Originally posted by Eagler:
Yes, if he doesn't retire, and if the ppl who elect him are too ignorant to have a clue, then there should be an age limit
Assume for a moment that you are correct and the senator is not suitable for the job - just for argument's sake.
So you are saying the people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, so they are not suitable to have a democracy?
If so, I agree with you. I'd say IQ of 115, college degree and special examination on
details of state workings, economics, history, sociology and basics of technology must be mandatory prerequisite for the citizenship franchise (voting right). Of course only after said individual finishes at least 1.5-year military training/service.
But what would be the point in trying to fix the democracy as it is? First, you cannot make enough rules, however wise, to protect stupid people from themselves. Second, with democracy the people themselves have to adopt those wise rules and they are too stupid to realise their need.
Even if the rules are imposed, smart crooks will always be ahead of them because extra complexity actually gives advantage to smart and unscrupulous over stupid and honest.
If the senator is really too old to be elected and people realise that they could be smart enough to make restrictive rules to limit the age. But then they would be smart enough not to elect an unfit individual anyway and in that case they do not need any limiting rules.
miko
[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]
