Americans than a particular impairment of mind. And it's also worth noting that the 46% of older voters who voted Harris were key in states which did go for Harris. The primary increase in votes for Trump came from voters UNDER 50, not over.

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The primary increase in votes for Trump came from voters UNDER 50, not over.

The swing only reduced the differential. It got nowhere near reversing it.

13 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The swing only reduced the differential. It got nowhere near reversing it.

My point was that, had under-50 voters voted as they did in 2020, then Harris would have won. The over-50 vote didn't change much, so those in that demographic who saw through Trump still did so. Or to put it another way, younger voters greater facility for switching sides isn't always an indication of mental sharpness or openness to change: those who changed in fact were won over by an appeal to very old-school bigotries and fears.

And again, it's demographics at work: rural people tend to vote for Republicans regardless of age. And rural states have older populations. So you simply have more old folks in rural areas, because younger people have tended (until quite recently) to leave for urban areas to seek careers and further education. So when the electoral college system favors smaller population rural states, this favors Republicans. Rural people favor Trump because of rural priorities and traditions, not because they're old.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by TheVat
Hyphen, baby!

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

How do you make that out? Your link shows that a significantly higher proportion of elderly voters chose Trump than those in the 28-44 age group, both men and women.

I won't copy the charts; just the headings ...

"Harris Lost the Most Ground Relative to Biden Among the Youngest Men, Followed by the Youngest Women"

"Younger Men and Women Most Disapproved of Biden's Job Performance and Handling of the Economy"

"Younger Men Both Were More Favorable to Trump and Approved of the Job He Did as President"

IOW, it was the changes from 2020 that handed D Trump the Presidency in 2024.

X-posted with @TheVat

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by MigL

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

I won't copy the charts; just the headings ...

"Harris Lost the Most Ground Relative to Biden Among the Youngest Men, Followed by the Youngest Women"

"Younger Men and Women Most Disapproved of Biden's Job Performance and Handling of the Economy"

"Younger Men Both Were More Favorable to Trump and Approved of the Job He Did as President"

IOW, it was the changes from 2020 that handed D Trump the Presidency in 2024.

X-posted with @TheVat

Same misinterpretation as @TheVat too.

The swing value for a group is specific to one election and independent of the group's typical voting characteristic.

The justification for my proposition is based on typical characteristics, not random statistical noise.