# Theoretical constitutional amendment for age restrictions on politicians **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 31, 2023, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383 "2023-08-31T04:31:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/21 "2023-08-31T12:34:56Z")
Voters don’t have a great track record _regardless_ of candidate age. We (as a country) elect all kinds of morons to office. There are lots of aging politicians who seem to be very popular among their constituents. Diane Feinstein probably pushed the limit a bit too far but until her recent health issues, Californians seemed to have had no problem with her age. Same with Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Jim Clyburn… even Sleepy Joe. History may not prove out popular votes as being the best method for picking leaders, but as long as that’s the system we’re using, voters should be free to make decisions on their own. If everyone knows that John Q Politician is 90 years old and has served 30 congressional terms and people still vote for them, well, so be it. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/22 "2023-08-31T13:06:33Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > (Another howler, none of them are required to pass even rudimentary background investigations. The official stance is that merely by winning an election, they are “deemed” to have passed a background investigation) I 1,000% agree that an individual should not be required to pass a background investigation or security clearance in order to be elected President. Giving the national security apparatus a veto over who gets to be President is a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/23 "2023-08-31T13:11:25Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > If the pollies I elect can carry out their electoral/constituents responsibilities to my satisfaction, why should I give a rats how old they are? Ditto! First of all, any party can buy doctors to make those statements and, second of all, it smacks of age discrimination and, thirdly, we have far more pressing issues that need to be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/24 "2023-08-31T14:44:39Z")
> [@Digger11](#): > > I’ve never been much of a fan of hard age requirements for retirement–people differ so much in their abilities and health. What I would like to see is more of a tiered system based on age. > > Tier 1: Under 65 > No restrictions. > > Tier 2: 65-74 > Every time the politician announces a re-election bid, he must provide statements from 2 doctors certifying that he has no major health issues that would be likely to be a hindrance to serving effectively. Just to be clear: under your proposal, if I’m 64 — and every doctor I see tells me I have major health issues that would likely be a hindrance to serving effectively — and I’m running against a guy who’s 65, then _he’d_ need to provide certification that he’s okay, but _I_ can smirk while not bothering to provide certification that I wouldn’t deserve and couldn’t get? ---
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/25 "2023-08-31T15:17:47Z")
> [@Digger11](#): > > Tier 3: 75-79 > Same as above, except that 1 of the doctors must be either (A) a voter registered in a **different political party** ; or (B) from another state. I will now form the “Doctor’s Political Party” that any doctor can join. There, now you’re from a different party. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/26 "2023-08-31T15:35:30Z")
If we’re going to get a constitutional amendment, I’d just put in an age limit (perhaps 75). It’s arbitrary and over and under inclusive. But it would help. And it’s no particular hardship on the lawmakers. If you know your entire adult life that a Senator must retire at at 75, you can make your career plans accordingly. If you don’t like it, don’t run for Senate at age 70. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/27 "2023-08-31T15:50:43Z")
We don’t need an age limit. We need an honesty and rational thought test. I doubt people under 75 would do any better than those older. So age testing will not have any beneficial results. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/28 "2023-08-31T16:06:21Z")
How about a cognitive test at the start of each congressional session? Like they do for a driver’s license (the written part). If you cannot remember how the government is supposed to work, then you are not really doing your constituents or your party any favors. Case-in-point: Diane Feinstein - while she officially “represents” California, at this point she is merely saying “aye” or “nay” as instructed by the party. This may also have the added benefit of weeding out younger people who never bothered to learn how the government is supposed to work under the Constitution. But, as others are saying, any test leads to the next situation where if someone fails, then what? They are elected via voters, so what happens, they are forced to step down, and another election is held? Do they get another chance to pass a test? How many tries? This can get messy. Yeah, voting them out or having them step aside of their own accord is the best we can do. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/29 "2023-08-31T18:59:26Z")
> [@Digger11](#): > > Tier 3: 75-79 > Same as above, except that 1 of the doctors must be either (A) a voter registered in a different political party; or (B) from another state. > > Tier 4: 80+ > Every time the politician announces a re-election bid, he must provide statements from 3 doctors, 1 of which must be registered in a different party but in the politician’s home state, and 1 of which must be from another state. Given how easy it is to change political parties, it would be way too easy for anyone looking for a doctor “qualified” to sign such a statement to find one. Even if there is some sort of “you have to prove that you were not a member of the candidate’s current party for X years” restriction (and how would you even prove that?), I have a feeling there are enough RINOs/DINOs out there such that this still wouldn’t be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/30 "2023-08-31T19:24:55Z")
Why do you think people’s right to vote for the representatives of their choice should be abridged? Should there be a limit based on BMI? How about genetic disposition to disease? ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2023, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/31 "2023-08-31T20:22:01Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > But, as others are saying, any test leads to the next situation where if someone fails, then what? They are elected via voters, so what happens, they are forced to step down, and another election is held? Do they get another chance to pass a test? How many tries? This can get messy. Not saying I support any particular test, but the solution to that problem is to have passing the test a requirement to get on the ballot in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Digger11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@Digger11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digger11)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/32 "2023-09-01T00:16:45Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Just to be clear: under your proposal, if I’m 64 — and every doctor I see tells me I have major health issues that would likely be a hindrance to serving effectively — and I’m running against a guy who’s 65, then _he’d_ need to provide certification that he’s okay, but _I_ can smirk while not bothering to provide certification that I wouldn’t deserve and couldn’t get? No semi-simple or workable plan is going to catch all the outliers. But since the likelihood of health problems increases drastically with age, my proposal would go a long way towards making sure that people can serve as long as they are healthy enough to do the job–something that a hard-and-fast age limit fails miserably at. ---
**Author:** ![Digger11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@Digger11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digger11)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/33 "2023-09-01T00:17:36Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Why do you think people’s right to vote for the representatives of their choice should be abridged? Should there be a limit based on BMI? How about genetic disposition to disease? If you really feel that way, then you should start a movement to allow 18-year-olds to become president. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/34 "2023-09-01T00:23:17Z")
> [@Digger11](#): > > No semi-simple or workable plan is going to catch all the outliers. But since the likelihood of health problems increases drastically with age, my proposal would go a long way towards making sure that people can serve as long as they are healthy enough to do the job–something that a hard-and-fast age limit fails miserably at. Seems to me that — if your plan had merit — it’d be a step up from “semi-simple,” and would actually be _simpler,_ to say people have to get certified _regardless_ of age: no hard-and-fast age limit to fail miserably, just the Healthy Enough To Do The Job test that you’re on about. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/35 "2023-09-01T00:29:25Z")
These ideas are bigoted and ageist. > [@snowthx](#): > > How about a cognitive test at the start of each congressional session? How about a literacy test for voters? Oh, wait… Look, sure, maybe McConnell is suffering and should retire. Let the voters decide. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/36 "2023-09-01T00:41:10Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > History may not prove out popular votes as being the best method for picking leaders, but as long as that’s the system we’re using, voters should be free to make decisions on their own. If everyone knows that John Q Politician is 90 years old and has served 30 congressional terms and people still vote for them, well, so be it. I would counter that we know there is a huge incumbency advantage. Even if we assume voters are diligent in picking their candidate (which most almost certainly are not) being an incumbent gives a massive leg-up to that candidate to get re-elected. > The charts below show the enormous financial advantage enjoyed by incumbents. That’s one of the reasons re-election rates are so high — incumbents generally don’t have to work as hard to get their name and message out. - [SOURCE](https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/incumbent-advantage) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/37 "2023-09-01T00:44:36Z")
I agree (although I would be happier with term limits). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/38 "2023-09-01T00:47:31Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > It’s arbitrary and over and under inclusive. But it would help. And it’s no particular hardship Really, uh, living up to your name, there. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/39 "2023-09-01T00:53:37Z")
> [@Digger11](#): > > If you really feel that way, then you should start a movement to allow 18-year-olds to become president. I’m not starting any movements but an 18 year old president doesn’t bother me as much as some process that will be abused to get even worse representatives. Every representative’s ability to do their job will be further hampered from constant accusations they are not mentally sound. That will not lead to them doing their job any better. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/40 "2023-09-01T00:56:58Z")
FWIW: [https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/mitch-mcconnell-health/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/mitch-mcconnell-health/index.html) From that article: > Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell is medically cleared to continue his schedule, the US Capitol physician said Thursday, after he [froze for the second time in as many months](https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/30/politics/mitch-mcconnell/index.html) in public. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383.md?page=3)