header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: In other news ...

 (Read 985331 times)

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17645
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23954 on: May 25, 2023, 12:20:06 PM »
OK, forget term limits.

How about age limits, or cognitive testing after a certain age?
How about cognitive testing at ANY age? :)


847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25161
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23955 on: May 25, 2023, 12:26:50 PM »
How about cognitive testing at ANY age? :)


I almost posted this. I was thinking any candidate, including incumbent ones, should be required to submit to a test no later than 6 months prior to the election date. 
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12168
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23956 on: May 25, 2023, 12:29:41 PM »
OK, forget term limits.

How about age limits, or cognitive testing after a certain age?
I'm not sure some of them could pass cognitive testing at ANY age lol... The hard part about cognitive testing beyond a certain age is determining a cognitive test that is 100% objective, because any subjectivity (i.e. having a certified psychologist performing an exam) could cause the appearance of political motivation, or the actuality of political motivation, in determining who is deemed fit for office. 

I'm actually not necessarily opposed to age limits. However I'm not sure they could reasonably be set at an age that would make much difference. Legislating, unlike being a pilot, is an intellectual endeavor. When it comes to age-generated cognitive decline, we're not talking about mandatory retirement at 65 like pilots, unless we're going to make the argument that those who are 65 or older are unworthy of being trusted with nearly anything in life. The world is full of those who are 65+ and sharp as a tack. So what if you set it at 80? It appears only 15 House members and 4 Senate members are over 80. I'd be fine setting it at 80. But it IMHO isn't going to fix anything.  

The question I have is... Do you think either of these solutions will actually make a meaningful change in our quality of governance? 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71433
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23957 on: May 25, 2023, 12:29:51 PM »
It be interesting to administer the naturalization test to current members and see who failed.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37482
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23958 on: May 25, 2023, 12:30:16 PM »
They all should be required to submit to a test randomly while in office
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71433
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23959 on: May 25, 2023, 12:32:36 PM »
The question I have is... Do you think either of these solutions will actually make a meaningful change in our quality of governance?
I do not, and in any event, these changes can't be achieved practicably.  

Most bills that pass Congress pass because members vote how they are told to vote anyway.  Many of the members could be automatons for all it matters.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25161
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23960 on: May 25, 2023, 12:41:41 PM »
I'm not sure some of them could pass cognitive testing at ANY age lol...   

The question I have is... Do you think either of these solutions will actually make a meaningful change in our quality of governance?
1. Agreed. It's amazing how some of these people get elected.

2. Meaningful change? I don't know, but something has to give.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Honestbuckeye

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5795
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23961 on: May 25, 2023, 12:51:10 PM »
Yet, "we" keep electing them. Politicians can only stay there too long if we allow them to... Every 2 years in the House, and every 6 in the Senate, we have the opportunity to get rid of them.

Congress has horrible approval ratings but averaging >90% reelection rates in the House and >80% in the Senate. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates

If you're not happy with a candidate, vote for the other one. If you're unwilling to do that because they're in a "safe" district and you refuse to vote for the other party, work your butt off to elect a different candidate in the primary.

Seems like term limits are applying a chainsaw to a problem that could be solved with a scalpel.
All easier said than done.  The long term incumbent has enormous advantages that they use to “ attain” votes. 
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
-Mark Twain

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12168
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23962 on: May 25, 2023, 12:59:45 PM »
2. Meaningful change? I don't know, but something has to give.
Yeah, but for Congressional qualifications to change, you need a Constitutional Amendment. Given how hard it is to put one of those through, I'd at least demand that we write one that we believe will make a meaningful improvement. 

Personally I'd go all the way to a proportional representation system rather than the direct representation system we have today. The truth is that effectively everyone already votes for party rather than candidate when it comes to Congress, and that everything in Congress is driven by party such that individual candidates follow the party line on votes. So why keep up the charade that direct representation means anything in our modern electorate. 

It would also have the advantage of answering the question of "why can't we have third parties" for the many of us whose beliefs aren't well captured by either party, because our electoral system doesn't allow for stable configurations beyond two parties. Proportional representation does allow for that. 

Age limits, term limits, and cognitive tests are just playing at the margins IMHO and won't actually get us better governance. 

Gigem

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2138
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23963 on: May 25, 2023, 02:13:17 PM »
We enacted term limits for Presidents for the simple fact that a popular president is very hard to get out of office and thus they become very powerful.  I have no doubt that Raegan would have made a 3rd and possibly a 4th term if he was allowed.  Recall that by the mid-90's he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and there is much talk of him showing signs when he was still in office.  I clearly remember the amount of age jokes that were said about Raegan and he was much younger than either Trump or Biden, or at least a bit younger.  

The fact is the longer they stay the more powerful they become.  

I'd put the limit at 12 years for congressmen (6 terms) and 18 for senators ( 3 terms).  For congressmen who become senators I'd limit them to 24 years total in either/both houses.  

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71433
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23964 on: May 25, 2023, 02:16:23 PM »
Amendments are not going to happen any time soon, if ever.  And the other path is fraught with peril.

GopherRock

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23965 on: May 25, 2023, 03:31:33 PM »
Cognitive testing is subjective. Age isn't.

And speaking of age...


https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1661809727385337878?s=20

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25161
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23966 on: May 25, 2023, 03:44:56 PM »
Might lead to a debate on FDR...
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25161
  • Liked:
Re: In other news ...
« Reply #23967 on: May 25, 2023, 03:55:28 PM »
General Eisenhower "won" the war, and probably would have lost had it not been for Stalin's troops on the Eastern front. For his efforts, Stalin was "rewarded" with countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain, which he occupied during the war.

U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.