Idea: Generational Government

[innonimatu]

Didn't ancient Rome (as well as several Greek cities; Sparta immediately springs to mind) have a similar idea? I think the current system of letting any adult who can convince enough people that he's a good candidate for the job run for office is probably the most democratic you can safely get; whether that's entirely a good thing may be debatable.

That was the first thing I thought of also. Several modern states also have minimum ages for certain offices, especially executive offices like president in presidential regimes.

And I don't think it would be a good idea either. People don't like losing power, and this particular setup can't but breed permanent institutional conflict, with the older generations excluded from lawmaking bound to try to control it by either puppeteering some younger ones or just outright blocking or misinterpreting their goals.

We can deal with conflict between factions organized around ideas (parties). It's true that those also include lots of personal-power motives, the party leaders and their protegés. But forcing a separation between officers according with age wouldn't solve that, rather it would make it even more necessary for the older party leader to become a patron to young legislators. Political patronage roman style - we still have too much of that!

 

[aronnax]

This sounds like a cool and interesting idea that will later devolve into a cool and interesting back story for a movie regarding an authoritative future.

 

[G-Max]

Better idea: revoke all age-related restrictions on participation in the political process, from the you-must-be-18-or-older-to-vote restriction to the you-must-be-35-to-be-President restriction, but impose competency tests in their place so we don't end up with a President who claims to have been in 57 states.

Why is age so important?

Because the younger people would live to see the long-term consequences of their actions.

That doesn't make them better at long-term planning, though. If it did, young people would be disproportionately in favor of smaller government, when in reality, they're in favor of bigger government because they don't know that such policies are unsustainable.

 

[Flying Pig]

Competancy tests to vote? Really? And what decides whether somebody is 'competant' to run the country? Clearly asking questions about the business of running countries would favour one ideology over others, and I fail to see how any other questions can be truly relevant!

 

[G-Max]

Competancy tests to vote? Really? And what decides whether somebody is 'competant' to run the country? Clearly asking questions about the business of running countries would favour one ideology over others, and I fail to see how any other questions can be truly relevant!

I'm pretty sure that anyone who thinks there are at least 58 states in the US is not competent to be President.

There's a test that we administer to immigrants before we grant citizenship to them. It has questions like "How many Senators does each state get?" and "If the President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House all die, who is next in the line of succession?". I don't see a lot of ideological bias there.

 

[Flying Pig]

True, but I don't think that knowledge of the political system neccessarily rules out catastrophically bad presidents at all, nor does ignorance of the political system rule out incredibly good ones very well (although you could say it rules out those without motivation; ie joke candidates).

 

[G-Max]

True, but I don't think that knowledge of the political system neccessarily rules out catastrophically bad presidents at all, nor does ignorance of the political system rule out incredibly good ones very well

It does, however, weed out the stupidest voters.

Regardless, I'd expand the test to cover things like economics ("Structural unemployment is defined as employment resulting from what cause?"), world history and geography ("who were the major belligerents in the Punic Wars?"), and maybe even some science ("True or false: the Theory of Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics").

although you could say it rules out those without motivation; ie joke candidates

You're fired.

 

[Flying Pig]

Regardless, I'd expand the test to cover things like economics ("Structural unemployment is defined as employment resulting from what cause?"), world history and geography ("who were the major belligerents in the Punic Wars?"), and maybe even some science ("True or false: the Theory of Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics").

Out of interest, precisely what do you think is meant by 'democracy'?

 

[G-Max]

Out of interest, precisely what do you think is meant by 'democracy'?

Something about two wolves and a lamb?

 

[Leoreth]

So the idea is to limit people's representation by limning the ages in which they can engage in governmental activity? Absurdly anti-democratic. Thank goodness it is a pipe dream.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US constitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

How absurdly anti-democratic.

 

[sophie]

world history and geography ("who were the major belligerents in the Punic Wars?")

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I love how the first thing conservatives go to is the "57 states" thing. It just becomes ever more clear that they just can't let that go. Well, that and the "he wasn't born here" thing.

C'mon, I KNOW you have actual policy disagreements. Hell, I do, and I'm moderate liberal! Cut the crap and use REAL disagreements, not sound bites.

 

[G-Max]

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

It weeds out the voters whose knowledge of history is inferior to that of the writers for The Simpsons. "The key to Springfield has always been Elm Street. The Greeks knew it, the Carthaginians knew it..."

I love how the first thing conservatives go to is the "57 states" thing. It just becomes ever more clear that they just can't let that go. Well, that and the "he wasn't born here" thing.

C'mon, I KNOW you have actual policy disagreements.

Yeah, but the 57-states thing is way funnier

 

[sophie]

It weeds out the voters whose knowledge of history is inferior to that of the writers for The Simpsons. "The key to Springfield has always been Elm Street. The Greeks knew it, the Carthaginians knew it..."

How does knowledge of the Punic wars determine that somebody is proficient in history? Should you also be excluded because you can't write a decent overview of the history of the Anglican Church? Or explain the particulars of the Gregorian Mission?

 

[G-Max]

Why are you under the impression that the example question would be the only history-related question on the test?

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: moved to the chamber by request

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That's true. The primary concerns of an old person are vastly more different than that of a young person.

But how do you really define "old"? Example: It was my birthday yesterday. I turned 49. Yet I can't relate to many of my age-peers, because:

1. I was raised by my grandparents, so in some ways my outlook on life is that of somebody 20-30 years older than myself;

2. I started reading science fiction at age 12, never stopped, am what I would consider reasonably scientifically literate (although not in the kind of math you folks here routinely toss around ), and more than capable of looking beyond the next 4 years (which seems to be the limit of the average federal politician's attention span).

Granted, I'm not as concerned about university tuition as I was 20-25 years ago, but I still do want it to be as affordable as possible, because every country needs educated people to make sure their society progresses and can meet its needs. Nowadays I'm much more concerned about issues affecting senior citizens because my dad is one, and starting next year, I can start claiming a few "senior" privileges granted to people 50 and over.

But that doesn't mean I can't understand and be concerned about the issues that affect people of all ages.

Given that I'm in my middle years, but both old and young in my outlook - which age group would I be most effective in?

 

[Leoreth]

Why are you under the impression that the example question would be the only history-related question on the test?

Why do we have to put up with what you consider sufficient knowledge of history? Or anyone else for that matter?

 

[Silurian]

This is not a good idea.

People in their 20s and 30s lack experience.
When a new political party takes power they want to change things.
Some of the changes they want to make are good others bad.
The older politicians who have been in power before use their influence to point out that that policy did not work last time we were in power.
The over 30s in the advisory role will have little power and are likely to be ignored if their advice does not agree with the "new idea".
So you are going to repeat the mistakes of the past with greater frequency.

The leaders of the legislative branch will always be a few years from forcible retirement. How will they react to that? If they enact some policy that could have some negative effect in five years time they are less likely to care because they will be retiring.

 

[Tee Kay]

But how do you really define "old"? Example: It was my birthday yesterday. I turned 49. Yet I can't relate to many of my age-peers, because:

1. I was raised by my grandparents, so in some ways my outlook on life is that of somebody 20-30 years older than myself;

2. I started reading science fiction at age 12, never stopped, am what I would consider reasonably scientifically literate (although not in the kind of math you folks here routinely toss around ), and more than capable of looking beyond the next 4 years (which seems to be the limit of the average federal politician's attention span).

Granted, I'm not as concerned about university tuition as I was 20-25 years ago, but I still do want it to be as affordable as possible, because every country needs educated people to make sure their society progresses and can meet its needs. Nowadays I'm much more concerned about issues affecting senior citizens because my dad is one, and starting next year, I can start claiming a few "senior" privileges granted to people 50 and over.

But that doesn't mean I can't understand and be concerned about the issues that affect people of all ages.

Given that I'm in my middle years, but both old and young in my outlook - which age group would I be most effective in?

A government comprised of people from many different backgrounds with a variety of outlooks (that is, being able to view and tackle policy and administration from many different perspectives) is a great asset. One of the reason for this hypothetical government structure would be to give younger people (and older people, in the case of countries where government is dominated by middle-aged people) a greater voice and maximise the diversity of perspectives in government.

Even though you may be elected a member of the middle or senior branch, you'd be involved in decision-making which affects everyone in the country regardless of age, and if your outlook on life is different from the average of your peers in your branch, then that's a valuable thing.