Surprisingly based from ND, to be completely honest

  • cdf12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    While I like the idea, I can’t imagine it would pass a constitutional test. However, an age limit that kicks in only after a person has been in an elected position for X years probably could. This would allow an 81 year old that had never held office to run for the first time and not be discriminated based on age.

      • dezmd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I always worry that putting so much on FPTP as the problem is going to backfire. I open to trying to move away from it, but it does make it a little cheaper for dark money to invest in a candidate’s image when they only have to maintain a strong showing vs overwhelming the 50% total tally.

        It didn’t keep the UK from Brexit and the EU is moving to the right. FPTP may not the game changer we imagine, it may simply be a ‘grass is always greener’ scenario.

    • corvaxL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      It won’t survive a court challenge, as the Supreme Court already ruled on this back in 1995 in the case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The ruling says that states can’t add additional eligibility requirements to be elected to or otherwise serve in federal office beyond what the constitution lists.

    • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      So you’re saying there is a constitutional provision to prevent young people from running for office but not old people?

      Given that on average teenagers are, according to any testable criteria, smarter and saner than old people, maybe the constitution needs to be amended. Septuagenarians shouldn’t even be allowed to vote let alone run the fucking country.