![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
Probably not a good idea but you could have an upper chamber literally weighted by seniority, where those who have held their seats the longest have the most weight; seats can be passed to a specified heir upon death (or at any time, even for money). and you could have a junior chamber which is the same but weighted by youth. Seniority and youth measured in terms of votes cast.
Maybe to continue to participate and become more senior, the seniors must labor to earn the favor of the youth somehow.
And/or maybe at any time a seniorseat-holder can 'reset' the age of their seat so as to participate in the youth vote.
Dont know why this all would be a good idea. I thought of this because i thinking again, it would be good to have an upper house, and it would be good to have an adhocracy.
Mb the seniors must lock up funds, as imagined in an older note, to force longterm thinking. Or mb lend funds to the organizations. The longer funds are lent, at a lower interest rate, and the more funds, the more seniority is given. The seniorseat holding loans are always juniormost among creditors -- in fact i think they should not be creditors at all, it should be more like preferred equity. The senior seats also don't have any say over accepting new creditors senior to them.
You could also allow seniorseats to just be bought.
Mb the youth seats lose voting weight forever whenever they dont abstain, encouraging them not to vote too much. I suppose those two attributes could be combined; buy votes by lending, and the bought votes lose force as they are used (and also as the loan comes closer to due). However, obviously the youth vote weakening thing has an issue with clone independence, so that's problably not a good idea.
