I sometimes like that idea, but again, why not let the voter decide?
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).
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:
But what state is the Capitol physician from?!
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.
Why is incumbency advantage a problem?
Withdrawn
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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 notYes, 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.No person over the age of 81 pick your number shall hold any Constitutional office cleans up the Judiciary.
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).
You contradict yourself.
Incumbency advantage is in decline:
The Decline of Incumbency Advantage in U.Sl. 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.