Asklemmy

43945 readers

623 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

537

Would you support a mandatory retirement age of 75 for US House, US Senate & US Supreme Court Justices and if not why? (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago by robocall@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

181 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean, as long as we're dreaming... We need a hell of a lot more representatives. It used to be proportional to population, but it was capped at 435 (in the 1930s?). Way more reps would probably help more parties emerge as well.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

That seems like a lot of reps... Do you know of any comparisons with other democracies and their legislatures?

As far as letting parties emerge I think we should have proportional representation / ranked choice voting.