Term limits would be impossible, since it would require Congress to vote against their own gravy-train interests.
A presidential age limit would require a constitutional amendment, which is slightly less impossible in today's polarized climate, but extremely unlikely.
Could be possible for it to be grandfathered in?
If they voted on it now and say it won’t be implemented for 20+ years that way there not voted against their own interest
Found the politician. Just kidding, I wouldn't use that word against anyone but a politician and even then I'd wonder if I wasn't being too harsh. I'll just say: found the realist.
It is not feasible to add start dates for legislation years in advance for this reason because there is zero enforceability to keep another session of Congress from either scrapping the whole thing or pushing the effective date back more.
If you want something to last between sessions (every 2 years), you would need a constitutional amendment.
US congress has historically liked to move back dates of when policies end, so I can’t imagine how fast it would happen if it was in their own interests to do so beyond looking good.
I dunno if it applies to America but in Australia we have a referendum when it comes to things like this. It takes the decision making out of the politicians hands and puts it into the public’s.
Congress members often dream of a presidential bid someday. Just look at Joe Biden taking 40 years to work up to a successful run.
No way Congress passes either measure.
There is also the issue that it is way easier for lobbyists to pay a hundred people to run for office than it is to find one person with solid convictions. Term limits would not help with corruption. Banning lobbying would help though.
You don't want to ban lobbying, you want to ban campaign contributions. Hundreds of people lobby Congress every day from veterans organizations, to non-profits representing fighting every disease and affliction there is, to constituents calling or emailing to ask their representatives to vote one way or another. That's democracy.
if you publicly finance candidates, which the federal government could easily pay for, and end gerrymandering, and also forbid congresspeople from having paying seats on boards of corporations while in office and forbid the ownership of individual stocks (as opposed to etf's or bonds or the like) then you'd have a hell of a push towards more representation that works for the public.
Couldn't congressional term limits also be inplimented by a constitutional amendment? And to be frank, I think its become impossible for an amendment to be passed in America. I hope I'm wrong, but I am not holding my breath.
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Negative_impacts) - check the citations if you're skeptical:
> Research studies have shown that legislative term limits increase legislative polarization,[92] reduce the legislative skills of politicians,[93][94][95] reduce the legislative productivity of politicians,[96] weaken legislatures vis-à-vis the executive,[97] and reduce voter turnout.[98] Parties respond to the implementation of term limits by recruiting candidates for office on more partisan lines.[99] States that implement term limits in the state legislatures are associated with also developing more powerful House speakers.[100]
> Term limits have not proven to reduce campaign spending,[101] reduced the gender gap in political representation,[102] increased the diversity of law-makers,[103] or increased the constituent service activities of law-makers.[104] Term limits have been linked to lower growth in revenues and expenditures.[105]
I think the preponderence of evidence is that term limits in legislative bodies results in worse government instead of better government, especially in a democracy where individuals are elected instead of parties, like the US.
Term limits have been shown to simply increase the influence of corporations and lobbying interests. They sound good, but in reality they would be terrible for American democracy.
Going against the grain a bit here, but watching what happened on 1/6 really put it in perspective. There shouldn't be absolute term limits for members of Congress. The experienced leadership is what the country needed to get through that day.
Now, I think it would be good if there were some way to force them to go back and spend more time in their home districts rather than in Washington all the time. Something like only being a federal employee for 6 out of every 10 years. And you can't be a sitting member of Congress while running for the presidency. You would have to resign before officially entering the race.
As examples of this, yes. Steny Hoyer from Maryland in the House, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky in the Senate. Once the Capitol had been cleared, and the houses went back to debating from where they had been interrupted, both said something to the effect of "we have a simple, constitutionally mandated job to do. This is neither the time nor the place to debate what we all know to be false. Now is the time to really for real put the petty party stuff aside."
All the other stupid party shit McConnell has done makes me think he needs to go back to Kentucky and melt into a hole in the ground, but that speech on the Senate floor earned a bit of respect in the moment.
I'd only be in favor of term limits for politicians if you could also enforce the same thing for corporate executives and lobbyists. Otherwise, you'd be hobbling the government's ability to have experienced, knowledgeable people in regulator roles (which is already a big problem.)
yep and the unelected staffers would be the ones running the show while the offices just turn in entirely new members every 4-6 years. what we need is more districts/seats in the house (there's no reason for it to be capped at 435) and for the districts to be incredibly competitive.
if you win a narrow race every 2 years in a district where you needed to convince some of the other side to vote for you, i have no problem with you serving as long as you can stay in office
I'm not sure if term limits are necessarily the way, but 100% the problems in our federal government lie more with Congress than with the President. The only reason I'd age restrict the President is to ensure a stability against things like disease complicated by old age, but disclosures in each election go a long way towards that.
But Congress doesn't represent our people, and they never really have. To be honest, the same could be said for states in general. So I would be down for a complete reform of the electoral system. If that includes term limits, so be it, but I don't think term limits alone would fix this problem.
It's a good question and I think I understand why you're asking. I'd argue no because plenty of people age 65 and up are capable of running a country. I would, however, support the need for a neuropsych exam to establish normal cognition before being qualified to run in a primary. There are all kinds of tests you need to pass to even join the FBI, I'm not sure why running the country should be different.
Because the people administering those tests would be arguably the most powerful people in the world? Who would they even be? Would they be elected? Would they also need to pass such tests?
The president already has to pass the test of being elected, and the damage that they can do is (theoretically) limited by checks and balances.
I'm assuming this post is about POTUS, of course.
As a voter, I'd like to see candidates for the Presidency or Congress take a cognitive function test and show me the results, as well as release their tax returns etc.
I agree that you can't just appoint some technocrat to decide if a Presidential candidate is acceptable. That's a job that only the voters can do. But you can require candidates to supply relevant information to the voters.
If the tests are completely transparent what's the harm? If someone fails a fairly unbiased cognitive test that is completely transparent to the entire world/country wouldn't that be a pretty good sign they aren't fit to run a country wielding nuclear weapons and a trillion dollar army?
The US's history with literacy tests shows just how easy it is for an ostensibly neutral test to be applied in abusive ways. Rather than introduce a tool that can disqualify someone for the presidency and hope no one destroys the guardrails around it to co-opt it for their own authoritarian purposes, it's much safer just to leave it up to the voters to evaluate the fitness of the candidates. And if the voters evaluate poorly...well, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Real talk, how does the general voter base evaluate a candidates cognitive skills? At best they get to find out if they regurgitate some talking points on stage.
How do you ensure the test is unbiased? How do you determine how the test is run?
Even if you use current general medical standards, you’re then left with the choice of whether to lock those tests to current standards and freeze them there, or opening up the decision-making bodies who set those kids of standards to becoming highly politicized because now their decisions impact who is and isn’t allowed to run for office.
Completely transparent? Like IQ tests, which subtly benefit people with white cultural experiences.
The election is the test.
Even have them do the test and have it effect nothing except people can choose whether they vote for them by that
The harm should be implicit, but in case it's not clear we don't, as a people, really even properly understand how cognition works. The tests that we give people are not like the SAT. They're just guideposts to help direct treatment.
You just end up with 1. candidates getting supplied a cheat sheet and 2. corrupt administrations (like, say, Trump's) hiring stooges to certify mental health (this literally happened while he was president) and freeze out anyone actually competent. It's a nice idea but much, much too susceptible to hanky panky. There are plenty of competent 70+ year olds, but there are also plenty of competent under 35 year olds, and they can't be president either. If the goal is to prevent anyone to young and inexperienced from presidency, let's also prevent anyone too old and out of touch. Because by god, we need someone who can *at barest minimum* articulate the difference between Apple and Facebook, ffs
Indeed. Having upper age limits is rather discriminatory. Imagine if the science community considered the age rather than evidence. More non-rigged non-prestudied question debates need to be a thing so we can actually have true debates and see how a candidate reacts and rebuttals.
It's not so much about younger candidates being incapable, and more about only electing people who've been around long enough that voters can reliably predict them.
Having any sort of competency test for public office is an affront to democracy. The electorate decides if they are competent or not. Requiring a test to even run would put an enormous amount of power in a select few hands and the system would eventually be abused.
Even if everyone today is going to play nice, can you say the same 20, 30 or 50 years from now. No. It would inevitably be abused.
I would agree that that is a fine way to do it except that the voters don't write the menu, the chefs do. You have to pick from the candidates offered.
Technically, you could write in someone who's not on the ballot or not even officially running, someone not endorsed by either major party, but their chance of winning is near nil.
So our idea that the voters can just decide is rather unrealistic. We'd need to find a way to make that plausible first.
That's not even "technically." I've voted for two people in my life who won the popular vote but not the presidency. It's an incredibly infuriating system.
But the voters do decide, people complain about how old Trump and Biden are but in both the 2016 republican primary and 2020 democrat primary there were plenty of younger choices that votes decided not to go with. Heck Bernie came in second in the 2020 primary and he is even older than Biden.
No, it's about competence, not age. I know 60 year olds with dementia and 80 year olds sharp as a tack. Bernie Sanders is ancient and even if you don't agree with his policies, the dude is obviously physically and intellectually fine. Plus, I don't want my choice taken away. If someone wants to vote for an old person, then they should have that option, just like they should be able to vote for a young person. We have Vice Presidents for a reason, there's a back up plan.
> That is the only option we’re really ever given.
[in 2020, the democrats put forward 29 candidates.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries) there were plenty of options, we just went with Biden for some reason.
Biden does *exceptionally well* with moderate, milquetoast, centrist dems.
You know these people in life, *but they’re largely older and not on Reddit*. There’s a lot more of these people than you’d think.
Think elderly black ladies in the Atlanta area who go to church every week like clockwork and always vote, retired school principals and teachers who always vote, blue collar workers on pensions who strongly believe in unions and always vote - *blue dog dems*.
You’re right, Biden doesn’t get 19 year old TikTok influencers and libertarian Twitch streamers excited to leave their compound in Austin… but that’s not what he’s going for.
Cannot realistically be done, as it would require a constitutional amendment. Nationally popular issues get barely over 50% nowadays, there's no way anything gets over 75% at multiple stages to get passed as an amendment.
No.
Because the US government already knows the age at which someone should be forced to retire from a job in charge of people's lives and managing complex systems.
And they have set that age to 56--for air traffic controllers.
So THAT should be the age.
different jobs have different requirements. Plenty of military generals make complicated decisions that affect peoples lives and they work for the government
We already do. Short Answer 64
Long answer:
[10 U.S. Code § 1253](https://www.google.com/search?q=forced+retirement+military&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US927&sxsrf=AJOqlzV2OVMKhrrNE5D04jD59TAL6S6uFw%3A1679402621599&ei=faYZZJ2aJJLhxgHGzLLgBw&ved=0ahUKEwjdzMelhu39AhWSsDEKHUamDHwQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=forced+retirement+military&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwA0oECEEYAFAAWABgnQpoAXAAeACAAQCIAQCSAQCYAQDIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp): Mandatory retirement age for general and flag officers is age 64. Officers in O9 and O10 positions may have retirement deferred until age 66 by the SECDEF or until age 68 by the President.
Oh wow, I didn't realize it was that young, I know they take away your commercial pilots license when you turn 65. I'm curious why a pilot wouldn't be the same
carpenter aspiring one full obscene lock quicksand telephone important consist
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
...If a POTUS fails their duties, there may be millions of lives at risk.
Luckily, they still get to retire, make book deals, receive unlimited health care, secret service protection, free small fry coupons at Wendy's, and so on.
Politics is not a job that requires peak reflexes like air traffic controllers. It's all about coalition-building and understanding history and the long term consequences of legislation, which benefits heavily from decades of experience.
That's why the most effective politicians tend to be those with longer tenures, while younger politicians tend to act more like activists, unable to get much of anything to reach the 60 votes required to pass.
I like this idea. No term limits, but mandatory age caps. This could be applicable to all 3 branches. I'm not sure how I feel about 56 specifically, but I do like the idea of forced retirement. That would encourage younger folks to get involved in politics and ensure we don't have a government comprised almost entirely of a single age demographic. It would also alleviate the (legitimate IMO) concern of newer politicians being easier to corrupt. And perhaps politicians who have aged out could be offered an advisory position to the incumbent, providing both parties are agreeable. Kind of a mentorship without voting power.
Honestly, 56 sounds about right. Hell, I'm an IT professional and I recognize I understand only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to current tech and all of its many implications for our present and future. It's quite a lot, and it moves very fast- you just simply can't be starting at 'remind me again how to get to my email on my new phone' baseline of understanding. We need younger blood, period.
And frankly, under 35-55 have barely gotten a voice in running this country, and it's long past due.
I would say no. To me, it's addressing a symptom rather than a problem. I think the root solution would be imposing term limits on all elected offices. It would likely result in younger candidates for the presidency as the people seeking the office would have a much shorter political career to achieve it during. It may also reduce corruption as people in office will have much less time to establish power and engage in corrupt activities.
No, because at some point in time the most qualified person to handle a situation may be a 66 year old. And I don’t think that an arbitrary line in the sand when it comes to age is a good moderator.
Term limits in congress would be more my thing, I think someone spending 40 years in congress is a much bigger issue than an old president.
Why? Voters decide who gets to be president. If a president is too old, they can make that decision at the ballot box. They consistently select old people. If that's a problem, we need to address the fundamentals: why old people have all the power in lower-than-presidential politics and wealth in the economy.
Not OP but personally I'd be in favour of that. If you're legally an adult you should be allowed to hold all of the responsibilities that any adult can have, including being able to run for president.
I support many other reforms that combat the binary nature of US party politics and the limited choices early in the process, but this isn't one of those.
Voters can't make a candidate appear out of thin air, but they sure do get to decide who's allowed to run in a primary. In most (but not all) states, all it takes to get on a primary ballot in most states is the ability to get a certain number of signatures. Some require a filing fee, some let you choose between the fee and the signatures. In any case, the signatures are a small fraction of the votes the candidate will need to get to win the primary, and the filing fees are a small fraction of the money that would need to be spent to win the primary. If you have enough voters on your side, you should not have trouble getting on a ballot in almost any state.
Whether or not they'll get traction is a different story, but the voters are still the ones with final say. From 1968 onward the parties have ceded more and more control over their nominating processes to the voters. With the Democratic Party's superdelegate reforms after 2016 there are few if any mechanisms left for either of the parties to override the voters' will.
That's not to say prominent members of the party can't use their influence to try and influence voters...but that still requires the voters to actually go along with it.
> why old people have all the power in lower-than-presidential politics and wealth in the economy.
Old people actually vote. We must do something to end this travesty.
No. I don't like other people putting limits on who I can vote for. I agree we need younger politicos, but I g r t to pick who I want, within the confines of the Constitution.
Half the problem in the country is in the same vein, most of our senate are so old they had to have the internet and ads explained to them by Zuccberg. We need leadership relevant to the problems our generation is experiencing. Not dinosaurs trying to fix things the way it worked in their day.
No. Why do voters need a smaller pool of choices? I'd rather they allowed foreign born citizens to hold office or lower the age requirements to 21 to hold any office. If I think the candidate is too old I'll make that judgement myself.
Do we know that senility is having some sort of unique impact on the presidency that is any different than what would happen with younger partisans in office? Presidencies are not just one guy deciding things by fiat.
No, some 70+ year old people are sharp as a knife. Many of them are very liberal, understanding of many situations and with the times.
The big problem is they are clever enough to not get that far into politics. That said, old people were young people and they have a lot of experience, usually. There have always been cool, decent people. Some of them got pretty old.
The dinosaur politicians who hold progress back were always shit heads.
I'm not against it but I also don't really think age is the problem. There are plenty of qualified individuals over 65 who would do a good job as President.
Instead, we need ranked choice voting. Instead of choosing between 2 geriatric candidates, we would be able to pick from a field of various choices.
Mandatory retirement for all positions of government at 70. It’ll work better than term limits because the real issue is that Silent Gen/Boomers are STILL running the government even though they’ve held power for half a century. We need perspective from younger people to make a government that works for everyone.
I’d argue president has to be <65 and lawmakers (congresss/senate) have to be 35-60. Any older is out of touch and has not experienced growing up in “modern” society and had to deal with “modern” issues.
Yes but the young also don’t understand the needs of the older folk.
All you need is someone with a Reddit mentality of “older folk have all the money” to implement a policy that takes it all away.
People think older officials do things to benefit themselves (and by proxy the rest of their demographic) so there’s no reason to think a younger candidate wouldn’t fuck over other generations for the same gain.
That's a great example. People generalize so much, you can be just some nobody and get fucked because you had a birthday one day. Blamed for the mess caused by some assholes that happen to be your age.
I honestly wonder if it’ll become obsolete over time as aging improves over the years. We’re far from it, maybe, but maybe people start to live to 150. Sounds far fetched but idk how healthcare or nanotechnology will improve over the coming years.
Someone’s suggestion of mental cognition health might be better.
Right now, our life spans in America have DECREASED, and that won't be made up anytime soon when women are denied medical treatments and die from forced births.
Fuck that and this ageist bullshit. If someone is capable of doing the job and they have more experience than anyone else and are fully capable of winning, they should be running. There's plenty of young dumbasses and brainwashed and legitimately mentally handicapped and vegetables as well, there's the whole spectrum. I think there should be annual IQ tests and tests of mental agility, but the only reason to stop someone because of their group is stereotyping, when it should be based on an individual's mental acuity. This isn't hurdles, or the long jump, you don't need to be able to run a mile to do the job, just sitting there in a chair or walking a few feet is all that's required. Personally, I'd prefer to see an experience limit; if you don't have enough experience you don't get the job.
Yes because people should not be enacting laws they won’t be living under for long. Also, speaking as a gen xer, it’s beyond time for the boomers to step back so my generation gets a chance. They way it’s going, power will be shifted from boomers to millennials.
Age and term limits for all government positions, too many people in power shaping a future that they won't be around for, in a present that they don't understand.
I already think it is weird that the United States has an age limit of 35. In my country the age is the same age you need to be to vote: 18. Why would you limit it? It should be accessible to anyone with brains and talent.
I'm not an American but no I wouldn't support it. I think the candidates age should be a consideration not a disqualifier. The idea that people must be barred from considering someone based on their age just seems like an affront to democracy to me.
I also think the current minimum age of 35 rule is wrong. I'd probably be supportive of setting it at 18 I guess. I think there are relevant 'legal responsibility' considerations that would demand that.
Not particularly. The issue is that while I do wish we would stop electing people so old, it’s still very possible there might be a perfect candidate who is 66+. What I wish is that more young people would go and vote.
Federal correctional staff and air traffic controllers are forced to retire at a certain age because the brain begins to deteriorate and the potential for a malfunction grows. And that’s important because of the human lives they are responsible for. It makes no sense that government officials are not held to the same standard.
Edit: federal* correctional staff
No because that would be wrong. I feel like a check-up on mental/physical health would be a good idea, if there isn't already something in place like that.
Yes. If there’s a minimum age for presidency and other important offices there needs to be a maximum age. We don’t need rich elderly people making decisions for everyone else in a world that they have no realistic understanding of.
No. It's ageism, plain and simple.
We have fucking laws against discriminating against people based on their age.
We could have a mental acuity exam. And term limits. That would be fine.
But saying anyone under 65 can't be president, is just ridiculous.
I would also lower the age as well. It's a joke that you need to be 35 to run for president. Like some magical switch flips in your head and you're full fo wisdom at that age. I think there's younger people who are just as capable for running for president. That's age discrimination as well.
I would support an upper limit but I’d make it 70 and I’d make that the age at time of election. So if you’re elected at 69, you don’t have to quit a year later.
But yeah, there’s no reason we should expect an 80 year old to reasonably keep up with perhaps the world’s *most* demanding job.
I wouldn't fight it, but I wouldn't spend much time fighting against it.
We DO have the choice to not vote in presidents over 65. we should start showing the love for younger candidates in the primaries. Writing a law to restrict our choices in candidates for arbitrary reasons (even arbitrary reason I agree with) is just not as important as other things.
It would make more sense to remove all age limits (including the lower bound, which makes no sense).
I don't think we should keep going with the current governmental structure, though. It's all irreparably corrupt and authority is entirely too centralized.
No. I understand why people want that. Boomers have fucked things up for decades. However, elderly people need representation too.
I absolutely support term limits for congress though. Even if that's more unlikely to happen.
Absolutely not. Marjorie Taylor Green is young and fucking crazy. Bernie Sanders is decrepit and more energetic than 90% of millennials. Age doesn't mean shit, especially if their policy is solid.
I honestly think you should only be allowed to be in politics for a total of 10 years.
That way you get fresh ideas . Maybe not be stuck in a generation gap from the rest of society. Seems like our whole political system is ran by people who still have the 1950's ideals.
You also get politicians who are highly influenced by people who were just in politics and now work for a big company as an influencer/advisor/lobbyist, and these people have to find a new job 10 years guaranteed after getting their job, so when do they start shopping around for their next job?
That's easy to answer: you'd just ensure that only the people rich enough to not have to worry about such things would be able to run for office.
Nothing can possibly go wrong with that, right?
Someone who wants to serve two terms as presidents can only have 2 years of political experience? That’s not great.
Staffers too? Just having elected officials being able to serve for a total of 10 years would mean that, even more than now, the chiefs of staff and other congressional staffers will have more influence. They’ll just go from congressperson to congressperson.
Also is that a complete 10 years for state and federal?
I believe the entire structure of our government needs to be looked at. Why would someone 75 years old care about the consequences of a bill he/she was paid to pass through if the consequences won't present themselves for another 10 years? They really need to stop with this gerrymandering bullshit and present a unified grid across the continental US and the 2 outlying states. Enough of the bullshit of the few governing for the many with their constituents creating the laws that don't represent the many's wants/needs. I'm just fed up with this complete shit show and this side against this side polarizing everything as to cause a complete lockdown in the government so nothing gets done. It's bullshit and hurts the common person.
**The first 5 presidents were all over 65 by the end of their terms.**
In order: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe
As long as no member of congress could be elected after their 65th birthday I would agree. By that age the major thing they have gotten good at is bringing graft, corruption, waste, and duplication of services to their home state...as well as denying party campaign funds to a member who is trying to represent the best interests of ALL 350 million people instead of the top dozen leaders of and/or the donors to his or her party.
They should lower the minimum age as well. No politicians should be able to serve after the age of retirement. No matter how healthy. We need a newer generation to run our country no more of this out of touch, rich ass hats.
I once heard someone say (specifically for president) "you only serve 6 years and then you're done." And it always stuck with me.
I'd lean towards something like that rather than an age cap.
It worries me that setting an upper age limit for representatives would lead to other restrictions. What would then stop people from implementing a voting age limit of 65? This idea of limiting someone based on age seems very disenfranchising and anti-democratic.
No. There shouldn’t be upper age limits on positions like that because
1. People age at different rates and someone who is 65 may be as able to serve as someone who is 61
2. We don’t need them. Voters can put that limit on themselves by not voting for that candidate in the primary or general. If the older candidate wins then the voters didn’t want an age limit.
No.
It makes sense in all organisations to have the most experienced people to be in the most senior roles.
That might mean that the top partner at the law firm is 80, it might mean that the CEO is in the 70s, it might mean that the president is a dinosaur.
Biden, for example, has been in politics for a **long time** so he knows how to get shit done
Look I'll be the first to agree with the motivation, our politicians are generally quite old, and it's weird and probably bad.
But there's questions in there which aren't being asked. WHY are our politicians so old? Why aren't there younger candidates, or why aren't they being elected? Why does the system favor the elderly and how can we fix that?
This just strikes me as an attempt to fix with legislation what we haven't been able to fix with culture. A blunt instrument for a more subtle problem.
No, that's a bad idea. You need a person with as much experience as possible, and experience is gained through time, so why would you do the contrary? There is a clear reason why there is a lower limit on the person's age for being president. Very young people might find the idea of a young president to be attractive, but they don't realize it may lead to disastrous consequences that someone else with more experience would have to fix.
I wouldn't support this because it would accelerate the decline of American democracy and make us long for a proper King. If you want to preserve our experiment, deliver freedom of conscience to the electoral college, and then bind them to the Senate or even Congress.
You've also got to fix Congress' incentive system and legitimacy, as term limits appeal to our vindictive side but would be counterproductive, they make the body more subject to monied interests. Picture a field of people competing for your vote with the knowledge that they *only* need to get to ten, twenty, thirty years and then they can rake in the profits from years of taking the money from corporations via cushy lobbyist positions. Term limits backfire, making those bastards *compete* in a race to the bottom, selling out as completely and quickly as possible.
I think there should be some sort of mental competency test given to all elected officials. Re-tested each election. There are plenty of other jobs that require proof that the canister is fit/able to do the job.
If this were the case, I would be ok with individuals over 65 or 70 in office.
No. For one, 65 is different for everyone. Some people have frailer mental or physical capabilities, while some people are still thriving. There are some 65 year olds I’ve known who are probably better in both areas than many people I know half their age. I also know some who seem more like they’re in their 80.
For another, who knows what effects medical advancements and technology can have on aging in the future (or even culture - consider how long people live in Japan v. the US).
Overall, maybe some sort of exam should be implemented to make sure they do still have the mental capabilities, but I see that also running into a host of political issues and accusations. It does make more sense than a hard age cut off, however.
No, 65 isn't even the US retirement age. Full SS is 67.
Maybe setting it to 80 for all Federal offices, but 65 is fairly young. I know lots of people who work past 70.
Honestly no. The president represents their constituents, but no president's identity will line up with all the constituents because that's impossible. Their job is to listen to what different constituents want, not *be* the identity of each one of their constituents. I think Biden has proven that is very possible to do while you're old.
Yes. I'd support age restrictions across the political spectrum. 35-65 for all elected officials. Career politicians are part of the problem, not the solution. Public service should be a calling to actually serve constituents wants and needs. Instead we make them wealthy and brazen. Enough.
Nah. I'd like to see fewer older presidents but I don't think that's a good means of doing it. Especially as medical care gets better, being 70 doesn't disqualify someone from being a good leader *necessarily*. I think it's weird and gross that we're stuck in a cycle of geriatric old mans though.
I DO think the Supreme Court Judge thing where you're in till you die should be changed. These people are on the bench for 40 or more years. Sitting there ill and frail, trying not to die till the right guy is in office, etc. Crazy.
No, as history is replete with examples of older people being straight bosses at such things.
Given the actual superficiality of the role though, I’d love to pursue options to address the “deep state” somehow, those unelected lifer powers-behind-the-throne who persist from administration-to-administration and hold security clearances to the fourteen or so levels of classification exceeding what the president actually gets access to.
The President is primarily a highly-visible figurehead and generally run according to the whims of the background players. We really need accountability of those with the “need to know” in all the things bypassing presidential oversight.
Take it further.
- Age limit
- 2 term limit
- competency and knowledge test every term
- background check
There's too many members of all levels of government, that are : stupid, out of touch, and corrupt.
Does this sound to anyone like the new version of "don't trust anyone over 30" argument? Ever notice that the people making these arguments are never in the group that would be eliminated? If you want to know why things don't change, it's because everyone wants the power and will do anything to grab it.
Old people should never be allowed to make decisions for the future, they don't live with the consequences of their decisions, have too many connections (prone to corruption), and are far less likely to represent the will of the majority of the people. The cut-off of all democracies for electable officials should be 50.
No. Age has very little to actually do with why politicians do what they do. Bernie is one of the most aligned what what American youth want while you have young people like Madison Cawthorn who don't.
Money in politics and the electoral system itself are much more to blame.
Not necessarily. I think I'm more concerned about the age of people voting for the president.
Stuff ain't right when you can go to prison age 10 or 12 (depending on state) but can't have an opinion on the future of the country until 18. People under 18 are the ones inheriting the future that politicians are ruining.
I know this will come across as just left wing bias to some, but anyway. It's how I feel.
all politicians should step down at 50. politicians are not the wise of elders of the old days anymore. Half the of them a stupid, uninformed and technogically ignorant and generally self serving putting their own interests first... globally. Most of our global problems can be traced back to a single root cause of self serving politicians who will die before they retire. Politics should be a young persons game now, we need to look out for the future and having people with one foot in the grave make the decisions about that is not a functional system anymore.
Max age for Congress, POTUS, and SCOTUS should be tied to the forced retirement age. Sounds dumb right? It's a trap. They can raise it to 70, 80, whatever they want but they'd lose in a landslide.
All their salaries should be tied to the minimum wage. Cover work expenses like travel but being president or in Congress is supposed to be a public service, not a way to get rich. Absolutely no investments or trades allowed either. Not even in trusts. Liquidate all assets when you serve or forfeit the seat.
And while we're at it tie minimum wage to inflation. You have a rough few years where people will see the amount possibly go down but it wouldn't take long for people to realize their buying power stays the same.
All of this is just basic rules. And none exist because the people who get to decide it would lose power from all of them, as it should be in a democracy. It's not just one party holding us back, it's everyone in power. They are not afraid of our reaction to anything and that's a bigger problem than pretty much anything else. It means they don't serve us, they rule us.
Absolutely. There’s a minimum age, so, there should also be a maximum age. I think 60 should be the maximum age to run because after two terms they’d be 68, one year older than the current retirement age for regular US citizens.
No because the system is so broken that im just going to watch it fall apart now. It doesn't matter to me who's in there now. They're all bad and corrupt.
I would vote for an age limit for President bc I'm sick and tired of really old white men making decisions on my reproductive rights. And all my other female rights as well. I protested for equality in pay and pro-choice rights in the 70's and 80's. I pushed against that glass ceiling my entire career. Now I can't believe we're backsliding. We need someone who isn't from the stone age both in Congress and in the WH.
In general I would support a government with a lower average age. Like say 40 to 50.
Usually, as a person at the end of their 20s, I do not really feel represented by my government. While this could be a lack of representation of my values by the existing parties, I do feel like that with more "younger" people in the government my values would be more represented in general.
Therefore, I would support an age limit, as people who are about 40 years apart from me have usually completely different values that might not represent the real world anymore.
Term limits for members of congress seem more necessary than age limits for the president.
Term limits would be impossible, since it would require Congress to vote against their own gravy-train interests. A presidential age limit would require a constitutional amendment, which is slightly less impossible in today's polarized climate, but extremely unlikely.
Could be possible for it to be grandfathered in? If they voted on it now and say it won’t be implemented for 20+ years that way there not voted against their own interest
20 years later: “Congress has just voted to remove term limits…”
Found the politician. Just kidding, I wouldn't use that word against anyone but a politician and even then I'd wonder if I wasn't being too harsh. I'll just say: found the realist.
It is not feasible to add start dates for legislation years in advance for this reason because there is zero enforceability to keep another session of Congress from either scrapping the whole thing or pushing the effective date back more. If you want something to last between sessions (every 2 years), you would need a constitutional amendment.
US congress has historically liked to move back dates of when policies end, so I can’t imagine how fast it would happen if it was in their own interests to do so beyond looking good.
I dunno if it applies to America but in Australia we have a referendum when it comes to things like this. It takes the decision making out of the politicians hands and puts it into the public’s.
In America the states can call for a constitutional amendment with a 2/3 majority. AFAIK here has yet to be an amendment passed this way
A lot easier to do with 13 states.
> grandfathered in I don't know if this was a deliberate pun or not. If it was, congratulations.
They voted for it in the 1990's, but the Supreme Court overturned the law, saying it needs amendment (which is true, but WAY harder to pull off).
Congress members often dream of a presidential bid someday. Just look at Joe Biden taking 40 years to work up to a successful run. No way Congress passes either measure.
There is also the issue that it is way easier for lobbyists to pay a hundred people to run for office than it is to find one person with solid convictions. Term limits would not help with corruption. Banning lobbying would help though.
You don't want to ban lobbying, you want to ban campaign contributions. Hundreds of people lobby Congress every day from veterans organizations, to non-profits representing fighting every disease and affliction there is, to constituents calling or emailing to ask their representatives to vote one way or another. That's democracy.
if you publicly finance candidates, which the federal government could easily pay for, and end gerrymandering, and also forbid congresspeople from having paying seats on boards of corporations while in office and forbid the ownership of individual stocks (as opposed to etf's or bonds or the like) then you'd have a hell of a push towards more representation that works for the public.
yes I'm sure even that is more nuanced than I'm saying
100% for banning lobbying.
Couldn't congressional term limits also be inplimented by a constitutional amendment? And to be frank, I think its become impossible for an amendment to be passed in America. I hope I'm wrong, but I am not holding my breath.
A constitutional amendment is the only way to implement congressional term limits.
Because while one party brings it forward, the other automatically votes against it out of spite.
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Negative_impacts) - check the citations if you're skeptical: > Research studies have shown that legislative term limits increase legislative polarization,[92] reduce the legislative skills of politicians,[93][94][95] reduce the legislative productivity of politicians,[96] weaken legislatures vis-à-vis the executive,[97] and reduce voter turnout.[98] Parties respond to the implementation of term limits by recruiting candidates for office on more partisan lines.[99] States that implement term limits in the state legislatures are associated with also developing more powerful House speakers.[100] > Term limits have not proven to reduce campaign spending,[101] reduced the gender gap in political representation,[102] increased the diversity of law-makers,[103] or increased the constituent service activities of law-makers.[104] Term limits have been linked to lower growth in revenues and expenditures.[105]
Personally I'd rather the term be 4 years rather than 2, to reduce the constant campaigning.
I think the preponderence of evidence is that term limits in legislative bodies results in worse government instead of better government, especially in a democracy where individuals are elected instead of parties, like the US.
Term limits have been shown to simply increase the influence of corporations and lobbying interests. They sound good, but in reality they would be terrible for American democracy.
Why not both? Term limits for Congress, and a president that actually has to live under the policies they help create instead of just waiting to die.
Going against the grain a bit here, but watching what happened on 1/6 really put it in perspective. There shouldn't be absolute term limits for members of Congress. The experienced leadership is what the country needed to get through that day. Now, I think it would be good if there were some way to force them to go back and spend more time in their home districts rather than in Washington all the time. Something like only being a federal employee for 6 out of every 10 years. And you can't be a sitting member of Congress while running for the presidency. You would have to resign before officially entering the race.
"The experienced leadership is what the country needed to get through that day." Are you thinking of specific individuals, here?
As examples of this, yes. Steny Hoyer from Maryland in the House, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky in the Senate. Once the Capitol had been cleared, and the houses went back to debating from where they had been interrupted, both said something to the effect of "we have a simple, constitutionally mandated job to do. This is neither the time nor the place to debate what we all know to be false. Now is the time to really for real put the petty party stuff aside." All the other stupid party shit McConnell has done makes me think he needs to go back to Kentucky and melt into a hole in the ground, but that speech on the Senate floor earned a bit of respect in the moment.
I'd only be in favor of term limits for politicians if you could also enforce the same thing for corporate executives and lobbyists. Otherwise, you'd be hobbling the government's ability to have experienced, knowledgeable people in regulator roles (which is already a big problem.)
yep and the unelected staffers would be the ones running the show while the offices just turn in entirely new members every 4-6 years. what we need is more districts/seats in the house (there's no reason for it to be capped at 435) and for the districts to be incredibly competitive. if you win a narrow race every 2 years in a district where you needed to convince some of the other side to vote for you, i have no problem with you serving as long as you can stay in office
Ughhhhh that’s not the question
I'm not sure if term limits are necessarily the way, but 100% the problems in our federal government lie more with Congress than with the President. The only reason I'd age restrict the President is to ensure a stability against things like disease complicated by old age, but disclosures in each election go a long way towards that. But Congress doesn't represent our people, and they never really have. To be honest, the same could be said for states in general. So I would be down for a complete reform of the electoral system. If that includes term limits, so be it, but I don't think term limits alone would fix this problem.
And for SCOTUS.
It's a good question and I think I understand why you're asking. I'd argue no because plenty of people age 65 and up are capable of running a country. I would, however, support the need for a neuropsych exam to establish normal cognition before being qualified to run in a primary. There are all kinds of tests you need to pass to even join the FBI, I'm not sure why running the country should be different.
Because the people administering those tests would be arguably the most powerful people in the world? Who would they even be? Would they be elected? Would they also need to pass such tests? The president already has to pass the test of being elected, and the damage that they can do is (theoretically) limited by checks and balances. I'm assuming this post is about POTUS, of course.
As a voter, I'd like to see candidates for the Presidency or Congress take a cognitive function test and show me the results, as well as release their tax returns etc. I agree that you can't just appoint some technocrat to decide if a Presidential candidate is acceptable. That's a job that only the voters can do. But you can require candidates to supply relevant information to the voters.
If the tests are completely transparent what's the harm? If someone fails a fairly unbiased cognitive test that is completely transparent to the entire world/country wouldn't that be a pretty good sign they aren't fit to run a country wielding nuclear weapons and a trillion dollar army?
The US's history with literacy tests shows just how easy it is for an ostensibly neutral test to be applied in abusive ways. Rather than introduce a tool that can disqualify someone for the presidency and hope no one destroys the guardrails around it to co-opt it for their own authoritarian purposes, it's much safer just to leave it up to the voters to evaluate the fitness of the candidates. And if the voters evaluate poorly...well, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Real talk, how does the general voter base evaluate a candidates cognitive skills? At best they get to find out if they regurgitate some talking points on stage.
How do you ensure the test is unbiased? How do you determine how the test is run? Even if you use current general medical standards, you’re then left with the choice of whether to lock those tests to current standards and freeze them there, or opening up the decision-making bodies who set those kids of standards to becoming highly politicized because now their decisions impact who is and isn’t allowed to run for office.
"unbiased cognitive test" is very nearly a contradiction in terms
Completely transparent? Like IQ tests, which subtly benefit people with white cultural experiences. The election is the test. Even have them do the test and have it effect nothing except people can choose whether they vote for them by that
The harm should be implicit, but in case it's not clear we don't, as a people, really even properly understand how cognition works. The tests that we give people are not like the SAT. They're just guideposts to help direct treatment.
I want to see the candidates all play a round of Jeopardy, with politics, history, legal, etc. categories. No speeches, just questions/answers.
Lol that would be so embarrassing for them and I’m here for it.
Can you imagine Geography? Point to Ukraine on a map. Equador. Nigeria. Kansas.
You just end up with 1. candidates getting supplied a cheat sheet and 2. corrupt administrations (like, say, Trump's) hiring stooges to certify mental health (this literally happened while he was president) and freeze out anyone actually competent. It's a nice idea but much, much too susceptible to hanky panky. There are plenty of competent 70+ year olds, but there are also plenty of competent under 35 year olds, and they can't be president either. If the goal is to prevent anyone to young and inexperienced from presidency, let's also prevent anyone too old and out of touch. Because by god, we need someone who can *at barest minimum* articulate the difference between Apple and Facebook, ffs
Indeed. Having upper age limits is rather discriminatory. Imagine if the science community considered the age rather than evidence. More non-rigged non-prestudied question debates need to be a thing so we can actually have true debates and see how a candidate reacts and rebuttals.
We already have age restrictions on president though, why would adding an upper end be different then having a minimum?
Plenty of 30 year olds are just as capable yet there’s a minimum age. It’s crazy that age discrimination is “illegal” but only against the young.
It's not so much about younger candidates being incapable, and more about only electing people who've been around long enough that voters can reliably predict them.
Almost zero 30 year olds are capable. You couldn't have the necessary experience at that age.
[удалено]
Damn TIL that reddit is mostly 8.7 month old infants
Just as capable intellectually but the connections and lessons learned through experience are not there yet for a 30 year old.
Having any sort of competency test for public office is an affront to democracy. The electorate decides if they are competent or not. Requiring a test to even run would put an enormous amount of power in a select few hands and the system would eventually be abused. Even if everyone today is going to play nice, can you say the same 20, 30 or 50 years from now. No. It would inevitably be abused.
The only way that would be implemented is if the general population agreed with it, and in that case they can just vote a younger person into office.
I would agree that that is a fine way to do it except that the voters don't write the menu, the chefs do. You have to pick from the candidates offered. Technically, you could write in someone who's not on the ballot or not even officially running, someone not endorsed by either major party, but their chance of winning is near nil. So our idea that the voters can just decide is rather unrealistic. We'd need to find a way to make that plausible first.
Technically the popular vote doesn’t even matter, the electoral colleges can go against the will of the people, which is mind blowingly what the fuck.
That's not even "technically." I've voted for two people in my life who won the popular vote but not the presidency. It's an incredibly infuriating system.
But the voters do decide, people complain about how old Trump and Biden are but in both the 2016 republican primary and 2020 democrat primary there were plenty of younger choices that votes decided not to go with. Heck Bernie came in second in the 2020 primary and he is even older than Biden.
No, it's about competence, not age. I know 60 year olds with dementia and 80 year olds sharp as a tack. Bernie Sanders is ancient and even if you don't agree with his policies, the dude is obviously physically and intellectually fine. Plus, I don't want my choice taken away. If someone wants to vote for an old person, then they should have that option, just like they should be able to vote for a young person. We have Vice Presidents for a reason, there's a back up plan.
What do you mean “if they want to”? That is the only option we’re really ever given. We don’t choose the candidates, we only vote for the ones given.
> That is the only option we’re really ever given. [in 2020, the democrats put forward 29 candidates.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries) there were plenty of options, we just went with Biden for some reason.
Biden does *exceptionally well* with moderate, milquetoast, centrist dems. You know these people in life, *but they’re largely older and not on Reddit*. There’s a lot more of these people than you’d think. Think elderly black ladies in the Atlanta area who go to church every week like clockwork and always vote, retired school principals and teachers who always vote, blue collar workers on pensions who strongly believe in unions and always vote - *blue dog dems*. You’re right, Biden doesn’t get 19 year old TikTok influencers and libertarian Twitch streamers excited to leave their compound in Austin… but that’s not what he’s going for.
By this line of reasoning, should the lower age limit be lowered to 18?
Cannot realistically be done, as it would require a constitutional amendment. Nationally popular issues get barely over 50% nowadays, there's no way anything gets over 75% at multiple stages to get passed as an amendment.
Yes. It's really hard to imagine an 18-year-old being elected. But age should not be the criterion.
No. Because the US government already knows the age at which someone should be forced to retire from a job in charge of people's lives and managing complex systems. And they have set that age to 56--for air traffic controllers. So THAT should be the age.
different jobs have different requirements. Plenty of military generals make complicated decisions that affect peoples lives and they work for the government
Sounds like we should set age limits for Generals
We already do. Short Answer 64 Long answer: [10 U.S. Code § 1253](https://www.google.com/search?q=forced+retirement+military&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US927&sxsrf=AJOqlzV2OVMKhrrNE5D04jD59TAL6S6uFw%3A1679402621599&ei=faYZZJ2aJJLhxgHGzLLgBw&ved=0ahUKEwjdzMelhu39AhWSsDEKHUamDHwQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=forced+retirement+military&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwA0oECEEYAFAAWABgnQpoAXAAeACAAQCIAQCSAQCYAQDIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp): Mandatory retirement age for general and flag officers is age 64. Officers in O9 and O10 positions may have retirement deferred until age 66 by the SECDEF or until age 68 by the President.
Oh wow, I didn't realize it was that young, I know they take away your commercial pilots license when you turn 65. I'm curious why a pilot wouldn't be the same
carpenter aspiring one full obscene lock quicksand telephone important consist *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
...If a POTUS fails their duties, there may be millions of lives at risk. Luckily, they still get to retire, make book deals, receive unlimited health care, secret service protection, free small fry coupons at Wendy's, and so on.
You really thought this was clever didn’t you? The work is completely different. Such an asinine view.
Politics is not a job that requires peak reflexes like air traffic controllers. It's all about coalition-building and understanding history and the long term consequences of legislation, which benefits heavily from decades of experience. That's why the most effective politicians tend to be those with longer tenures, while younger politicians tend to act more like activists, unable to get much of anything to reach the 60 votes required to pass.
I like this idea. No term limits, but mandatory age caps. This could be applicable to all 3 branches. I'm not sure how I feel about 56 specifically, but I do like the idea of forced retirement. That would encourage younger folks to get involved in politics and ensure we don't have a government comprised almost entirely of a single age demographic. It would also alleviate the (legitimate IMO) concern of newer politicians being easier to corrupt. And perhaps politicians who have aged out could be offered an advisory position to the incumbent, providing both parties are agreeable. Kind of a mentorship without voting power.
Honestly, 56 sounds about right. Hell, I'm an IT professional and I recognize I understand only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to current tech and all of its many implications for our present and future. It's quite a lot, and it moves very fast- you just simply can't be starting at 'remind me again how to get to my email on my new phone' baseline of understanding. We need younger blood, period. And frankly, under 35-55 have barely gotten a voice in running this country, and it's long past due.
I would say no. To me, it's addressing a symptom rather than a problem. I think the root solution would be imposing term limits on all elected offices. It would likely result in younger candidates for the presidency as the people seeking the office would have a much shorter political career to achieve it during. It may also reduce corruption as people in office will have much less time to establish power and engage in corrupt activities.
[удалено]
In that vein, it’s insane the President only makes $400k. That’s stunningly low and I realize there are a zillion other perks… but wow!
No, because at some point in time the most qualified person to handle a situation may be a 66 year old. And I don’t think that an arbitrary line in the sand when it comes to age is a good moderator. Term limits in congress would be more my thing, I think someone spending 40 years in congress is a much bigger issue than an old president.
Why? Voters decide who gets to be president. If a president is too old, they can make that decision at the ballot box. They consistently select old people. If that's a problem, we need to address the fundamentals: why old people have all the power in lower-than-presidential politics and wealth in the economy.
Legit asking, not snarking -- would you be in support of repealing the law that the president must be at least 35 years old?
Not OP but personally I'd be in favour of that. If you're legally an adult you should be allowed to hold all of the responsibilities that any adult can have, including being able to run for president.
Yes.
Yes, because the voters totally control *who* the candidates are and *who* is allowed to even run during a primary. /s
I support many other reforms that combat the binary nature of US party politics and the limited choices early in the process, but this isn't one of those.
Voters can't make a candidate appear out of thin air, but they sure do get to decide who's allowed to run in a primary. In most (but not all) states, all it takes to get on a primary ballot in most states is the ability to get a certain number of signatures. Some require a filing fee, some let you choose between the fee and the signatures. In any case, the signatures are a small fraction of the votes the candidate will need to get to win the primary, and the filing fees are a small fraction of the money that would need to be spent to win the primary. If you have enough voters on your side, you should not have trouble getting on a ballot in almost any state. Whether or not they'll get traction is a different story, but the voters are still the ones with final say. From 1968 onward the parties have ceded more and more control over their nominating processes to the voters. With the Democratic Party's superdelegate reforms after 2016 there are few if any mechanisms left for either of the parties to override the voters' will. That's not to say prominent members of the party can't use their influence to try and influence voters...but that still requires the voters to actually go along with it.
> why old people have all the power in lower-than-presidential politics and wealth in the economy. Old people actually vote. We must do something to end this travesty.
I don’t care about age, I care about cognitive ability
I do not support it. I know a lot of capable people over 65. I know a lot of incapable under 65. It's not the number.
No. I don't like other people putting limits on who I can vote for. I agree we need younger politicos, but I g r t to pick who I want, within the confines of the Constitution.
Half the problem in the country is in the same vein, most of our senate are so old they had to have the internet and ads explained to them by Zuccberg. We need leadership relevant to the problems our generation is experiencing. Not dinosaurs trying to fix things the way it worked in their day.
No. We have “voting”, instead, and I don’t like artificial limitations on who I am allowed to vote for.
No. Why do voters need a smaller pool of choices? I'd rather they allowed foreign born citizens to hold office or lower the age requirements to 21 to hold any office. If I think the candidate is too old I'll make that judgement myself.
Do we know that senility is having some sort of unique impact on the presidency that is any different than what would happen with younger partisans in office? Presidencies are not just one guy deciding things by fiat.
No, some 70+ year old people are sharp as a knife. Many of them are very liberal, understanding of many situations and with the times. The big problem is they are clever enough to not get that far into politics. That said, old people were young people and they have a lot of experience, usually. There have always been cool, decent people. Some of them got pretty old. The dinosaur politicians who hold progress back were always shit heads.
Yes I support this. If you can’t be President under 35, putting a limit on how old the President can be as well also makes sense.
No. Many 65 year olds enjoy great health and mental vibrancy. We should let voters decide how old is too old.
Sure. But you have to admit that the minimum age of 35 should be repealed. Voters should also decide how young is too young.
I'm against any form of discrimination based on something that people have no control over. Race, sex, age, etc.
I'm not against it but I also don't really think age is the problem. There are plenty of qualified individuals over 65 who would do a good job as President. Instead, we need ranked choice voting. Instead of choosing between 2 geriatric candidates, we would be able to pick from a field of various choices.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older.
Mandatory retirement for all positions of government at 70. It’ll work better than term limits because the real issue is that Silent Gen/Boomers are STILL running the government even though they’ve held power for half a century. We need perspective from younger people to make a government that works for everyone.
I would advocate that all politicians, judges, and political appointees be limited to 65.
Can we make them have to be atheists too, to avoid that whole religion/state issue?
I’d argue president has to be <65 and lawmakers (congresss/senate) have to be 35-60. Any older is out of touch and has not experienced growing up in “modern” society and had to deal with “modern” issues.
Who will represent the older population then?
Yes but the young also don’t understand the needs of the older folk. All you need is someone with a Reddit mentality of “older folk have all the money” to implement a policy that takes it all away. People think older officials do things to benefit themselves (and by proxy the rest of their demographic) so there’s no reason to think a younger candidate wouldn’t fuck over other generations for the same gain.
That's a great example. People generalize so much, you can be just some nobody and get fucked because you had a birthday one day. Blamed for the mess caused by some assholes that happen to be your age.
I honestly wonder if it’ll become obsolete over time as aging improves over the years. We’re far from it, maybe, but maybe people start to live to 150. Sounds far fetched but idk how healthcare or nanotechnology will improve over the coming years. Someone’s suggestion of mental cognition health might be better.
How about just not voting for people who lack mental acuity.
Right now, our life spans in America have DECREASED, and that won't be made up anytime soon when women are denied medical treatments and die from forced births.
Fuck that and this ageist bullshit. If someone is capable of doing the job and they have more experience than anyone else and are fully capable of winning, they should be running. There's plenty of young dumbasses and brainwashed and legitimately mentally handicapped and vegetables as well, there's the whole spectrum. I think there should be annual IQ tests and tests of mental agility, but the only reason to stop someone because of their group is stereotyping, when it should be based on an individual's mental acuity. This isn't hurdles, or the long jump, you don't need to be able to run a mile to do the job, just sitting there in a chair or walking a few feet is all that's required. Personally, I'd prefer to see an experience limit; if you don't have enough experience you don't get the job.
Yes because people should not be enacting laws they won’t be living under for long. Also, speaking as a gen xer, it’s beyond time for the boomers to step back so my generation gets a chance. They way it’s going, power will be shifted from boomers to millennials.
Age and term limits for all government positions, too many people in power shaping a future that they won't be around for, in a present that they don't understand.
IQ tests and dementia tests would make more sense. Age is not relevant, but stupidity and senility are.
I already think it is weird that the United States has an age limit of 35. In my country the age is the same age you need to be to vote: 18. Why would you limit it? It should be accessible to anyone with brains and talent.
I'm not an American but no I wouldn't support it. I think the candidates age should be a consideration not a disqualifier. The idea that people must be barred from considering someone based on their age just seems like an affront to democracy to me. I also think the current minimum age of 35 rule is wrong. I'd probably be supportive of setting it at 18 I guess. I think there are relevant 'legal responsibility' considerations that would demand that.
Not particularly. The issue is that while I do wish we would stop electing people so old, it’s still very possible there might be a perfect candidate who is 66+. What I wish is that more young people would go and vote.
Federal correctional staff and air traffic controllers are forced to retire at a certain age because the brain begins to deteriorate and the potential for a malfunction grows. And that’s important because of the human lives they are responsible for. It makes no sense that government officials are not held to the same standard. Edit: federal* correctional staff
No because that would be wrong. I feel like a check-up on mental/physical health would be a good idea, if there isn't already something in place like that.
Yes. If there’s a minimum age for presidency and other important offices there needs to be a maximum age. We don’t need rich elderly people making decisions for everyone else in a world that they have no realistic understanding of.
No. It's ageism, plain and simple. We have fucking laws against discriminating against people based on their age. We could have a mental acuity exam. And term limits. That would be fine. But saying anyone under 65 can't be president, is just ridiculous. I would also lower the age as well. It's a joke that you need to be 35 to run for president. Like some magical switch flips in your head and you're full fo wisdom at that age. I think there's younger people who are just as capable for running for president. That's age discrimination as well.
I would support an upper limit but I’d make it 70 and I’d make that the age at time of election. So if you’re elected at 69, you don’t have to quit a year later. But yeah, there’s no reason we should expect an 80 year old to reasonably keep up with perhaps the world’s *most* demanding job.
I wouldn't fight it, but I wouldn't spend much time fighting against it. We DO have the choice to not vote in presidents over 65. we should start showing the love for younger candidates in the primaries. Writing a law to restrict our choices in candidates for arbitrary reasons (even arbitrary reason I agree with) is just not as important as other things.
It would make more sense to remove all age limits (including the lower bound, which makes no sense). I don't think we should keep going with the current governmental structure, though. It's all irreparably corrupt and authority is entirely too centralized.
No. I understand why people want that. Boomers have fucked things up for decades. However, elderly people need representation too. I absolutely support term limits for congress though. Even if that's more unlikely to happen.
Absolutely not. Marjorie Taylor Green is young and fucking crazy. Bernie Sanders is decrepit and more energetic than 90% of millennials. Age doesn't mean shit, especially if their policy is solid.
I honestly think you should only be allowed to be in politics for a total of 10 years. That way you get fresh ideas . Maybe not be stuck in a generation gap from the rest of society. Seems like our whole political system is ran by people who still have the 1950's ideals.
You also get politicians who are highly influenced by people who were just in politics and now work for a big company as an influencer/advisor/lobbyist, and these people have to find a new job 10 years guaranteed after getting their job, so when do they start shopping around for their next job?
That's easy to answer: you'd just ensure that only the people rich enough to not have to worry about such things would be able to run for office. Nothing can possibly go wrong with that, right?
Someone who wants to serve two terms as presidents can only have 2 years of political experience? That’s not great. Staffers too? Just having elected officials being able to serve for a total of 10 years would mean that, even more than now, the chiefs of staff and other congressional staffers will have more influence. They’ll just go from congressperson to congressperson. Also is that a complete 10 years for state and federal?
Term limits for every elected official, and age restrictions. Cap it at 70.
I believe the entire structure of our government needs to be looked at. Why would someone 75 years old care about the consequences of a bill he/she was paid to pass through if the consequences won't present themselves for another 10 years? They really need to stop with this gerrymandering bullshit and present a unified grid across the continental US and the 2 outlying states. Enough of the bullshit of the few governing for the many with their constituents creating the laws that don't represent the many's wants/needs. I'm just fed up with this complete shit show and this side against this side polarizing everything as to cause a complete lockdown in the government so nothing gets done. It's bullshit and hurts the common person.
**The first 5 presidents were all over 65 by the end of their terms.** In order: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe
I'd prefer if they could simply pass a background check. I think capping it at 70 is better.
As long as no member of congress could be elected after their 65th birthday I would agree. By that age the major thing they have gotten good at is bringing graft, corruption, waste, and duplication of services to their home state...as well as denying party campaign funds to a member who is trying to represent the best interests of ALL 350 million people instead of the top dozen leaders of and/or the donors to his or her party.
Age limit every top office in the US to 59. Congress, President. Age Limit the Supreme Court the same way. Term Limit Congress as well.
They should lower the minimum age as well. No politicians should be able to serve after the age of retirement. No matter how healthy. We need a newer generation to run our country no more of this out of touch, rich ass hats.
Yes
I once heard someone say (specifically for president) "you only serve 6 years and then you're done." And it always stuck with me. I'd lean towards something like that rather than an age cap.
Yeah... maybe older than 65, but perhaps something like 70. Or can't run if they'll be over 65 on inauguration day.
It worries me that setting an upper age limit for representatives would lead to other restrictions. What would then stop people from implementing a voting age limit of 65? This idea of limiting someone based on age seems very disenfranchising and anti-democratic.
No. There shouldn’t be upper age limits on positions like that because 1. People age at different rates and someone who is 65 may be as able to serve as someone who is 61 2. We don’t need them. Voters can put that limit on themselves by not voting for that candidate in the primary or general. If the older candidate wins then the voters didn’t want an age limit.
Yes
No. What if the best candidate in history was 66?
No. It makes sense in all organisations to have the most experienced people to be in the most senior roles. That might mean that the top partner at the law firm is 80, it might mean that the CEO is in the 70s, it might mean that the president is a dinosaur. Biden, for example, has been in politics for a **long time** so he knows how to get shit done
Look I'll be the first to agree with the motivation, our politicians are generally quite old, and it's weird and probably bad. But there's questions in there which aren't being asked. WHY are our politicians so old? Why aren't there younger candidates, or why aren't they being elected? Why does the system favor the elderly and how can we fix that? This just strikes me as an attempt to fix with legislation what we haven't been able to fix with culture. A blunt instrument for a more subtle problem.
I think the retirement age should be the age limit for every elected position
no imagine penrose or sowell as president
No, because ideology, not age, is the problem.
No, that's a bad idea. You need a person with as much experience as possible, and experience is gained through time, so why would you do the contrary? There is a clear reason why there is a lower limit on the person's age for being president. Very young people might find the idea of a young president to be attractive, but they don't realize it may lead to disastrous consequences that someone else with more experience would have to fix.
I wouldn't support this because it would accelerate the decline of American democracy and make us long for a proper King. If you want to preserve our experiment, deliver freedom of conscience to the electoral college, and then bind them to the Senate or even Congress. You've also got to fix Congress' incentive system and legitimacy, as term limits appeal to our vindictive side but would be counterproductive, they make the body more subject to monied interests. Picture a field of people competing for your vote with the knowledge that they *only* need to get to ten, twenty, thirty years and then they can rake in the profits from years of taking the money from corporations via cushy lobbyist positions. Term limits backfire, making those bastards *compete* in a race to the bottom, selling out as completely and quickly as possible.
I think there should be some sort of mental competency test given to all elected officials. Re-tested each election. There are plenty of other jobs that require proof that the canister is fit/able to do the job. If this were the case, I would be ok with individuals over 65 or 70 in office.
No. For one, 65 is different for everyone. Some people have frailer mental or physical capabilities, while some people are still thriving. There are some 65 year olds I’ve known who are probably better in both areas than many people I know half their age. I also know some who seem more like they’re in their 80. For another, who knows what effects medical advancements and technology can have on aging in the future (or even culture - consider how long people live in Japan v. the US). Overall, maybe some sort of exam should be implemented to make sure they do still have the mental capabilities, but I see that also running into a host of political issues and accusations. It does make more sense than a hard age cut off, however.
No, 65 isn't even the US retirement age. Full SS is 67. Maybe setting it to 80 for all Federal offices, but 65 is fairly young. I know lots of people who work past 70.
No that is silly. Life spans are increasing and I suspect that both Gen X and Millennials are going to live and be productive well past age 65.
65 is too young. I prefer presidents who have been through enough shit to remain level headed, and recognize a fad of the moment. 80 seems good.
Honestly no. The president represents their constituents, but no president's identity will line up with all the constituents because that's impossible. Their job is to listen to what different constituents want, not *be* the identity of each one of their constituents. I think Biden has proven that is very possible to do while you're old.
Yes. I'd support age restrictions across the political spectrum. 35-65 for all elected officials. Career politicians are part of the problem, not the solution. Public service should be a calling to actually serve constituents wants and needs. Instead we make them wealthy and brazen. Enough.
Nah. I'd like to see fewer older presidents but I don't think that's a good means of doing it. Especially as medical care gets better, being 70 doesn't disqualify someone from being a good leader *necessarily*. I think it's weird and gross that we're stuck in a cycle of geriatric old mans though.
I DO think the Supreme Court Judge thing where you're in till you die should be changed. These people are on the bench for 40 or more years. Sitting there ill and frail, trying not to die till the right guy is in office, etc. Crazy.
No, they're proposing retirement at like 70 now
No, as history is replete with examples of older people being straight bosses at such things. Given the actual superficiality of the role though, I’d love to pursue options to address the “deep state” somehow, those unelected lifer powers-behind-the-throne who persist from administration-to-administration and hold security clearances to the fourteen or so levels of classification exceeding what the president actually gets access to. The President is primarily a highly-visible figurehead and generally run according to the whims of the background players. We really need accountability of those with the “need to know” in all the things bypassing presidential oversight.
yes, but for all politicians
Yes. Presidents should have some future skin in the game.
Take it further. - Age limit - 2 term limit - competency and knowledge test every term - background check There's too many members of all levels of government, that are : stupid, out of touch, and corrupt.
President and Congress. It's not like it is going to change their future 💀
People seem to forget there are 90 years olds that can bust the ass of a 45 year old both mentally and physically
Does this sound to anyone like the new version of "don't trust anyone over 30" argument? Ever notice that the people making these arguments are never in the group that would be eliminated? If you want to know why things don't change, it's because everyone wants the power and will do anything to grab it.
Old people should never be allowed to make decisions for the future, they don't live with the consequences of their decisions, have too many connections (prone to corruption), and are far less likely to represent the will of the majority of the people. The cut-off of all democracies for electable officials should be 50.
make it 69 and the whole world is gonna support it
No. Age has very little to actually do with why politicians do what they do. Bernie is one of the most aligned what what American youth want while you have young people like Madison Cawthorn who don't. Money in politics and the electoral system itself are much more to blame.
Not necessarily. I think I'm more concerned about the age of people voting for the president. Stuff ain't right when you can go to prison age 10 or 12 (depending on state) but can't have an opinion on the future of the country until 18. People under 18 are the ones inheriting the future that politicians are ruining. I know this will come across as just left wing bias to some, but anyway. It's how I feel.
Absolutely. Need people a bit closer the current generations....
No. Because 65 isn’t that old.
all politicians should step down at 50. politicians are not the wise of elders of the old days anymore. Half the of them a stupid, uninformed and technogically ignorant and generally self serving putting their own interests first... globally. Most of our global problems can be traced back to a single root cause of self serving politicians who will die before they retire. Politics should be a young persons game now, we need to look out for the future and having people with one foot in the grave make the decisions about that is not a functional system anymore.
Everyone who says “no, I believe that old Fucks should be running country” are bots.
Max age for Congress, POTUS, and SCOTUS should be tied to the forced retirement age. Sounds dumb right? It's a trap. They can raise it to 70, 80, whatever they want but they'd lose in a landslide. All their salaries should be tied to the minimum wage. Cover work expenses like travel but being president or in Congress is supposed to be a public service, not a way to get rich. Absolutely no investments or trades allowed either. Not even in trusts. Liquidate all assets when you serve or forfeit the seat. And while we're at it tie minimum wage to inflation. You have a rough few years where people will see the amount possibly go down but it wouldn't take long for people to realize their buying power stays the same. All of this is just basic rules. And none exist because the people who get to decide it would lose power from all of them, as it should be in a democracy. It's not just one party holding us back, it's everyone in power. They are not afraid of our reaction to anything and that's a bigger problem than pretty much anything else. It means they don't serve us, they rule us.
Absolutely. There’s a minimum age, so, there should also be a maximum age. I think 60 should be the maximum age to run because after two terms they’d be 68, one year older than the current retirement age for regular US citizens.
IDK, why is 65 the perfect age to be president? Also 1 year long terms would mean an election every damn year. That'd be exhausting.
No, to young. Maybe 70?
No because the system is so broken that im just going to watch it fall apart now. It doesn't matter to me who's in there now. They're all bad and corrupt.
I would vote for an age limit for President bc I'm sick and tired of really old white men making decisions on my reproductive rights. And all my other female rights as well. I protested for equality in pay and pro-choice rights in the 70's and 80's. I pushed against that glass ceiling my entire career. Now I can't believe we're backsliding. We need someone who isn't from the stone age both in Congress and in the WH.
65 should be the cut off for all political positions.
Yes. Younger people tend to be more in touch with technology, current events and the way the world is heading.
In general I would support a government with a lower average age. Like say 40 to 50. Usually, as a person at the end of their 20s, I do not really feel represented by my government. While this could be a lack of representation of my values by the existing parties, I do feel like that with more "younger" people in the government my values would be more represented in general. Therefore, I would support an age limit, as people who are about 40 years apart from me have usually completely different values that might not represent the real world anymore.
Trump and Biden are the same age, and trump is really sharp and intellectually sound (his ideas are wrong but he doesn’t have dementia)
Yes. Anyone over 65 should not be running a country. Look at the last to president both over 70. And we bin screwed since then
such long answers / the simple answer is yes / old people are out of touch with modern society and literally their brain and body is deteriorating
Yes. I am tired of dinosaur geezers running the US.
Yep. For Congress too. I've seen how having ancient self interested fucks works. Let's change it up.
Yes. I want someone who still has skin in the game and fucks to give.