1510
submitted 10 months ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/politics@lemmy.world

Over three-fourths of Americans think there should be a maximum age limit for elected officials, according to a CBS News/YouGov survey.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

Retirement age is 67. If that's good enough for the normal workers than any politically connected office should be the same.

[-] kava@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

You don't have to retire at 67 though. It's not a requirement.

Some people maintain their mental lucidity well into their 80s. I think this type of limit would be ageist. People should not be discriminated on things they can't control.

If enough citizens democratically decide that a candidate is mentally lucid enough to be president or senator or what have you, why should we remove that democratic choice from the population?

I agree that I'm tired of really old politicians like Biden or Trump or McConnell or Pelosi, etc. But I'll express that with my vote, not try to cancel out other people's votes.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Frankly I think this is something that needs to be indirectly addressed. We need to reduce the importance of seniority in Congress such that people won't worry about new blood losing them influence. And, we need to make it easier for people to run for office. It's all about encouraging turnover.

The problem with a mental acuity test is that it can very easily be corrupted for disenfranchisement. After 2016 the idea of a basic civics test to vote might've seemed appealing for instance, but in practice it would almost certainly be used to suppress minority votes.

[-] seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 10 months ago

Why not make turnover the requirement with term limits? Give them a reasonable amount of time to get projects done, but after a set period of time, they can't run anymore. Just like what's done for presidents.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That's not a bad idea. You can serve unlimited terms, but not three consecutive terms in the Senate or seven in the house. Every 12 years you have to transition to a different part of the government or leave entirely for one term.

Maybe we could make this even more beneficial by having that skipped term be one where you stay in your district/state and spend dedicated time with your constituents. So after two terms in the Senate, you'd spend 6 years effectively as a community organizer and take notes.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Airplane traffic controllers were set to a max retirement age of 56 due to mental degredation. I don't believe presidents should be capped at that but it is a good example of a federal institution (FAA) limiting based on age for cognitive reasons. 65 sounds good to me. Maybe that will keep parties from sinking all their resources into few baskets and focus on passing down knowledge and promoting younger members.

[-] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago

Should be lower than that

this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1510 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18075 readers
2685 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS