# 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:** 3
**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, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/41 "2023-09-01T01:02:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I agree (although I would be happier with term limits). I sometimes like that idea, but again, why not let the voter decide? ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/42 "2023-09-01T01:03:54Z")
> [@Digger11](#): > > If you really feel that way, then you should start a movement to allow 18-year-olds to become president. This would use political capital for an unneeded constitutional change unlikely to affect who is president. Allowing immigrants to run for president would be a more significant positive move, but, again, not worth liberals spending political capital on it. I’m more worried about the dreamers (and their parents). > [@Digger11](#): > > Do you seriously think that a doctor who is a political liberal would have written such a letter for Trump? Yes. I seriously think that many, probably most, good doctors work purely in the interests of their patients. They are unlikely to write such letters in a way that keeps their patient from getting their dream job. And if a doctor creates patient documentation differently depending on political disagreement, they shouldn’t be in that profession. Dr. Bornstein, who wrote the letter in question, died in 2021. His New York Times obituary says nothing about his politics. It does say: > [@](#): > > Dr. Bornstein, who continued to make house calls, had a reputation for being exceptionally attentive to his patients. One former patient, Evan McGlinn, who started seeing him in 1988, said in an interview that doctor visits always made him nervous and made his blood pressure rise. He said that Dr. Bornstein was aware of this and would leave the examining room, only to reappear in a top hat and a rubber nose. > > “It would crack me up, and then my blood pressure would be normal,” said Mr. McGlinn, who was a reporter for Forbes magazine at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/43 "2023-09-01T01:11:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell is medically cleared to continue his schedule, the US Capitol physician said Thursday But what state is the Capitol physician from?! ---
**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, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/44 "2023-09-01T01:13:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I sometimes like that idea, but again, why not let the voter decide? Because incumbents have their thumb on the scale. Hell, they are leaning on it pretty hard. A challenger does not have a fair shot to get voter attention. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2023, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/45 "2023-09-01T01:54:03Z")
Why is incumbency advantage a problem? ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/46 "2023-09-01T01:54:14Z")
Withdrawn ---
**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:** [September 1, 2023, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/47 "2023-09-01T01:56:00Z")
I agree with TriPolar here that I think voters should have the agency to vote for who they want, and I would be in favor of eliminating the constitutional age requirements. But I’m not going to start a movement because that’s a lot of work and they’re not a huge deal. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/48 "2023-09-01T01:56:44Z")
> [@Digger11](#): > > I have a feeling there are enough RINOs/DINOs out there such that this still wouldn’t be a problem. I would say it a little differently. Any physician who doesn’t act like an independent, RINO, or DINO, when on the job, should lose their license to practice medicine. To qualify my last post: There are some jobs where a doctor’s note can or should be objective. I don’t want an airline pilot with bad vision. But there are lots of blind people who could be a better president than Trump, and maybe Biden as well. Heck, maybe a disability, that requires greater dependence on others, is a plus. Cognitive testing? What if the president thinks they are the smartest person in the room? This sounds to me be a bigger problem than forgetfulness. Because of considerations like that, mental tests would have an excellent chance of keeping off the ballot the better candidate. ---
**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, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/49 "2023-09-01T02:25:26Z")
It begets more corruption. A given politician will get “owned” by a special interest group and then they just stay there and never leave office because incumbency is such a powerful perk for getting re-elected. If a politician must leave office there is a chance for a new one with new ideas to get in. Sure, they will probably become beholden to some special interest but now those groups must scramble to buy a new congresscritter every few years and the next one may not be owned by JPMorgan. It introduces a churn to the process. It keeps a relative few politicians from running the whole show for decades (like Pelosi or McConnell). If you really liked the current incumbent and they are on their way out presumably a new politician can be found who believes in the same things and they will get elected. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2023, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/50 "2023-09-01T02:30:05Z")
Endorsed by the outgoing politician and owned by the same special interest, I presume. But let’s say I don’t consider my elected representative to be owned by a special interest. They are qualified for the job because they’ve been doing it. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to vote for them because of a hypothetical ill? ---
**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, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/51 "2023-09-01T02:32:23Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > …because of a hypothetical ill? It’s not hypothetical. Incumbency advantage is real (see link above). Do you think all incumbents are just “better” than anyone else? Do you think it is a good thing to lean on the election system to severely tilt it in favor of a given person? That does not seem like democracy. It is opposed to democracy. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2023, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/52 "2023-09-01T02:41:16Z")
Incumbents have experience. Yes, the effect is real. I’m not convinced it’s bad. You say it begets corruption. Is there any data to support your argument that corruption increases after 8, 12, 15 years? If we can prove that term limits will decrease corruption, that’s big news. I’ve seen the revolving door of government grift where politicians bounce from job to job to dodge term limit restrictions. So what corruption is being curbed? ---
**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, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/53 "2023-09-01T03:38:37Z")
With all the recent complaining on this board about aged and infirm politicians clinging to power, I’m genuinely a bit flabbergasted at the hostile reaction that my idea has received. Apparently most of the complainers like to complain just for the sake of complaining. They don’t want to actually DO anything about the situation. And the few that do want to do something are in favor of a wildly-unfair “one size fits all” mandatory retirement age, instead of something that actually has some nuance to it. ---
**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, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/54 "2023-09-01T03:46:11Z")
> [@Digger11](#): > > And the few that do want to do something are in favor of a wildly-unfair “one size fits all” mandatory retirement age, instead of something that actually has some nuance to it. “Wildly unfair?” It is the opposite. It is the height of fairness. It applies to everyone, equally. No judgement. It is understood by all when they take the job. And mandatory retirement ages are not new. In the US (for example) commercial pilots and firefighters must retire at 65. Your notion is the height of unfairness. One doctor can end your career. One person! This would be subject to all sorts of shenanigans as people game the system and try to find doctors for their side (which almost certainly would happen). Where is the nuance in that? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/55 "2023-09-01T03:49:49Z")
I think that if you want better politicians, then the thing to do is support better candidates, not restrict who people are allowed to vote for. ---
**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, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/56 "2023-09-01T10:51:31Z")
Nikki Haley thinks there people over 75 should take a mental competency test to serve in the Senate. That should tell you right away it’s a bad idea and that at age 51 governors of South Carolina should be tested for mental competency before they’re allowed to speak in public. Pretty much at any age actually. ---
**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, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/57 "2023-09-01T10:55:29Z")
> [@Digger11](#): > > And the few that do want to do something are in favor of a wildly-unfair “one size fits all” mandatory retirement age You don’t seem to be addressing my one-size-fits-all question about why you don’t simply have folks get tested regardless of age. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/58 "2023-09-01T11:28:45Z")
Way too complicated, and open to game playing (as noted by others). > No person over the age of 75 pick your number shall be elected to or appointed to any office or position designated in the Constitution allows clever old folks to still be on commissions and what not > > No person over the age of 81 pick your number shall hold any Constitutional office cleans up the Judiciary. Yes, there are people older than that that are still competent, but who cares? In general, people are declining by then, and fresh blood in any organization is a good idea. I find term limits a non-starter in general. Legislating is a skill like any other, and experience improves it. We don’t generally chase people out of other positions because they’ve been there for X years, and doing that to elected politicians seems likely to put even more power into unelected groups (like ALEC) who will have the institutional knowledge of how things work and get done. I’d rather have that knowledge in someone who is directly answerable to either voters or the law (in the case of blatant corruption). ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/59 "2023-09-01T11:33:24Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > Yes, there are people older than that that are still competent, but who cares? In general, people are declining by then, and fresh blood in any organization is a good idea. > [@Folacin](#): > > I find term limits a non-starter in general. Legislating is a skill like any other, and experience improves it. We don’t generally chase people out of other positions because they’ve been there for X years, and doing that to elected politicians seems likely to put even more power into unelected groups (like ALEC) who will have the institutional knowledge of how things work and get done. You contradict yourself. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2023, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383/60 "2023-09-01T11:40:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It’s not hypothetical. Incumbency advantage is real (see link above). Incumbency advantage is in decline: [The Decline of Incumbency Advantage in U.Sl. House Elections](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276102667_It's_Nothing_Personal_The_Decline_of_the_Incumbency_Advantage_in_US_House_Elections) The main reason incumbents are winning so much is not because of incumbency advantage, but because of the great sort where districts (and states) are now red and blue rathe than purple. As for your Open Secrets link, it does show some incumbency campaign contribution advantage, but the importance of fundraising can be overrated. In as much as there is an incumbency advantage, the incumbent has less need than a challenger to pander. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theoretical-constitutional-amendment-for-age-restrictions-on-politicians/989383.md?page=4)