I'm onboard with 65 as the maximum age anyone can run for Congress but I don't have a problem with people 65+ finishing their terms provided they're actually competent. I'd like to see mandatory cognitive decline testing for anyone running for Congress, appointed to the SC or appointed to any high position in the executive branch.
It's absolutely ridiculous that we're allowing people with 5-7y remaining life expectancy to plan our future 20, 40 or 100y out - they just don't have the skin in the game that someone in their 20s or 30s does.
On top of all of that I'd like to see vigorous corruption testing, SC justices and congresscreatures shouldn't be bought and paid for the way they are now.
"After many decades of civil service, it is time for the state to give back to our hard working representatives. Therefore they will be retired in januray of the year following their 65th birthday"
"January 6th has for the last few years been a reminder of an embarrassing moment in our history, well no longer! January 6th shall henceforth be known as a day of celebration, celebrating not only long and faithfull service but also new talents, skills and hope for the furue! Join us, as we once again rejuvinate our government to keep our nation strong and dependable!"
I agree on the legislature, but not the court. The legislature has to plan for the future. Their age should be below the average life expectancy. They need to have a foreseeable future for us to allow them to plan ours.
I would resolve the instability of the court by eliminating its fixed size. One new justice shall be appointed every other year. In the odd-numbered years, between election cycles.
This will tend to increase the size of the court over time. The average term length is currently about 16 years, but that is with strategic retirements. I would expect the average term to increase to 24 to 36 years, leaving us with a court of 12 to 18 justices.
Honest question, what do we do that we are now living longer, and have better quality of life and medical advancements? With AI progressing exponentially, this will likely increase average lifespans in developed countries. You might be arguing against your own comments here when you hit 65 and realize you still maintain mental acuity and are thriving.
Personally, I feel like we should be spending our time and focus on fixing a number of other issues. Namely lobbying, special interest groups tied to anti-consumer companies, 'slap on the wrist' fines for billion dollar companies, predatory lending, student loans. I mean the list goes on. These things aren't an age problem, it's a corruption problem.
You might be arguing against your own comments here when you hit 65 and realize you still maintain mental acuity and are thriving.
I’m not running for office nor scotus. But if I were, I’d hope reason would dictate sensible policy, not magical thinking about whatever far-off technological theoretical you might imagine.
In 1900, the average life expectancy of a newborn was 32 years. By 2021 this had more than doubled to 71 years.
But life expectancy has increased at all ages. Infants, children, adults, and the elderly are all less likely to die than in the past, and death is being delayed.
This remarkable shift results from advances in medicine, public health, and living standards. Along with it, many predictions of the ‘limit’ of life expectancy have been broken.
I'm not saying we'll be doubling lifespans, but if you looked at the big picture, we've made HUGE strides and advances in a very short period of time. Especially if you consider how long humans have been around. Now we have CRISPR gene editing for example, and very obviously artifical intelligence/machine learning will grow exponentially fast.
I also didn't say anything about ignoring policy in lieu of science, and pointed out several areas I personally feel could use attention. However that is my own opinion... Just like you on running/not for office.
It is also clear that some aged people are 'sharp' to the end, just as some can be debilitated earlier to disease and age. Sensible policy is also welcome. I just don't think we should lump everyone together using an arbitrary metric.
Yes, aside from their senility, our politicians are simply way too out of touch to comprehend the average American's issues. Spent most of their life in politics with the easiest 6 figure salary (plus bribes) you can have.
Granted politicians will probably remain out of touch but I'd like to imagine it'd be better
Fair enough, you're less likely to vote for shit policies if you know that you're going to be living with them. And even if you do vote for shit policies and end up living with them, it was entirely your damn fault. And you just brought it on yourself.
Let's do it slightly differently, let's make the mandatory retirement age for political office the median life expectancy age for the entire country. If the politicians, etc can manage to make everyone live longer, they can hold office longer.
Similarly, take away their separate and different medical coverage and put them on the same Medicare system everyone else in the country has to use.
Force them to use the public option. Make a law to specifically disallow all congresspersons from enrolling in private insurance for as long as they hold office. Violation of that restriction is immediate ejection from the relevant legislative chamber.
First I would support campaign finance reform and watch 90% of the problems be solved.
Then I would tackle the other 10% by making voting more accessible - especially in primaries. Make it so accessible that even young voters bother to do it. That way people will choose younger reps more often.
So no, I wouldn’t support putting a bandaid on one issue and ignoring the root causes.
People like to think that the seventies is when you automatically lose your ability to think and do anything useful. That's bullshit; it's individual, genetics combined with access to good nutrition, healthcare, etc.
I used to work as a nurse's assistant, specifically in home health where the patients were often at home with spouses, and other age peers. I had patients as old as their 90s that could still function mentally just fine, but had physical issues. I had patients older than that too, several just past 100, but they really wouldn't have been able to be a walmart greeter.
But even with the patients that did suffer cognitive difficulties, there were plenty of family members and friends that didn't. Most people suffer only minor cognitive decline in their seventies. Given otherwise good health, there's no necessity for someone without a diagnosis that would prevent them from doing their job to be forced to retire.
What we need are term limits, not ageist bullshit. The problem isn't age, or even a given political bent, it's the accumulation of power and influence that then becomes a commodity open for purchase, leading to corruption.
Now, I wouldn't object to mandatory fitness evaluations, but that's going to be as corruptible as anything else political. I certainly think some specific diagnoses should exclude someone from making decisions for the entire nation, that affect the entire world, but that's a tough thing to make happen, much less make work.
But age? Age is absolutely not a factor in fitness for any public office. Hell, I'm of the mind that none of the elected offices should have minimum ages, beyond a national age of adulthood so that the people in the position aren't immediately beholden to someone like a parent. Pick whatever arbitrary age you want for that, and we're good to go as long as it passes muster legally.
Term limits have been shown to create ‘brain drain’, and ultimately what winds up happening is that that legislators must focus on career growth - either spending their time in office campaigning for the next elected position, or looking to opportunities beyond politics. It takes time and experience to become skilled in crafting bills that don’t have adverse effects and cannot be overturned or lawyered to do things they aren’t intended to do.
The net result is that it creates a slew of amateur legislators, and professional lobbyists, as legislators are forced to retire just as they become skilled at the job.
An alternative to a retirement age is mental/physical fitness reviews, but that’s also tricky. If there isn’t a defined process then unscrupulous people will just use a doctor of choice to get the results they want, but if there is a process, politicizing that process to serve one party or the other could mean using mandatory retirement to force key vacancies.
I do think that at some point we need to pry the hands of people off the levers of power, and I can’t think of a way that is as ‘non-corruptible’ as a set age limit. It would not always be personally fair, but it would probably be for the greater good.
I agree with the Idea that being in a position for too long increases the possibility of corruption. But, I'll counter with two thoughts:
1.) Shouldn't people have the ability to vote for who they want to represent them? If the people of Vermont want to keep on rejectingelecting Bernie Sanders, why should they not be able to? (Valid counterpoint- Dianne Feinstein)
2.) This is the less trivial one - I fear that term limits would invite more corruption, as the representatives understand they only have a limited amount of time to grease as many palms and make as many connections as possible in their limited amount of time in office. We already have issues with the lame duck period, and those are currently measured in weeks. I can only imagine what I'd be like if a large portion of reps had full lame duck sessions.
There are plenty of other things we could do to limit corruption before we rule out term limits for that reason. We could also think about politicians who feel more free to "do the right thing" even when unpopular because they won't be afraid about winning the next election.
Lifetime appointments to the supreme court are obviously a mistake; the idea there is to make them secure in their jobs so they don't have to politik from the bench. It doesn't account for actually evil people digging in like parasites in the heart of our government. They should serve a single 10 year term, at which point no matter their age they must retire and then serve no further roles ever again. Like, you're not allowed to go be a senator, or a congressman, or a governor, or a Walmart greeter. You can volunteer to speak to law students, you can retire, or you can die. Minimum punishment for a sitting or former supreme court justice for any crime: jay walking, copyright infringement, speeding, embezzling, mass murder: instant death. The guilty/not guilty verdict is read to your firing squad. The members of our highest court should be nothing less than absolute exemplars of citizenship.
The house and senate should have maximum terms of not ten years each; the senate currently has 6 year terms, that would have to be shortened, possibly to four. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if we eliminated those mid-election years so we could have some time away from being screamed at by our so-called government. You want a full career in politics? You start at the local or state level, then you run for federal office.
I would make prior office a requirement for President. As far as I'm concerned, you have no business serving as president if you have not already been a senator, congressman, governor, state senator or general assemblyman. I do not believe town council or city mayor should count here because of the low barrier to entry for buying 10 acres of rural land and incorporating it as a town with one resident and electing yourself mayor.
Yeah, but probably I’d make it lower (like 67) and allow exceptions with large majority (like a four year exception with a two thirds or three quarters vote of the senate).
I also think Supreme Court justices should have terms and term limits, and shouldn’t be allowed to receive gifts over a certain value (like $2,000).
I really do think term limits are a better solution than a hard age cap. Term limits would help address the age issue, and it would also make "career politician" a less viable career. That's a bigger problem imo - politicians doing politics for profit, as a career, rather than as a civic duty. That's a big part of why we have younger Republicans like MTG, Lauren Boebert, JD Vance, etc. whom a hard age cap would not effect for another couple decades at least.
Not an original idea by far, but I was chatting it up with a few friends recently about this and we thought a civic duty term made far more sense (think jury duty). So much needs to be fixed in the process, like the bill riders addons (a horrible scourge to our political system) and lobbyist (scum). But imagine you were picked (randomly) to serve for 3 year stints, with those getting picked for a 2nd and maybe even 3rd term, serving as some Senior politician. Clearly it needs much more thought, but far better potential because you have to participate and accountable.
Before you knock it down, think about the intelligence required here. Boebert is an absolute moron. Bills before the system need to be something the average person can understand (legal verbiage is such a pointless waste and almost unnecessary). You would need to participate in collaboration with others, understand how to be honest and forthcoming with your goals.
We can’t hold Politicians accountable (not the system today) and this could be an answer.
I think having some kind of required civics course for the random sounds appointees would do well. Legal language exists for reasons that go beyond being deliberately obtuse, so it could still be used to try and reduce ambiguity
Yeah, I think I’m talking about the purposeful legal jargon used to deceive or be arguable vague and 20 pages long for no reason but to hide that fact. I’m all about precision, but it needs to be something an average person would comprehend if we were to adopt this method.
No I'm for term limits. Each presidential election the popular vote should go to decide the party that gets to nominate the next justice. The first one in has to retire at that same time.
I also think we should increase the size of the court and cycle in/out two every four years - somewhere around where we'd have 20 year term limits. Side bonus, I think it'd be a benefit for all of us that the court has a larger variety of voices and be more difficult to hack the way the GOP has this court.
I'd support a four-term limit for the Senate, six-term limit for the House, and one term in the Supreme Court for a period of time not to exceed 20 years.
It's not the age, the length, or how many times you've been reelected, but getting elected in the first place has such a high barrier, massive gerrymandering, and more.
I think we need staggered term limits. Make it so you can only serve up to two terms in a row and then you are forced to take a term off. No lifetime appointments.
That and approval voting from federal to local elections.
Term limits for representatives and Senators are actually very toxic. It's a great way to make the parties monolithic and entrench party patronage systems even more.
Okay this isn't a topic that you can do a tiny take on. You've had the Tl;Dr already above so before I tell you why Term Limits are a bad idea let me tell you some good ideas. I'll do my best not to write a whole paper though. :)
The House of Representatives can be enlarged to the point that lobbying loses it effectiveness versus the power of constituents. According to the original ratio of Representatives to people we should have ~10,000 Representatives now. Now I get that some people see that as extreme. That's 1 Representative per 30,000 people. But the current ratios are around 1 Representative per 750,000 people. There's a lot of room for negotiation in there and the number of Representatives is set by law, not the Constitution. Even halving that ratio would make it easier for people to run for office, and easier for people to engage with their Representative. Plus, with modern technology, there's no reason we need to feel beholden to a building. Representatives can spend more time in their district, working in committees and voting remotely.
Many people are more concerned with senility or operating under outdated knowledge than they are with politics as a career. For this we can institute an Age Cap instead of Term Limits. Like the military we can designate being an elected official as a sensitive job and require retirement after a certain age. (The military requires it at 62) This largely avoids the problems with Term Limits while making sure we aren't choosing a single generation to be the bulk of our Representatives and Senators.
Lastly, we can take steps to get dark money back out of politics and enforce bribery laws that are already on the books. Sadly though this has turned into an issue for SCOTUS reform and abuse of congressional oversight for the FBI.
So Term Limits. They create three massive problems. The Party becomes the brand instead of the politician. Cycling legislators too often creates an experience issue that can be exploited by lobbyists and party officials. Finally, rich donors and think tanks have more money than the current system has excess legislators. There's more than this but these are the big three poison pills.
When we go to vote we vote based on a politician's brand. It's an American thing among western democracies. Other countries have recognizable party leaders but we're fairly unique in voting by individual name. This makes name recognition the number one hurdle any aspiring politician must get over. And the reason ads use the name they support 10 times in 30 seconds, while almost never mentioning the opponent. And when they do it's in audio/visual scare quotes. It's why incumbents have such an advantage. They've been on your news feed for years building their brand.
Term Limits turns that on its head. As we cycle through politicians there will be very little incumbent advantage. There will be far more people vying for your attention. Which means money. It's very expensive to get your name out there. So whose going to pay that bill? If the candidate isn't wealthy enough then it has to be PACs or the Party. (99% of us are not wealthy enough) Yes candidates can ask for donations, but unless they've got an independent source of name recognition, like being a renowned football coach, people aren't going to be very forthcoming. So we discover the method by which the Party becomes the brand. People need a familiar face to give money to. It's the same reason corporations use well known actors in their ads. Now this means another thing though. If the Party controls the branding, because it's how the money comes in, then the Party controls the money. And this also means they control who the money goes to. They get to pick the party candidate without ever interfering in the vote. This actually already happens to an extent. But Term Limits would pour gas on the fire, making this effect much worse.
So now we have Party chosen legislators we need to move on to the next problem, experience. Career politicians know who to call for technical advice, or at the very least they know when they should seek it. Those connections don't exist with freshmen and junior representatives. They're completely at the mercy of experienced staff, lobbyists, and the party that likely provided their staff. (You want our money, you use our people) For example, with Term Limits, they'd be getting forced out right around the time they figured out which military officer they could rely on for a no bullshit assessment of a weapons program. Then there's experience in crafting legislation.
Just recently SCOTUS had a case about releasing inmates with drug convictions and the eligibility terms. The case hung on the proper English grammar of a list. Only it's SCOTUS so it's actually an exercise in making the grammar twist their way politically. And that's with experienced legislators. We already know how the parties would solve this problem though. Pre-written legislation is a thing in most of our state legislatures. The lobbyists actually write the bill, complete with [insert state name here] type entries. One such example, the HOPE act made it harder for people to get food stamps. The exact same wording, in nine states. This kind of rubber stamp legislature will only get worse with Term Limits. Because politicians need to get re-elected, or at least until they reach their lame duck period. And anyone who doesn't toe the line doesn't get their campaign funded.
Which brings us to point three. Why would a lame duck Representative or Senator keep toeing the line? Because they're human, they probably have a family, and they'd like to get paid to stay in the game doing what they know. It's a lot better then the uncertainty of a career switch, and the Party is always hiring. In fact maxing your term with good behavior could become a pre-requisite for higher party positions. Don't worry there's always an exception for the inordinately wealthy. It's that wealth that's going to pay for the cushy landing of ex legislators in board rooms, think tanks, and party positions across America. The only difference is it might become a time limited deal instead of an actual sinecure like it is now. But it would still be life changing money and networking for most people. The important part here though is you must remain loyal to the party, you must vote the way they tell you to vote, and you must stump for your pre-selected replacement.
The two major parties already have way too much influence in our system. And the natural competitor stops being independent candidates or third parties. It becomes the lobbyists themselves. After all if campaigns become even more aligned with money, then who has more money than private multi national corporations?
60 for retirement, but allowed to sub contact into the party as advisor positions as staff and encouraged to. But no on the floor decision making positions.
Not a retirement age but to run for public office, I think the candidate should have at least 20 years of median actuarial life expectancy remaining. They need to make long-term decisions so they better be around to see how it goes. Right now this is age 60 for men and age 64 for women. In the future it may go as high as 70. If you really wanted to push it I think 18 years would be symmetrical with childhood. First 18 and “last 18” you can’t be in office.
I think that 75 is already too old, especially because they won’t let go of their positions until their terms end even after the “mandated” age of retirement (unless the law specifically forbids taking a position you won’t be able to complete)
Politicians will argue that this age is either too young or too old and will either never update this law, or update it so often it becomes meaningless.
An alternative could be to set the limit to a percentage of average life expectancy, or some other variable, so the law isn’t as easy to ignore or mess with, the law can remain unchanged for decades and remain relevant without adverse effects (hopefully), and politicians are encouraged to improve the quality of life.
no. bernie is a great example of why age is no restriction to being a good politician. you people have to stop trying to use goose and gander legislation to stop conservatives. you stop conservatives by STOPPING CONSERVATIVES.
I am running out of time to type up a comment right now, so I apologize for just link dumping, but if you have time, I encourage you to check these out:
Absolutely. Maybe younger. Politicians shouldn't be able to vote on issues that will have major effects that they won't have to live through. I also think we should disenfranchise people minus 18 years. Give politicians a reason to support policies that increase public health to increase the voting age.
That's not how that works. The seniors being exploited are not the well retired ones with the free time and health to go vote. And what happens when we become seniors? Are we to be punished for the sins of a particular subset of one generation?
It’s more about having “skin in the game” It appears that many representatives/senators are creating or upholding laws that immediately benefit them, the companies that support them, and their industries on the whole.
If someone was closer to middle-age, they have enough experience to make good choices while also being young enough for the negative consequences to happen while they are still alive.
No.
Some of the worst politicians are young.
Some of the best politicians are old.
Age isn't a problem. Undemocratic systems and bad politics are problems.
I don't think so. One you'd lose Bernie. Two it's a bit harsh to assume anyone over a certain age isn't mentally capable of governing or changing with the times.
I'm a Bernie fan too, but Diane Feinstein bothered me in multiple ways. She was infirm and senile for years but still chose to run for reelection when she and her staff knew she had multiple health problems. Her aids were telling her how to vote, but the voters didn't elect them, and who knows who's interests they represented. Her stubbornness to not retire was a disservice to Californians. I also have concerns that Mitch McConnell is doing a similar disservice to the state of Kentucky with his health problems due to age.
Bernie still has his mental faculties, and could still inspire, and sway representatives while being out of office. I would listen to him, and think progressive representatives would as well.
I wonder if it would be better to have a term limit. I don't really care if you are 125, but there should be a limit to how long you sit there with huge amounts of power. Especially since they aren't directly re-elected.
No. For two reasons, one you don't want to force the people to give up an actually good representative. Two, term limits for Representatives and Senators actually creates more corruption and entrenches the party as the entity instead of the politician.
I mean, as long as we're dreaming... We need a hell of a lot more representatives. It used to be proportional to population, but it was capped at 435 (in the 1930s?). Way more reps would probably help more parties emerge as well.
Not an American but if you should have and every country should have a minimum age, like 21 because of mental and physical maturity, and a maximum age like 75, because of the risk of possible stamina and mental decline.
We do not need people like Mitch McConnell who genuinely think 600 dollars is this crazy large amount of money you can live comfortably on for years. This is a real argument he has made.
Yes. Our country is run by geriatrics who, among other things related to modern society, legislate on technology they don't understand. We need younger members with more flexible minds who have at least spent some part of their younger lives dealing with problems we have a modern variation of today.
But especially SCOTUS members. Any kind of term limit on them would be better than what we have.
This was an engagement bait question on Reddit that was frequently posted. It seems so far Lemmy is overwhelmingly in favor just like reddit probably as the population is not old (I'm not either).
I don't know how I feel about it as the constant repost and bait question were something I disliked on Reddit.
I heard even more radical proposal (not in us) - cap the voting age. Reason is simple, by voting you decide about future, how can pensioners who, frankly, will die soon can reasonably decide about my future if I am 20 yo.
Simple, if you can't get elected before a age X then you shouldn't be able to get elected after (life expectancy - X)
Example: Can't become president before 35? Life expectancy is 75 for men and 80 for women, men can't become president after 40, women after 45.
Just watch how fast life improves in the USA if you put a measure like that in place, not just from having younger politicians but also from wanting to be able to get elected later in life.
Same for voting right, can't vote before 18, can't vote after 57 and 62.
Not for House or Senate. Age just isn't a close enough metric for what you're trying to fix.
If you're concerned with age-related decline, vote them out if you see signs of it, or if they would reach whatever age your limit is during the term.
If you're concerned about longevity in office, use term limits or reform campaign finance such that longevity in office doesn't grant too high of an incumbent advantage.
SCOTUS, sure. I think Canada has appointments until 75. Does not seem meaningfully different from appointments for life except less randomness on open slots.
certainly. even lower. Some people can be vigorous in their seventies but they are not the majority, 50's many go down. That is one problem with raising the retirement age in general. There is only a subset that can keep working as age goes up.
No. That's age discrimination. If you're concerned that a person could be suffering from mental degradation, require annual testing for it. I know folks in their 90's who are better critical thinkers than a lot of 20-somethings.
The problem we have is not that a bunch of old people run the country. It's that a bunch of young people put them there because they were the only real choices they had. Fix the two-party system first by employing ranked-choice voting. That will break the stranglehold that Republicans and Democrats have on the US political system.
Where did I ever say that? Age discrimination is age discrimination. Either you're qualified for the job or not, independent of your age. It seems like OPs question is a one-size-fits-all reaction to the geriatric choices forced upon us by the two party system. The real solution is to open the system up. Ranked-choice voting does that. You don't have to vote for the candidate who has the best chance of beating the opposition. You rank your choices. First choice is the person who best represents you. After the votes are tallied, the candidate who gets >50% wins. If nobody achieves that, the candidate with the least votes is removed and the second choice of those who voted for them is used. This process continues until someone achieves the supermajority.
It has the advantage of doing away with the idea that you're wasting your vote by not voting for the candidate who has the best chance of prevailing against the opposition. If your candidate is removed, your second choice receives your vote. Your vote ALWAYS counts. A side benefit is that we no longer need runoff elections. Everyone's second (and third and fourth) choices are already taken into account.
Say the state of readiness of the American healthcare system, their divisive politics and poor education standards might do that to life expectancy. That is not an excuse, every country had covid
Agreed. Although I do not believe this trend will be consistent for the next 4-5 decades. The US will definitely get universal healthcare in at least 2 decades. Making constitutional amendments for such short term issues is short sighted in my opinion.
No. I do support conditional retirement. What I don't want to do is remove those individuals who are older and have the connections and experience to get things done, and actually do the job they are there to do. I'm at work and don't have time to expand on the how, though a system should be put in place so that those conditions need to be followed, and locked in requiring majority approval through the normal process, with a subclause to be revisited every single damn year if it is temporarily unrestricted due to some issue or another.
It's those connections I specifically want to sever. Because they're usually connections to special interest groups, enemy nations, cults, etc.
Not only do I think elderly people shouldn't be allowed to hold office, I don't believe they should be allowed to vote. It has been conclusively proven that they vote "fuck you, got mine." You should not have a say in a future you will not live to see.
I'm on the fence about this as I agree and disagree with what you're saying. Not because the elderly do have a disproportionate amount of potential time to vote (with other possible complications that come with it), you're right that many of them won't see the true effects that their votes cause. Having said that...
I also feel that this is a slippery slope. It's not a far leap to deny voting rights to one group of people and then extend the denial of rights to another group.
The Black community doesn't really...
Native Americans don't do...
This minority shouldn't impact this majority because...
These are the very things that the Right Wing has spent years, and millions of dollars, promoting in bad faith. Essentially brainwashing far too many people into believing they are correct to hide behind racism and hate and "patriotism" if it means not allowing some group or person they don't agree with to win, even if it hurts them.
Let older people vote. Restrict age and experience to mentor status - allowed to sit in and support revisions by guidance, not through official acts, and only if they have acted throughout their time in office for the good of the people within their station, and even then for X years, such as say two. That's my compromise.
old people don't have anything to do BUT vote, and bitch and moan, and most importantly to them, reminisce. Which means they won't actually be paying attention to current events, because they think they already know everything and can't understand new perspectives. My inlaws have members three generations older than me, and those fucking people - one of them said that she'd never bothered updating the opinions her parents gave her because "if they were good enough for them they're good enough for me" - I mean, they're literally living fossils, venerating the dead and having zero understanding of anything that's happened since September 11, the last world event worth noticing in their view.
You couldn't get three words into a discussion of some of the concerns of the modern world without their eyes glazing over. It's not possible for them to "get it".
I understand that it's tempting to think that old age necessarily means degraded mental faculties, but there is no scientific link between the two. There are people who develop Alzheimer's in their 30s, and others who remain lucid into their 100s. Tomorrow there could be a scientific breakthrough that doubles the average lifespan of every human on earth, and we'd be sitting here with an irrelevant age limit on the books like simpletons. The abilities of the person are what matters, the number itself is a red herring (in the same way that the color of their skin should not be used to infer anything).
If the issue is term length, then put a term limit on the position. Otherwise, democracy means the people will elect the wrong people sometimes. We're in a unique situation where the baby boomer generation has more voting power than the rest of the population, but this issue will resolve itself.
Alzheimer's is only one specific disease that leads to rapid mental breakdown. There are many forms of senility, all of which including Alzheimer's become more likely as you get older, which means that
There is absolutely a strong correlation between age and degraded mental facilities. If I gave you three citations I'd be leaving out hundreds more citations.
There won't be a scientific breakthrough that doubles the average lifespan of every human on earth. There are so many flaws with this idea it's exhausting just to think about it.
Mandatory retirement ages are in use all over the place. Judicial appointments have this in place already in 18 states. Executive boards can legally have this rule in place as well. Any situation where old age in a job is a safety issue creates an exception in the form of an unmet bona fide occupational qualification. I would definitely argue that old men who create policy for hundreds of millions of people create a safety risk for those people if they aren't mentally qualified to do the job.
Maybe we just need a mental competency exam of some kind... Like, I think Bernie is still thinking pretty clearly, but Trump, Boebert and Greene? Literally mentally ill... And not just to pick on Republicans; Biden is clearly senile, Clinton is clearly a sociopath
There is no necessary correlation. Everything you are saying is representative of today, but not universally true. That's my point.
It would be identical to say that a certain skin color is strongly correlated with high imprisonment and low economic status, so therefore we should ban certain skin tones from running for office. Those correlations may be true today, but there are reasons that have nothing to do with the actual skin color that make it the case. Similarly, there is nothing about the number of times you've gone around the sun, or the length of time you've been alive that necessitates your cognitive faculties to degrade.
There won't be a scientific breakthrough that doubles the average lifespan of every human on earth. There are so many flaws with this idea it's exhausting just to think about it.
But there will continue to be scientific advancements that extend our life expectancy by a small bit every year, for an indeterminate amount of time. Which is why raw "age" is not a good measurement to use.
The basis for everything I'm saying is that age is a protected class in the US, which is why forced retirement in general is illegal.
Yes, there are many instances where institutions get away with it anyway, but as the AARP puts it:
Numerous scientific and medical studies find no need for this age-based discrimination.
Which still leaves genetic degradation and a few more to solve. Aside from living standards, since most don't reach even 100. But maybe those cases who reach 120 without doing anything special are similiar cases to the super-healers of lung tissue, which never get cancer even with 2 packs cigare / day?
I'd support term limits. Some people are still very sharp at 100. And as recent history shows, people immediately forget lessons learned we learned in WW2 when we (the world) kicked Hitler in the cock.
Plus, as others as said, you have some politicians that are young and as stupid (and dangerous) as they come, wanting us to join the Russians.
There are plenty of people who are cogent, thoughtful, insightful, and able to use their years of experience to see solutions or consequences someone younger might not.
But the custom and usual practice needs to be for congresspersons to mentor the newbies so they can be successful, then get the hell out of the way.
I'd support the abolishment of both - term limits of 0, and the move to an actual democracy, which is not what "choose which nigga talks for you" accomplishes
Yeah so direct democracy can work for a town. And that works great until one eyed Phil (who runs a country made up of many towns) comes around and has a bigger army than your little town could put together. You can all meet in your town hall and debate about what to do about old one eyed Phil and his army, for all the good it'll do ya.
Edumication thing indeed.
So is this what libertarians think is a good idea nowadays?
Not at all. Not all old people are idiots and not all young people are geniuses. Get rid of the minimum age requirement for prez too.
There should also be no "terms" and "term limits". You're voted in. If at any point you face a vote of no confidence, there's an election. That might be 30 days in, it might be 15 years later. Sometimes it takes long periods of time to fix issues. And with a 4 year cycle where 3.99 of it is campaigning, nothing can get done.
No, that's actually how most functioning governments work. Just Americans are too ignorant to know anything about the rest of the world.
Americans love to say "it's an experiment". It's just a Republic and it has failed. A parliamentary democracy works and is why everyone else does it that way.
And you're ignorant. Go learn how a parliamentary democracy works. And how every functioning democracy in the world, uses it. Then reevaluate your idiocy.
I think it should be younger. Maybe 65.
Members of Congress and SCOTUS should also have term limits
I'm onboard with 65 as the maximum age anyone can run for Congress but I don't have a problem with people 65+ finishing their terms provided they're actually competent. I'd like to see mandatory cognitive decline testing for anyone running for Congress, appointed to the SC or appointed to any high position in the executive branch.
It's absolutely ridiculous that we're allowing people with 5-7y remaining life expectancy to plan our future 20, 40 or 100y out - they just don't have the skin in the game that someone in their 20s or 30s does.
On top of all of that I'd like to see vigorous corruption testing, SC justices and congresscreatures shouldn't be bought and paid for the way they are now.
Yeah that sounds reasonable. You can at most finish your current term once you're past 65. And term-limit everything, Justices, whatever.
"After many decades of civil service, it is time for the state to give back to our hard working representatives. Therefore they will be retired in januray of the year following their 65th birthday"
"January 6th has for the last few years been a reminder of an embarrassing moment in our history, well no longer! January 6th shall henceforth be known as a day of celebration, celebrating not only long and faithfull service but also new talents, skills and hope for the furue! Join us, as we once again rejuvinate our government to keep our nation strong and dependable!"
I agree on the legislature, but not the court. The legislature has to plan for the future. Their age should be below the average life expectancy. They need to have a foreseeable future for us to allow them to plan ours.
I would resolve the instability of the court by eliminating its fixed size. One new justice shall be appointed every other year. In the odd-numbered years, between election cycles.
This will tend to increase the size of the court over time. The average term length is currently about 16 years, but that is with strategic retirements. I would expect the average term to increase to 24 to 36 years, leaving us with a court of 12 to 18 justices.
Honest question, what do we do that we are now living longer, and have better quality of life and medical advancements? With AI progressing exponentially, this will likely increase average lifespans in developed countries. You might be arguing against your own comments here when you hit 65 and realize you still maintain mental acuity and are thriving.
Personally, I feel like we should be spending our time and focus on fixing a number of other issues. Namely lobbying, special interest groups tied to anti-consumer companies, 'slap on the wrist' fines for billion dollar companies, predatory lending, student loans. I mean the list goes on. These things aren't an age problem, it's a corruption problem.
I’m not running for office nor scotus. But if I were, I’d hope reason would dictate sensible policy, not magical thinking about whatever far-off technological theoretical you might imagine.
Then you are not apprised of history.
I'm not saying we'll be doubling lifespans, but if you looked at the big picture, we've made HUGE strides and advances in a very short period of time. Especially if you consider how long humans have been around. Now we have CRISPR gene editing for example, and very obviously artifical intelligence/machine learning will grow exponentially fast.
This is not "magical thinking" about "far-off technological" theory. This is modern day and recent history, and already we expect global life expectancy to increase by nearly 5 years by 2050 despite geopolitical, metabolic, and environmental threats.
I also didn't say anything about ignoring policy in lieu of science, and pointed out several areas I personally feel could use attention. However that is my own opinion... Just like you on running/not for office.
It is also clear that some aged people are 'sharp' to the end, just as some can be debilitated earlier to disease and age. Sensible policy is also welcome. I just don't think we should lump everyone together using an arbitrary metric.
I’m glad you have a hobby tracking the historical progress of life-extending technology, but I find your entire premise to be a straw man.
I have no concern about them not living long enough. So your magical “maybes” and “it could happens” are completely irrelevant.
Yes, aside from their senility, our politicians are simply way too out of touch to comprehend the average American's issues. Spent most of their life in politics with the easiest 6 figure salary (plus bribes) you can have.
Granted politicians will probably remain out of touch but I'd like to imagine it'd be better
Yeah. Hard for them to relate when they all grew into wealth, lived sheltered lives, spend all day doing office work/politics.
Let them live off of 40k a year and see how their demeanor changes.
No, because I would lower even further to 65.
Shit I'd go even lower. Gotta be young enough to have some skin in the game when it comes to the consequences of legislation, etc.
Fair enough, you're less likely to vote for shit policies if you know that you're going to be living with them. And even if you do vote for shit policies and end up living with them, it was entirely your damn fault. And you just brought it on yourself.
+1
Let's do it slightly differently, let's make the mandatory retirement age for political office the median life expectancy age for the entire country. If the politicians, etc can manage to make everyone live longer, they can hold office longer.
Similarly, take away their separate and different medical coverage and put them on the same Medicare system everyone else in the country has to use.
Make it 75% the median life expectancy and it's a deal.
I think they should also be paid using their state's disability/unemployment system and get food through their state's EBT system.
And have to live in section 8 housing while in DC
Wonderful idea.
I love the idea but if anyone knows how to fudge numbers it's them.
It will only be a matter of time before you hear that the median life expectancy for Americans is 125.
Yes I'd like to vote for your policies
Oh hell yeah.
Force them to use the public option. Make a law to specifically disallow all congresspersons from enrolling in private insurance for as long as they hold office. Violation of that restriction is immediate ejection from the relevant legislative chamber.
We would have single payer by next Tuesday.
I agree with this take, especially since us younger people are going to be the anti-aging-drug guinea pigs.
First I would support campaign finance reform and watch 90% of the problems be solved.
Then I would tackle the other 10% by making voting more accessible - especially in primaries. Make it so accessible that even young voters bother to do it. That way people will choose younger reps more often.
So no, I wouldn’t support putting a bandaid on one issue and ignoring the root causes.
Should make voting a week long thing so people have more time to go. The last day should be a national holiday.
75?
Fuck that. Social security retirement age.
Maybe don’t bring social security retirement age until it. They already want to raise that. This would just be another excuse to do it.
Let's compromise and make it 69.
65 is what it should be. They have no fucking clue what most people need.
My parents are close to 65 and completely out of touch. If you turn 65 during your next term you should be ineligible.
If having no clue what most people need is the metric, were eliminating pretty much everyone from consideration.
Not just no, hell no.
People like to think that the seventies is when you automatically lose your ability to think and do anything useful. That's bullshit; it's individual, genetics combined with access to good nutrition, healthcare, etc.
I used to work as a nurse's assistant, specifically in home health where the patients were often at home with spouses, and other age peers. I had patients as old as their 90s that could still function mentally just fine, but had physical issues. I had patients older than that too, several just past 100, but they really wouldn't have been able to be a walmart greeter.
But even with the patients that did suffer cognitive difficulties, there were plenty of family members and friends that didn't. Most people suffer only minor cognitive decline in their seventies. Given otherwise good health, there's no necessity for someone without a diagnosis that would prevent them from doing their job to be forced to retire.
What we need are term limits, not ageist bullshit. The problem isn't age, or even a given political bent, it's the accumulation of power and influence that then becomes a commodity open for purchase, leading to corruption.
Now, I wouldn't object to mandatory fitness evaluations, but that's going to be as corruptible as anything else political. I certainly think some specific diagnoses should exclude someone from making decisions for the entire nation, that affect the entire world, but that's a tough thing to make happen, much less make work.
But age? Age is absolutely not a factor in fitness for any public office. Hell, I'm of the mind that none of the elected offices should have minimum ages, beyond a national age of adulthood so that the people in the position aren't immediately beholden to someone like a parent. Pick whatever arbitrary age you want for that, and we're good to go as long as it passes muster legally.
Term limits have been shown to create ‘brain drain’, and ultimately what winds up happening is that that legislators must focus on career growth - either spending their time in office campaigning for the next elected position, or looking to opportunities beyond politics. It takes time and experience to become skilled in crafting bills that don’t have adverse effects and cannot be overturned or lawyered to do things they aren’t intended to do.
The net result is that it creates a slew of amateur legislators, and professional lobbyists, as legislators are forced to retire just as they become skilled at the job.
An alternative to a retirement age is mental/physical fitness reviews, but that’s also tricky. If there isn’t a defined process then unscrupulous people will just use a doctor of choice to get the results they want, but if there is a process, politicizing that process to serve one party or the other could mean using mandatory retirement to force key vacancies.
I do think that at some point we need to pry the hands of people off the levers of power, and I can’t think of a way that is as ‘non-corruptible’ as a set age limit. It would not always be personally fair, but it would probably be for the greater good.
I agree with the Idea that being in a position for too long increases the possibility of corruption. But, I'll counter with two thoughts:
1.) Shouldn't people have the ability to vote for who they want to represent them? If the people of Vermont want to keep on
rejectingelecting Bernie Sanders, why should they not be able to? (Valid counterpoint- Dianne Feinstein)2.) This is the less trivial one - I fear that term limits would invite more corruption, as the representatives understand they only have a limited amount of time to grease as many palms and make as many connections as possible in their limited amount of time in office. We already have issues with the lame duck period, and those are currently measured in weeks. I can only imagine what I'd be like if a large portion of reps had full lame duck sessions.
There are plenty of other things we could do to limit corruption before we rule out term limits for that reason. We could also think about politicians who feel more free to "do the right thing" even when unpopular because they won't be afraid about winning the next election.
I'm honestly saddened by how far down I had to scroll to see a post that called this out as blatant agism.
No, I would support it being locked to the national retirement age though, which would be 67 at the moment.
Wouldn’t that give an extra incentive to raise the retirement age?
That would give politicians another reason to raise the retirement age, in order to stay in power.
No; it should be 60.
Lifetime appointments to the supreme court are obviously a mistake; the idea there is to make them secure in their jobs so they don't have to politik from the bench. It doesn't account for actually evil people digging in like parasites in the heart of our government. They should serve a single 10 year term, at which point no matter their age they must retire and then serve no further roles ever again. Like, you're not allowed to go be a senator, or a congressman, or a governor, or a Walmart greeter. You can volunteer to speak to law students, you can retire, or you can die. Minimum punishment for a sitting or former supreme court justice for any crime: jay walking, copyright infringement, speeding, embezzling, mass murder: instant death. The guilty/not guilty verdict is read to your firing squad. The members of our highest court should be nothing less than absolute exemplars of citizenship.
The house and senate should have maximum terms of not ten years each; the senate currently has 6 year terms, that would have to be shortened, possibly to four. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if we eliminated those mid-election years so we could have some time away from being screamed at by our so-called government. You want a full career in politics? You start at the local or state level, then you run for federal office.
I would make prior office a requirement for President. As far as I'm concerned, you have no business serving as president if you have not already been a senator, congressman, governor, state senator or general assemblyman. I do not believe town council or city mayor should count here because of the low barrier to entry for buying 10 acres of rural land and incorporating it as a town with one resident and electing yourself mayor.
I like you.
Yeah, but probably I’d make it lower (like 67) and allow exceptions with large majority (like a four year exception with a two thirds or three quarters vote of the senate).
I also think Supreme Court justices should have terms and term limits, and shouldn’t be allowed to receive gifts over a certain value (like $2,000).
I really do think term limits are a better solution than a hard age cap. Term limits would help address the age issue, and it would also make "career politician" a less viable career. That's a bigger problem imo - politicians doing politics for profit, as a career, rather than as a civic duty. That's a big part of why we have younger Republicans like MTG, Lauren Boebert, JD Vance, etc. whom a hard age cap would not effect for another couple decades at least.
Not an original idea by far, but I was chatting it up with a few friends recently about this and we thought a civic duty term made far more sense (think jury duty). So much needs to be fixed in the process, like the bill riders addons (a horrible scourge to our political system) and lobbyist (scum). But imagine you were picked (randomly) to serve for 3 year stints, with those getting picked for a 2nd and maybe even 3rd term, serving as some Senior politician. Clearly it needs much more thought, but far better potential because you have to participate and accountable.
Before you knock it down, think about the intelligence required here. Boebert is an absolute moron. Bills before the system need to be something the average person can understand (legal verbiage is such a pointless waste and almost unnecessary). You would need to participate in collaboration with others, understand how to be honest and forthcoming with your goals.
We can’t hold Politicians accountable (not the system today) and this could be an answer.
Ah, the Athenian model.
I think having some kind of required civics course for the random sounds appointees would do well. Legal language exists for reasons that go beyond being deliberately obtuse, so it could still be used to try and reduce ambiguity
Wow. I like the rest of your position, but being precise in language, and understanding what things mean legally is extremely important.
Yeah, I think I’m talking about the purposeful legal jargon used to deceive or be arguable vague and 20 pages long for no reason but to hide that fact. I’m all about precision, but it needs to be something an average person would comprehend if we were to adopt this method.
Nah, I don't think my issue is with age; it's with lifelong politicians. Introduce term limits.
No I'm for term limits. Each presidential election the popular vote should go to decide the party that gets to nominate the next justice. The first one in has to retire at that same time.
I also think we should increase the size of the court and cycle in/out two every four years - somewhere around where we'd have 20 year term limits. Side bonus, I think it'd be a benefit for all of us that the court has a larger variety of voices and be more difficult to hack the way the GOP has this court.
65 to match Social Security.
They're doing that anyways.
Armed revolt it is. Pizza first though?🍕
I'd support a four-term limit for the Senate, six-term limit for the House, and one term in the Supreme Court for a period of time not to exceed 20 years.
It's not the age, the length, or how many times you've been reelected, but getting elected in the first place has such a high barrier, massive gerrymandering, and more.
I think we need staggered term limits. Make it so you can only serve up to two terms in a row and then you are forced to take a term off. No lifetime appointments.
That and approval voting from federal to local elections.
Term limits for representatives and Senators are actually very toxic. It's a great way to make the parties monolithic and entrench party patronage systems even more.
Why is that?
Okay this isn't a topic that you can do a tiny take on. You've had the Tl;Dr already above so before I tell you why Term Limits are a bad idea let me tell you some good ideas. I'll do my best not to write a whole paper though. :)
So Term Limits. They create three massive problems. The Party becomes the brand instead of the politician. Cycling legislators too often creates an experience issue that can be exploited by lobbyists and party officials. Finally, rich donors and think tanks have more money than the current system has excess legislators. There's more than this but these are the big three poison pills.
When we go to vote we vote based on a politician's brand. It's an American thing among western democracies. Other countries have recognizable party leaders but we're fairly unique in voting by individual name. This makes name recognition the number one hurdle any aspiring politician must get over. And the reason ads use the name they support 10 times in 30 seconds, while almost never mentioning the opponent. And when they do it's in audio/visual scare quotes. It's why incumbents have such an advantage. They've been on your news feed for years building their brand.
Term Limits turns that on its head. As we cycle through politicians there will be very little incumbent advantage. There will be far more people vying for your attention. Which means money. It's very expensive to get your name out there. So whose going to pay that bill? If the candidate isn't wealthy enough then it has to be PACs or the Party. (99% of us are not wealthy enough) Yes candidates can ask for donations, but unless they've got an independent source of name recognition, like being a renowned football coach, people aren't going to be very forthcoming. So we discover the method by which the Party becomes the brand. People need a familiar face to give money to. It's the same reason corporations use well known actors in their ads. Now this means another thing though. If the Party controls the branding, because it's how the money comes in, then the Party controls the money. And this also means they control who the money goes to. They get to pick the party candidate without ever interfering in the vote. This actually already happens to an extent. But Term Limits would pour gas on the fire, making this effect much worse.
So now we have Party chosen legislators we need to move on to the next problem, experience. Career politicians know who to call for technical advice, or at the very least they know when they should seek it. Those connections don't exist with freshmen and junior representatives. They're completely at the mercy of experienced staff, lobbyists, and the party that likely provided their staff. (You want our money, you use our people) For example, with Term Limits, they'd be getting forced out right around the time they figured out which military officer they could rely on for a no bullshit assessment of a weapons program. Then there's experience in crafting legislation.
Just recently SCOTUS had a case about releasing inmates with drug convictions and the eligibility terms. The case hung on the proper English grammar of a list. Only it's SCOTUS so it's actually an exercise in making the grammar twist their way politically. And that's with experienced legislators. We already know how the parties would solve this problem though. Pre-written legislation is a thing in most of our state legislatures. The lobbyists actually write the bill, complete with [insert state name here] type entries. One such example, the HOPE act made it harder for people to get food stamps. The exact same wording, in nine states. This kind of rubber stamp legislature will only get worse with Term Limits. Because politicians need to get re-elected, or at least until they reach their lame duck period. And anyone who doesn't toe the line doesn't get their campaign funded.
Which brings us to point three. Why would a lame duck Representative or Senator keep toeing the line? Because they're human, they probably have a family, and they'd like to get paid to stay in the game doing what they know. It's a lot better then the uncertainty of a career switch, and the Party is always hiring. In fact maxing your term with good behavior could become a pre-requisite for higher party positions. Don't worry there's always an exception for the inordinately wealthy. It's that wealth that's going to pay for the cushy landing of ex legislators in board rooms, think tanks, and party positions across America. The only difference is it might become a time limited deal instead of an actual sinecure like it is now. But it would still be life changing money and networking for most people. The important part here though is you must remain loyal to the party, you must vote the way they tell you to vote, and you must stump for your pre-selected replacement.
The two major parties already have way too much influence in our system. And the natural competitor stops being independent candidates or third parties. It becomes the lobbyists themselves. After all if campaigns become even more aligned with money, then who has more money than private multi national corporations?
Love me some approval voting. Let's make that shit happen.
www.electionscience.org
Yes, but agree with most of the other comments here. It should be lowered to 65-67 instead.
60 for retirement, but allowed to sub contact into the party as advisor positions as staff and encouraged to. But no on the floor decision making positions.
65-67=-2
An innovative idea, but difficult to implement.
😆
I’m in favor of “recall ‘em all”, this rule change could be just the ticket!
Not a retirement age but to run for public office, I think the candidate should have at least 20 years of median actuarial life expectancy remaining. They need to make long-term decisions so they better be around to see how it goes. Right now this is age 60 for men and age 64 for women. In the future it may go as high as 70. If you really wanted to push it I think 18 years would be symmetrical with childhood. First 18 and “last 18” you can’t be in office.
No.
An alternative could be to set the limit to a percentage of average life expectancy, or some other variable, so the law isn’t as easy to ignore or mess with, the law can remain unchanged for decades and remain relevant without adverse effects (hopefully), and politicians are encouraged to improve the quality of life.
no. bernie is a great example of why age is no restriction to being a good politician. you people have to stop trying to use goose and gander legislation to stop conservatives. you stop conservatives by STOPPING CONSERVATIVES.
how old are you?
No. I think age plays a factor into power dynamics (more time to accrue wealth and all), but not enough in our current life spans to be an issue.
Term limits though I support because the ability to manipulate the voting system for decades is far to enticing and creates perverse incentives.
I am running out of time to type up a comment right now, so I apologize for just link dumping, but if you have time, I encourage you to check these out:
The Brookings Institute – Five reasons to oppose congressional term limits
NPR – Term limits for Congress are wildly popular. But most experts say they'd be a bad idea
Sorry, this is one of those issues I go die on a hill for, like hating DST. (And everyone downvotes me!)
Not just retirement, put them in a machine that extrudes protein paste and use that to feed the next crop of legislators.
If you retire early, you don't get put in the machine.
I feel bad for that machine
I support this Pipe Dream.
Unfortunately, this isn't a Congress that will vote to limit its own power.
People who bought a house and went to college for the same price of college nowadays do not know what the world is like today
Absolutely. Maybe younger. Politicians shouldn't be able to vote on issues that will have major effects that they won't have to live through. I also think we should disenfranchise people minus 18 years. Give politicians a reason to support policies that increase public health to increase the voting age.
That comes out to around 62. And forbidding seniors from voting is a great way to have them be exploited more than they already are.
They vote for shit that won't affect them that we have to clean up (or potentially die). I'm ok with them getting fucked back a little.
That's not how that works. The seniors being exploited are not the well retired ones with the free time and health to go vote. And what happens when we become seniors? Are we to be punished for the sins of a particular subset of one generation?
Absolutely. Being senile is a big liability.
I support a mandatory retirement age, but being more than 75 years doesn't necessarily mean you're senile.
It’s more about having “skin in the game” It appears that many representatives/senators are creating or upholding laws that immediately benefit them, the companies that support them, and their industries on the whole.
If someone was closer to middle-age, they have enough experience to make good choices while also being young enough for the negative consequences to happen while they are still alive.
Many older reps claim to do it for "generations to come" or "my family."
Yes, because of the risk of elder abuse. And just being absolutely out of touch with the general population.
No. Some of the worst politicians are young. Some of the best politicians are old. Age isn't a problem. Undemocratic systems and bad politics are problems.
I'd love to see a diversity in age requirement
I don't think so. One you'd lose Bernie. Two it's a bit harsh to assume anyone over a certain age isn't mentally capable of governing or changing with the times.
I think term limits would serve you much better.
I'm a Bernie fan too, but Diane Feinstein bothered me in multiple ways. She was infirm and senile for years but still chose to run for reelection when she and her staff knew she had multiple health problems. Her aids were telling her how to vote, but the voters didn't elect them, and who knows who's interests they represented. Her stubbornness to not retire was a disservice to Californians. I also have concerns that Mitch McConnell is doing a similar disservice to the state of Kentucky with his health problems due to age.
Bernie still has his mental faculties, and could still inspire, and sway representatives while being out of office. I would listen to him, and think progressive representatives would as well.
Medical test for competency would make sense.
My point is forced retirement is basically ageist.
Losing Bernie and a bunch of other politicians would open a lot of seats for younger Bernies
I wonder if it would be better to have a term limit. I don't really care if you are 125, but there should be a limit to how long you sit there with huge amounts of power. Especially since they aren't directly re-elected.
No. For two reasons, one you don't want to force the people to give up an actually good representative. Two, term limits for Representatives and Senators actually creates more corruption and entrenches the party as the entity instead of the politician.
What, no president?
60-65.
Make it the average retirement age.
And incentivize them to raise it? No thanks!
france tried it, that didn't go particularly well, i think russia even tried it, and it didn't go particularly well.
Unfortunately, we all know for the US it would go fine. The UK is the same, we whine for a bit, then nothing happens
idk i think it would probably depend. The retirement age here is probably already 70.
idk i mean you punched your way out of a pretty thick paper bag there with Brexit, stuff happens sometimes
not good stuff, obviously, but we all know why we can't have nice things
yes but france has balls and russia can't even do communism right!! ;)
we should be more like france, it would be funny.
I mean, as long as we're dreaming... We need a hell of a lot more representatives. It used to be proportional to population, but it was capped at 435 (in the 1930s?). Way more reps would probably help more parties emerge as well.
That seems like a lot of reps... Do you know of any comparisons with other democracies and their legislatures?
As far as letting parties emerge I think we should have proportional representation / ranked choice voting.
Not an American but if you should have and every country should have a minimum age, like 21 because of mental and physical maturity, and a maximum age like 75, because of the risk of possible stamina and mental decline.
We do not need people like Mitch McConnell who genuinely think 600 dollars is this crazy large amount of money you can live comfortably on for years. This is a real argument he has made.
mandatory retirement is never the answer; that's just ageism plus there are a ton of shitty 30 year old politicians.
term limits especially for unelected positions is a must though
also national elections for supreme court justices instead of presidential picks.
Say, greedy old guy, would you mind giving up the power you so prominently covet? Why, no? Well geeze.
Younger than that. 65
Term limits please
Yes
President
why 73? which 74 year old are you wanting to oust? lol
Yes. Our country is run by geriatrics who, among other things related to modern society, legislate on technology they don't understand. We need younger members with more flexible minds who have at least spent some part of their younger lives dealing with problems we have a modern variation of today.
But especially SCOTUS members. Any kind of term limit on them would be better than what we have.
This was an engagement bait question on Reddit that was frequently posted. It seems so far Lemmy is overwhelmingly in favor just like reddit probably as the population is not old (I'm not either).
I don't know how I feel about it as the constant repost and bait question were something I disliked on Reddit.
I did post the question because I thought it would be engaging, and many people could participate. I like Lemmy and seeing discussions thrive here.
You are free to downvote the post, and engage with it however you choose. Or post questions that you wish to see to shape this community.
I agree that being critical is easy and I should be "the change I want to see in the world".
Thanks for creating Lemmy content in good faith.
I heard even more radical proposal (not in us) - cap the voting age. Reason is simple, by voting you decide about future, how can pensioners who, frankly, will die soon can reasonably decide about my future if I am 20 yo.
Maybe once you retire and get your pension you stop voting.
If it's capped on the other side of your life then it needs to be capped on that side too.
Simple, if you can't get elected before a age X then you shouldn't be able to get elected after (life expectancy - X)
Example: Can't become president before 35? Life expectancy is 75 for men and 80 for women, men can't become president after 40, women after 45.
Just watch how fast life improves in the USA if you put a measure like that in place, not just from having younger politicians but also from wanting to be able to get elected later in life.
Same for voting right, can't vote before 18, can't vote after 57 and 62.
That brings back some memories of a former US president. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7FKO5DlV0
And to answer OP question :
::: spoiler spoiler
Yes, more younger politicians. Make retirement age 50. And more diversity as well, less white males.
:::
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=Yq7FKO5DlV0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Needs to be a little lower
Not for House or Senate. Age just isn't a close enough metric for what you're trying to fix.
If you're concerned with age-related decline, vote them out if you see signs of it, or if they would reach whatever age your limit is during the term.
If you're concerned about longevity in office, use term limits or reform campaign finance such that longevity in office doesn't grant too high of an incumbent advantage.
SCOTUS, sure. I think Canada has appointments until 75. Does not seem meaningfully different from appointments for life except less randomness on open slots.
certainly. even lower. Some people can be vigorous in their seventies but they are not the majority, 50's many go down. That is one problem with raising the retirement age in general. There is only a subset that can keep working as age goes up.
No, because democracy. But we shouldn't vote for these old guys
Their age doesn't affect me in the slightest.
Lmao what a wild take
No. That's age discrimination. If you're concerned that a person could be suffering from mental degradation, require annual testing for it. I know folks in their 90's who are better critical thinkers than a lot of 20-somethings.
The problem we have is not that a bunch of old people run the country. It's that a bunch of young people put them there because they were the only real choices they had. Fix the two-party system first by employing ranked-choice voting. That will break the stranglehold that Republicans and Democrats have on the US political system.
So it's ok to discriminate against young people but not old people?
Where did I ever say that? Age discrimination is age discrimination. Either you're qualified for the job or not, independent of your age. It seems like OPs question is a one-size-fits-all reaction to the geriatric choices forced upon us by the two party system. The real solution is to open the system up. Ranked-choice voting does that. You don't have to vote for the candidate who has the best chance of beating the opposition. You rank your choices. First choice is the person who best represents you. After the votes are tallied, the candidate who gets >50% wins. If nobody achieves that, the candidate with the least votes is removed and the second choice of those who voted for them is used. This process continues until someone achieves the supermajority.
It has the advantage of doing away with the idea that you're wasting your vote by not voting for the candidate who has the best chance of prevailing against the opposition. If your candidate is removed, your second choice receives your vote. Your vote ALWAYS counts. A side benefit is that we no longer need runoff elections. Everyone's second (and third and fourth) choices are already taken into account.
Yep.
60*
No. Because as time goes on, 75 will be younger and younger.
lmao you really ain't payin attention there bud
We can always push it back more if that's true.
Yep, no question.
No. Doing so would be very short sighted, considering that human life expectancy would be seeing a massive bump in the coming decades.
American life expectancy is going the other way.
Covid has had a huge role in skewing this.
Say the state of readiness of the American healthcare system, their divisive politics and poor education standards might do that to life expectancy. That is not an excuse, every country had covid
Agreed. Although I do not believe this trend will be consistent for the next 4-5 decades. The US will definitely get universal healthcare in at least 2 decades. Making constitutional amendments for such short term issues is short sighted in my opinion.
No. I do support conditional retirement. What I don't want to do is remove those individuals who are older and have the connections and experience to get things done, and actually do the job they are there to do. I'm at work and don't have time to expand on the how, though a system should be put in place so that those conditions need to be followed, and locked in requiring majority approval through the normal process, with a subclause to be revisited every single damn year if it is temporarily unrestricted due to some issue or another.
It's those connections I specifically want to sever. Because they're usually connections to special interest groups, enemy nations, cults, etc.
Not only do I think elderly people shouldn't be allowed to hold office, I don't believe they should be allowed to vote. It has been conclusively proven that they vote "fuck you, got mine." You should not have a say in a future you will not live to see.
I'm on the fence about this as I agree and disagree with what you're saying. Not because the elderly do have a disproportionate amount of potential time to vote (with other possible complications that come with it), you're right that many of them won't see the true effects that their votes cause. Having said that...
I also feel that this is a slippery slope. It's not a far leap to deny voting rights to one group of people and then extend the denial of rights to another group.
These are the very things that the Right Wing has spent years, and millions of dollars, promoting in bad faith. Essentially brainwashing far too many people into believing they are correct to hide behind racism and hate and "patriotism" if it means not allowing some group or person they don't agree with to win, even if it hurts them.
Let older people vote. Restrict age and experience to mentor status - allowed to sit in and support revisions by guidance, not through official acts, and only if they have acted throughout their time in office for the good of the people within their station, and even then for X years, such as say two. That's my compromise.
old people don't have anything to do BUT vote, and bitch and moan, and most importantly to them, reminisce. Which means they won't actually be paying attention to current events, because they think they already know everything and can't understand new perspectives. My inlaws have members three generations older than me, and those fucking people - one of them said that she'd never bothered updating the opinions her parents gave her because "if they were good enough for them they're good enough for me" - I mean, they're literally living fossils, venerating the dead and having zero understanding of anything that's happened since September 11, the last world event worth noticing in their view.
You couldn't get three words into a discussion of some of the concerns of the modern world without their eyes glazing over. It's not possible for them to "get it".
No, because that's literally agism.
I understand that it's tempting to think that old age necessarily means degraded mental faculties, but there is no scientific link between the two. There are people who develop Alzheimer's in their 30s, and others who remain lucid into their 100s. Tomorrow there could be a scientific breakthrough that doubles the average lifespan of every human on earth, and we'd be sitting here with an irrelevant age limit on the books like simpletons. The abilities of the person are what matters, the number itself is a red herring (in the same way that the color of their skin should not be used to infer anything).
If the issue is term length, then put a term limit on the position. Otherwise, democracy means the people will elect the wrong people sometimes. We're in a unique situation where the baby boomer generation has more voting power than the rest of the population, but this issue will resolve itself.
Edit: the AARP's position on the matter
Absolutely none of this is true.
Maybe we just need a mental competency exam of some kind... Like, I think Bernie is still thinking pretty clearly, but Trump, Boebert and Greene? Literally mentally ill... And not just to pick on Republicans; Biden is clearly senile, Clinton is clearly a sociopath
There is no necessary correlation. Everything you are saying is representative of today, but not universally true. That's my point.
It would be identical to say that a certain skin color is strongly correlated with high imprisonment and low economic status, so therefore we should ban certain skin tones from running for office. Those correlations may be true today, but there are reasons that have nothing to do with the actual skin color that make it the case. Similarly, there is nothing about the number of times you've gone around the sun, or the length of time you've been alive that necessitates your cognitive faculties to degrade.
But there will continue to be scientific advancements that extend our life expectancy by a small bit every year, for an indeterminate amount of time. Which is why raw "age" is not a good measurement to use.
The basis for everything I'm saying is that age is a protected class in the US, which is why forced retirement in general is illegal.
Yes, there are many instances where institutions get away with it anyway, but as the AARP puts it:
Genetic max age in humans is 120 years (+-5 years).
Based on telomere degradation. Recent developments may result in human telomere repair in the near future.
Which still leaves genetic degradation and a few more to solve. Aside from living standards, since most don't reach even 100. But maybe those cases who reach 120 without doing anything special are similiar cases to the super-healers of lung tissue, which never get cancer even with 2 packs cigare / day?
Recommend anything to read on the matter? Sounds very interesting, but I'm afraid I may find some dubious material before striking anything good.
Puh, i think this was from some science journal years ago. I think mainly due to telomeres?
Now that you mention it, this may be obsolete already. Someone knows?
I'd support term limits. Some people are still very sharp at 100. And as recent history shows, people immediately forget lessons learned we learned in WW2 when we (the world) kicked Hitler in the cock.
Plus, as others as said, you have some politicians that are young and as stupid (and dangerous) as they come, wanting us to join the Russians.
Mandatory? No. Customary? YES.
There are plenty of people who are cogent, thoughtful, insightful, and able to use their years of experience to see solutions or consequences someone younger might not.
But the custom and usual practice needs to be for congresspersons to mentor the newbies so they can be successful, then get the hell out of the way.
I'd support the abolishment of both - term limits of 0, and the move to an actual democracy, which is not what "choose which nigga talks for you" accomplishes
WHUT
representative, vs direct democracy
not that the whole edumication thing has been solved, but this shit clearly ain't working
Yeah so direct democracy can work for a town. And that works great until one eyed Phil (who runs a country made up of many towns) comes around and has a bigger army than your little town could put together. You can all meet in your town hall and debate about what to do about old one eyed Phil and his army, for all the good it'll do ya.
Edumication thing indeed.
So is this what libertarians think is a good idea nowadays?
Why would the people in power limit their power?
Sure buddy, you're the real big boss man.
Not at all. Not all old people are idiots and not all young people are geniuses. Get rid of the minimum age requirement for prez too.
There should also be no "terms" and "term limits". You're voted in. If at any point you face a vote of no confidence, there's an election. That might be 30 days in, it might be 15 years later. Sometimes it takes long periods of time to fix issues. And with a 4 year cycle where 3.99 of it is campaigning, nothing can get done.
The US is broken.
Do you want a dictatorship? Because thats how you get a dictatorship.
No, that's actually how most functioning governments work. Just Americans are too ignorant to know anything about the rest of the world.
Americans love to say "it's an experiment". It's just a Republic and it has failed. A parliamentary democracy works and is why everyone else does it that way.
Lol this one's insane
Or Hank Hill levels of naive.
And you're ignorant. Go learn how a parliamentary democracy works. And how every functioning democracy in the world, uses it. Then reevaluate your idiocy.