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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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 in public.