Genuine question, how does them being old make it seem more democratic? Wouldn’t it look better if the politicians were a similar age to the voters? I’m not saying you’re wrong I’m just a bit confused
Oh it doesn’t, but I don’t think it matters because you don’t get genuine options. They just give you a set of canned option to vote for, and that’s all you get. As Marx put it: “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”
I don’t think it is the sole reason but they ARE representative of the voting US population. The 65+ demographic has the highest voter turnout within their age group.
In my country, voting is almost entirely the domain of the elderly. I can count on one hand the number of people in my age range I know that actually go out and vote.
I think there is also some portion of belief that “this person has a lot of experience so must be better suited for the job”.
“The 65+ demographic has the highest voter turnout within their age group.“ Ahhhh, that makes a lot more sense now. Thanks, I didn’t put 2 and 2 together, but that seems a lot more obvious now that you mentioned it
Yeah, I also don’t really understand what the OP is getting at with the age thing in the title. If anything, it would seem like the actual rulers (pictured) should be more likely to be ancient vampires than the the politicians chosen for the facade of democracy.
I guess it is because they need to have a long career in politics to appear experienced. Well, they really do need to have experience to ratfuck everyone else and to build connections because particular politicians are a tools to ruling class and it don’t really care who is the one doing its bidding, so politicians do need to compete among themselves. Also the more ossified bureocracy is, the more ancient cadavers are getting propped by the vitrue of having more accumulated ties inside the bureocracy than the younger ones, that’s why US has Biden now and that’s why catholics had most of their popes.
Also name is a brand. People, especially content liberals and conservatives, are more likely to vote on someone they always heard than someone new.
That’s very true actually, a lot easier to have a political dynasty that changes nothing if you have an older experienced politician giving cred to the rest of the family. For example we wouldn’t have FDR if not for Teddy Roosevelt, we wouldn’t have had Hillary running if Bill didn’t win in the 90s, etc.
In theory: these capitalist types are allowed “proper” hereditary system. Scions taking over after the elders decide they want to chill. Meanwhile, the politicians are just tools. And if you have an old hammer that does the job, why would you waste money on a new one? One that may not be exactly to your preferences too. When the tool is completely broken, then you toss it away and grab a new one.
Genuine question, how does them being old make it seem more democratic? Wouldn’t it look better if the politicians were a similar age to the voters? I’m not saying you’re wrong I’m just a bit confused
Oh it doesn’t, but I don’t think it matters because you don’t get genuine options. They just give you a set of canned option to vote for, and that’s all you get. As Marx put it: “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”
I agree, I’m just surprised that for their own sake that they don’t choose younger people to seem more representative of the US population
I don’t think it is the sole reason but they ARE representative of the voting US population. The 65+ demographic has the highest voter turnout within their age group.
In my country, voting is almost entirely the domain of the elderly. I can count on one hand the number of people in my age range I know that actually go out and vote.
I think there is also some portion of belief that “this person has a lot of experience so must be better suited for the job”.
“The 65+ demographic has the highest voter turnout within their age group.“ Ahhhh, that makes a lot more sense now. Thanks, I didn’t put 2 and 2 together, but that seems a lot more obvious now that you mentioned it
Yeah, I also don’t really understand what the OP is getting at with the age thing in the title. If anything, it would seem like the actual rulers (pictured) should be more likely to be ancient vampires than the the politicians chosen for the facade of democracy.
Exactly! Like reality doesn’t fall into my own preconceived notions obviously, but in this particular instance I’m very confused
I guess it is because they need to have a long career in politics to appear experienced. Well, they really do need to have experience to ratfuck everyone else and to build connections because particular politicians are a tools to ruling class and it don’t really care who is the one doing its bidding, so politicians do need to compete among themselves. Also the more ossified bureocracy is, the more ancient cadavers are getting propped by the vitrue of having more accumulated ties inside the bureocracy than the younger ones, that’s why US has Biden now and that’s why catholics had most of their popes.
Also name is a brand. People, especially content liberals and conservatives, are more likely to vote on someone they always heard than someone new.
That’s very true actually, a lot easier to have a political dynasty that changes nothing if you have an older experienced politician giving cred to the rest of the family. For example we wouldn’t have FDR if not for Teddy Roosevelt, we wouldn’t have had Hillary running if Bill didn’t win in the 90s, etc.
In theory: these capitalist types are allowed “proper” hereditary system. Scions taking over after the elders decide they want to chill. Meanwhile, the politicians are just tools. And if you have an old hammer that does the job, why would you waste money on a new one? One that may not be exactly to your preferences too. When the tool is completely broken, then you toss it away and grab a new one.