Most term limit proposals I see are in the 12 year range. You get to Congress at 30, and you’re done by 42? Crazy.
You get to be 80ish? You in general are no longer near as sharp as you used to be. Heck, I’m 65, smarter than the average bear and can tell I’m no longer as quick as I once was (but probably my accumulated wisdom makes up for that). Yeah, we’ll lose some elder statespeople who still can contribute, but we also get rid of Strom Thurmond and DiFi.
Term limits wouldn’t help. Politicians come and go, but the bureaucracy is forever, so to speak. These guys aren’t even reading much less writing legislation, they are being wheeled in to vote as they are told. “Where are we going??? “Just say Aye”. We’re in the best of hands, I’m sure.
Conversely, our current president is twice my age and is probably in better physical and mental shape than I am. I don’t see how disqualifying him from running for president would have been worth South Carolina being represented from the late '70s to early 2000s by a young racist asshole instead of an old racist asshole.
Really? Does a mandatory retirement age apply to a fifty year old and a seventy year old equally?
Democracy is the solution to this problem. We need to regard elected officials as our employees. As long as we feel they’re doing a good job, we keep them at that job. When we feel they can’t do the job - due to whatever factor we choose to apply - we fire them.
We should not allow other people to take that decision making power away from us.
We also shouldn’t ignore the elephant in the room. This isn’t really about some theoretical election. This is about the 2024 election.
The leaders of the Republican party want Ron DeSantis to be President. But they’re worried that the voters won’t do what they’re told. DeSantis is in third place behind a 77 year old and an 80 year old. So suddenly we’re hearing how nobody over the age of 75 should be allowed to be President.
I’ll readily agree that Donald Trump shouldn’t be President. But it has nothing to do with his age; he shouldn’t have been President when he was thirty-five. And DeSantis shouldn’t be President either. But I’m willing to let the voters make that decision.
And while we’ve had some bad elected officials, i don’t think an age limit really addresses the major issues, which have to do with bad information and “first past the post” election systems. I think a lot of our issues with presidential elections would go away if every state primary used ranked choice voting. And i think mandatory financial disclosures would be a lot more useful than mandatory medical disclosures, and either would do a lot more than flat age limits.
Err…of course. The retirement age would be posted. Everyone in the country would be aware. It would apply to everyone.
We draw all sorts of arbitrary age lines in society. Age of majority, age you can drink or smoke, age you can drive, more testing of older drivers, minimum and maximum ages for certain jobs.
There is nothing magical or sinister about “your decision power.” Society draws some lines and we work within those lines. Nothing new there.
There is a minimum age for president. Are you complaining that this is restricting your decision power and what really needs to be done is to abolish that minimum?
A law that draws a line and says everyone on this side of the line can do this and everyone on that side of the line can’t do is pretty much the definition of inequality.
If it was up to me, I’d abolish the minimum age requirement.
The proposal as written by the OP is, in my opinion, too complicated. As we’ve seen with the previous occupant of the White House, unscrupulous doctors will lie their asses off. If you want to make an age limit of 80, then I won’t object. Competency tests bring back the echoes of literacy tests of the 1950s south and we shouldn’t touch that with a ten foot pole.
Term limits are, in my opinion, about the stupidest idea that gets traction these days. As congressmen gain experience, many become specialists on different topics, be it insurance or infrastructure or foreign policy or whatever. Force people out and you that experience walks out the door and laws are written by people with no clue what they’re talking about.
Or, roll the dice and wait until they die in office and have the opposing party block your party’s ability to fill the vacancy on important committees, or take advantage of an unexpected opportunity to stack the supreme court.
Congress is getting old - we are being represented by a body of people whose average age is near retirement for everyone else…
…the average age in the Senate is 63.9 years. In the House, it’s 57.5 years.
I am not saying it’s good or bad, and I agree senior congress-critters know how to get things done, but if incumbents are (nearly) always re-elected, death while in-office poses risks and unpredictability.
A problem with that is that the people of KY, CA, and AL voted in people who are screwing up things for everybody, but only that subset can fire them. Not sure what to do about that (certainly don’t want to nationalize all elections), but an age limit or term limits (which are a stupid idea) would help (not for Tommy T currently, of course).
It would undoubtedly bring in a fresh set of problems, but I’m willing to do the change and see what those would be, because the current system has certainly been captured by those in power.
Or, lobbyists who do know what they are talking about.
But a few high profile examples aside, the options voters generally face in the ballot box are an 80 year old lifelong incumbent and someone of the opposing party.
Why is that? Why didn’t democrats in CA primary out Diane Feinstein? I would say it’s FPTP but looking at the vote totals from 2018, it wasn’t even close; voters overwhelmingly wanted to keep her around.
Maybe voters at large don’t share the same opinion of old candidates that we seem to have here at the dope.
Sure incumbents have an advantage- becuase the voters like incumbents. Let the voters choose.
Ageist and bigoted statement. I care. Let the voters choose.
Exactly.
Let the voters choose.
4th. He is also behind Harris, who is 58. And Newsom who is 55.
But yeah, the GOP suddenly wants to get rid of seniors running for President. But they are 100% behind McConnell.
All minimum ages.
Too much work.
You think 57 is near retirement?
CA? Yes, Feinstein is showing signs, but she is not running for re-election, so she is gonna be 'fired". Are you proposing we shitcan old people automatically once they show some signs of senility? What issues are she causing?
People are always going on about representation. 70% of the US population is under 55. Many of these people in government are stymied by the issues of the day with technology and social issues.
With Democrats holding just a single-seat advantage in the Senate, Feinstein’s absence complicated her party’s efforts to confirm some of President Joe Biden’s nominees. Her absence was most pronounced on the Judiciary Committee, where an 11-10 majority became a 10-10 stalemate — frustrating Democratic efforts to confirm some judges and scuttling any plans to issue subpoenas on party-line votes.
[snip]
While Feinstein was sidelined, Senate Republicans were able to pass a measure to overturn new air pollution standards on a 50-49 vote, with the help of Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Biden is expected to veto it.
I don’t understand why people think it’s shocking or scandalous or unfair that people who are popular enough to get elected are also popular enough to be reelected, as if the community is expected to change its mind about what kind of politicians they want every couple of years.
I don’t find it shocking or scandalous. BUT, if you’re in a safe state, like CA for Feinstein, no one is going to challenge you in the primary* and no Republican is going to beat you*. She wins overwhelmingly, but not because the voters really love her, they just don’t have good options.
*Yes, of course, they could. In theory. She could run from her hospice bed and probably win again if she wanted to.
I do see the pros and cons, and acknowledge that limiting voters’ options is a con, but overall I think a mandatory age limit would be an improvement.
That may be what the Founding Fathers envisioned but it certainly is not what we have.
I have never seen any evidence of this in congress. Committees are filled based on seniority. Most bills are written by special interest groups. I never hear someone in either house call on Jane Doe to come up and talk to share her vast experience so they can make a better and more informed decision. Votes are usually along party lines and not based on someone with vast experience swaying them (there is a reason each party has a whip).
I also do not think the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert are going to be any smarter or have any more valuable experience in 20 years than they do today (beyond being better able to navigate and manipulate the system).
A tortoise and the hare race if ever there was one. Crowley was so sure he was invincible he didn’t work at winning. No way AOC could defeat a powerhouse like him! Well, she put in the work.
That was especially notable because it is so rare. Many were shocked when AOC won.
makes up for that). Yeah, we’ll lose some elder statespeople who still can contribute, but we also get rid of Strom Thurmond and DiFi.