“Issue 1. There is no evidence to suggest that older folks in elected office for many years in the US are able to provide viable solutions. In fact, the opposite is the case.”
There is, however, strong evidence that Ms. AOC does not have viable solutions. The Green New Deal is a policy catastrophe.
“Issue 2. The “first-past-the-post” and de-facto two-party system installed here means that almost half the electorate are disenfranchised after every election.”
True, but not significant, as we can do nothing about it at present.
“Issue 3. Young people are poorly represented in the system and, based on your views which I’m guessing are shared by many, considered to be incapable of worthwhile contributions to political debate or activity even of the get elected.”
This demonstrates WHY societies have always given greater priority to the sagacity of older people. Did you know that the Constitution requires that the President be at least 35 years old? Garsh, even two hundred years ago, they were prejudiced against young people! 😀
Did you know that the word ‘Senate’ is derived from the Latin word for ‘old man’? Going back even further, why do you think that human life spans greatly exceed their reproductive years?
It’s not that young people are stupid; human cognitive capacity peaks around age 30. The advantage that old people have is their learning. Humans continue learning throughout their lives. Inasmuch as a young person is not even capable of grasping elementary political concepts until, say, age 15, a 30-year old has about 15 years of learning, where a 75-year old has 60 years of learning — four times as much learning as the 30-year old.
That’s why societies have always given priority to the judgement of older people. Egalitarianism does not trump meritocracy.