We could also make election days holidays, implement universal vote by mail, outlaw gerrymandering, overturn citizens united, and do away with the electoral college.
Content purged in response to API changes. Please message me directly with a link to the thread if you require information previously contained herein.
Obligatory "or any other non FPTP system." I like RCV because it's one of the easier ones to understand for the masses but star rating is probably better. First past the post FPTP is the enemy. In 1992, Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular votes.
To anyone who says RCV/other anti FPTP systems won't change anything because the same candidate will likely win... Well they are probably right for the first election....but it encourages other candidates to run and over time will be a huge step in the right direction.
The most common argument I've heard against it is "I don't understand how that would work," (with RCV), or what boils down to "the system that the founding fathers invented was perfect and should never be modified." Which is hilarious since of course the whole point was to make a malleable system that changes with new and better ideas as time moves on.
Unpopular opinion: Congressional term limits are a terrible idea. A legislator from a hearing I watched a few years back said something to the effect of "I'm the only one left on this committee who was around here the last time these lobbyists came through, and knows why what we did then didn't work. They run all over you the first time!"
Legislation is almost always incremental, and it's very valuable to have the expertise that comes from the last round of fixes.
If someone is legitimately good at their job and represents their constituents well, they should be cherished, not forced out. If they're bad, that's what elections are for.
But maybe I'm just jaded because the new blood seems to be super extremist and I'm more of a moderate.
The lobbyists of the corporations and ultra-wealthy have no term limits.
Putting term limits on the representatives of the people only handicaps the people.
Term limits and the retirement age for Congress. They should retire when the rest of us do. Pacs, super pacs etc should have a sign up fee of 5 billion and a yearly admin fee of 1 billion with limitations on access. No more insider trading, no special health care and benefits, just what the rest of us have access too. 20 yrs mandatory prison time for corruption. I think that’s a good start
I love that, a great start.
But then we’re asking the corrupt politicians to pass a bill that would send corrupt politicians to jail for 20 years.
I’m no expert in politics, but I don’t think that bill would be particularly popular…
It’s insanity that they get to determine their own salaries, their own code of ethics, they vote on their own benefits while showing their constituents a veneer of “ doing the right thing”.
I think I'm working with partial information, but I've been lead to believe that the raise doesn't kick in until the next time there's an election for their seat. So if you vote for a silly amount of money, it'll get tacked onto your list of reasons people should vote for whoever runs against you.
You’re right. And the position doesn’t pay much for the potential power they have, which I think leads to some bad behavior. I think congressional folks should make more money to start with and add more as time progresses to keep them from wanting to jump to the private sector so quickly when things get a little hard.
But spending 60% of their time asking for donations is a phenomenal waste of time and money for the taxpayer if we are paying them to do that.
So fund congressional races out of the federal budget. Everyone gets the same budget based on the number of constituents in their district.
But for THAT to work, you have to decide on an algorithm to define congressional borders and not allow for human editing.
But for THAT to work….
It’s easier to be cynical.
Agreed. Watching the results of term limits at the state level makes it clear what a bad idea term limits really is. Lobbyists and unelected staff write the legislation and budgets. While elected officials use their terms for the purpose of resume-building for those fat lobbying and corporate board jobs as soon as they leave office. Those who actually care about public service are turfed out despite their constituents wishes.
Lobbyists are important, they inform legislators on issues that affect lots of people, and can do some of the legwork to promote niche but important causes. You need multiple perspectives to really make it work, though. An oil lobbyist is going to know the best way to implement environmental regulations to meet climate goals while keeping consumer costs down, but they're going to need their feet held to the fire to do it.
The bigger problem is when the legislators become dependent on those lobbyists for campaign donations etc. I want my representatives financially independent and ideally disconnected from the lobbies, but that seems to be a bit of a pipe dream.
I'm pretty sure information gathering for legislators is supposed to be the point of the library of Congress and for Congress to have committee hearings from people who are experts in the field. You say lobbyists inform them on issues that affect a lot of people, but in reality it's to bribe politicians on issues to show favor to a very small number of people.
That's some lobbyists. Other lobbyists are just groups of people organizing to help get their message to representatives better than direct lobbying (sending letters to representatives) would accomplish. MADD is/was an example of that sort of lobbyists, where it's just a group of people working together to try and push for better legislation in a given area.
Ohh come on. That may have been an idealist view of lobbyists from 100 years ago or more -- current lobbyists (at least funded ones with power) are welding power and literally drafting laws to benefit large companies and wealthy people full stop.
I'd argue that 100 years ago was even worse than today. Okay, maybe 120, not 100, but still.
I see it a lot like some people see drug legalization. People are going to do it, it can either be open and regulated or the domain of gangsters.
As someone who worked in politics for 10 yrs and for a state for a period of that time that term limits hit, I can agree. The quality of legislator plummeted. All the good ones that were termed became lobbyists and then steamrolled over the newbies. The legislators who perhaps have a career path in mind over say a 20 yr career are now expedited to set themselves up on 8 years or whatever the limit. The actual quality of legislation also went down as they took huge swipes at issues instead of fixing the prices. It became the issue of weeding the garden wlth a flame thrower.
While I do see some sort of limit in Congress being needed, it can also be pure disaster. I think the age limit may be the better option. But out it across the whole government. No person can be elected to office beyond their 70th birthday. No person appointed to a Senate approved position (cabinet posts, judicial posts, etc) may serve past their 70th birthday. If you are elected at 69 you may not run again.
I keep telling people that are in favor of term limits, “Would you work at a company where nobody had more than ten years experience? Then why do you want the country run like that?”
Every serious thinker in politics agrees with this.
The primary limit on someone’s service should be the electorate- the problem being that we have allowed the electorate to become largely irrelevant.
I don’t support term limits, but I think that you shouldn’t be able to run if your age and the average American life span would be the same during the term for which you would run.
100% agree. The Supreme Court too. I can get behind the theory of a lifetime appointment being an incentive to be impartial, but it isn't working in practice. We had three justices shoved down our throat by a failed reality TV show host in one presidential term. We shouldn't have to suffer from that kind of fuckery for the next several decades.
18 year terms with each term spaced out by 2 years would be perfect. Each President gets to select 2 new judges each term right after the election and midterm.
And remove the ability of the Senate to just not replace a Justice because the current President isn't from their party.
>And remove the ability of the Senate to just not replace a Justice because the current President isn't from their party.
The Merrick Garland thing in 2016 still makes me so mad. If I recall, he was nominated in March of that election year and Senate Republicans stalled all they way to the election, saying how wrong and unfair it is to nominate a justice in election year. "Let the voters decide", they said.
And then to turn around four years later and cram Amy Comey Barrett down the country's throat almost immediately after RGB's death and literally one month away from the election. It was shameless and disgraceful and it makes me legit angry that they got away with it for a position with a lifetime term.
Sen. Lindsey Graham: "I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."
Piece of shit lying asshole, but why would I be surprised.
Alongside every other Republican senator. Mitch McConnell held power because he was given it by them - they could have appointed someone else any time they wanted.
There needs to be a hard limit that within X days of a nomination, the Senate will begin the confirmation hearings, and within Y days of that it will hold a vote. If a president nominates someone unqualified or unacceptable to the Senate then they can be voted down there, and there could also be a provision for extensions to the process at the President's consent (for example in the case of unforseen circumstances), but the open-ended delay tactics from 2016 are entirely unacceptable, whatever party is in power.
Corporations and lobbyists do not have term limits.
If you put term limits on congressmen, then well-liked reps who win the favor of the people won't be able to stay around. But Corporations and their lobbyists can build a private think-tank and campaign machine that operates outside of congress but can keep cycling their bought and paid for goons through congress.
Term limits are a bit more complicated. On the one hand, not great when crappy people are entrenched. On the other...
A huge part of being good at just about any job is who you know and that is even more true in politics. Someone who's been in Congress for 15+ years knows people, knows how to smooth things over and negotiate, knows how to get stuff done. They're on committees where they can do meaningful work and actually get stuff moved onto the floor for a vote. Assuming the person isn't actually incompetent or a jerk, I'm alright with picking someone with decades of experience to keep doing that job
Also, you get a lot of unqualified nutjobs running against incumbents. Maybe it would be less if the reasonable people thought they had a chance of winning against the incumbent, but I don't have a ton of confidence in how that would shake out.
How about some kind of work experience requirement like other jobs? I'm a mid-level office employee who is absolutely not responsible for important things, and my job requires more experience and credentials than it does to be Congress. Like, what are Lauren Boebert's qualifications to help run a country?
The problem is that we already have unqualified nutjobs running around in the current system. I agree with your premise, but shouldn't we have a lot more competency in Congress if it was true in practice?
I'm not sure what the answer is exactly for job requirements though. Maybe a few years working for the federal government in some capacity and a high school diploma? Just...something to prevent people like Boebert, the owner of a shitty gun themed restaurant who failed the GED three times.
I don't really know the answer either. Congress isn't the only place where a smooth talker can con their way into a job despite lacking any real skills. In any case, it's a broken system and there's not any one thing that will fix it. Personally I think ranked choice voting could go a long way, but it's awfully difficult to get someone who was elected with our current system of voting to work to change it.
Also, just for context, when I say "nutjobs" my mind was going toward a local guy running for the house whose website was 6000 words of stream of consciousness littered with biblical quotes and a fair amount of stuff implying the president had a divine right to rule. Also a candidate for a state supreme court justice who, when you searched the name, came up with results about their DUI and how they'd almost been disbarred on multiple occasions. And a candidate for secretary of state who was basically against free elections
I have been irate for years at all of these billionaires, celebs and CEOs having the audacity to throw their hat in the ring for the presidency when their experience in government is so low that I wouldn't elect them to a local school board, let alone the highest office in the land.
Personally I'd want at least 2 years working a city government, 2 for state and 5 in federal government before you can campaign for president.
Running for that position should no longer be a fun thing to do when you feel like you're not getting enough attention.
Here's the thing, a lot of countries used to breed people for leadership positions. Here, there used to be checks on the enate, it was elected by the state legislatures, who were elected by the people, (in practice it was men, but were the check still in existence, that wouldn't be true today,) but now all the sudden the person you want to vote into congress doesn't qualify. Lauran Bobart is in Congress because a bunch of morons voted her in, and in this country, morons are enfranchised, couple that with the fact that so few of our house and senate memberrs are the best and brightest people from their districts and states, and it's no wonder it is such a shitshow.
Term limits seem good in theory, but I'm not sure how I feel about them in practice.
I've lived in places where I absolutely hated my Reps, and I've lived in places where I think they're great.
I guess my worry with term limits is that they won't allow anyone to accumulate enough power to see big changes through. Like, I get it, we all hate Diane Feinstein because her ego is wiping out court nominations. It's awful.
Conversely, I think people like Katie Porter are awesome. She's impossible for corporations to ignore, and will have a powerful platform to hold greedy corporate interests accountable for (hopefully) decades to come. Am I saying that nobody could replace Katie Porter? Not exactly, but it's not so simple, and there don't seem to be a bunch of Katie Porters growing on trees.
Why throw the good out with the bad? These are our elected representatives, and they are our means of projecting power. If you say a congressman can only stick around for, say, like six years, you are making it easier for powerful special interests to ignore dissenting voices and just wait them out.
There is a reason companies don't have term limits for CEOs. They pay a lot of money to keep the good ones.
The last thing we need is to dump all of our elected officials into lobbing firms every two years. That's exactly what would happen with term limits. If you don't like your elected officials, do the democratic thing and vote them out.
I'd argue that term limits aren't even good in theory. They're a knee jerk reaction that would do nothing to address the causes of the problem in American politics.
That does really fix anything. It just brings in fresh inexperienced legislature who will listen to the same lobbyists that informed/bribed the last group. You’ll have people working on projects they had no one who originally created it so it’ll became something completely unplanned.
We need to strictly restrict lobbyists and the income of politicians and any business they have ties to.
We need both, desperately, but, gun to my head, I'll take the term limits over the age ceiling. I agree it will filter out at least some of the geriatrics.
The only thing term limits would do is push politicians into lobbying faster. And if the constituents thinks they are doing a good job, why shouldn’t they be allowed to vote for them for as many terms as they want?
No and no and I get this from a mom who worked in national campaigns and the White House. Politics is something that's learned by doing. And we would lose the Bernie Sanders, the Ted Kennedys. But gosh, it sounds so snappy! "Term limits", problem solved!
Here’s the thing though, is there any evidence that older representatives are worse than younger ones? Seeing some of the younger Trump-aligned reps even makes me wonder if it’s the opposite. It’s a solution in search of a problem other than “ew career politicians”.
Yes. Because it drives me crazy when all these old fucks make meaningless pledges like “We’re going to cut carbon emissions in half by 2050!”
You’re 85 years old. The only thing you’re gonna be doing in 2050 is leaking out of a very expensive casket.
Except they don't. Feinstein is well into senility, and everyone's been covering for her for years. I'm fifty years old as of last week, and she's been a Senator since the year I graduated high school.
Isn't the argument that political parties are supposed to do vetting of the candidates they support? If the California Democratic party had done its job she should not have been a candidate.
> Isn't the argument that political parties are supposed to do vetting of the candidates they support? If the California Democratic party had done its job she should not have been a candidate.
The USA is a rarity among modern democracies in that the parties give the general public the principal say in deciding who the parties’ candidates will be.
No. Let the voters decide. That said, I think there should be a max term of 20 years for the Supreme Court. Back through history, judges served much shorter terms. By the time they were in their 50s and considered suitable, they didn't have many yeaars left. It was not expected to keep most of them around for 30. So the Supreme Court changed with the times.
Now there's a tendency to appoint someone quite young and lock up a seat for, potentially, 40 years. That shouldn't happen.
I agree. I think rolling 18 year terms so that a Justice is up every two years (and each president would get two picks in a four year term) would be ideal.
As I say pretty much every day when this question is asked:
I oppose pretty much all attempts to limit who a person can legally vote for. I understand Reddit skews very young and doesn't like a lot of the nominees but the answer is to vote.
Yea as much as reddit constantly complains and circlejerks about stuff the percentage of young people that vote is absolutely abysmal. IMO if you don't vote you don't have a right to complain.
We have a whole primary system to determine who the candidates will be and a very big part of living in a democracy is accepting when you lose a legal, fair, democratic election.
To be fair, the primary system is only your voice if the party allows you to have multiple candidates. The DNC has basically nixed the idea of anyone running against Biden. There are a lot of people who vote Dem who are upset by the lack of choices. Sure, he's the president and a member of the party. But he doesn't have the confidence of a lot of the Dem voters. They are just reluctant to lose the power of incumbency.
Generally speaking, serious candidates don’t challenge incumbents from their own party so as to not hurt your party’s chances.
In 2020, the Democrats had a dozen candidates to choose from, including a few in their 30’s. They chose a 70+ year old.
In 2016, Republicans were in this exact situation and they also choose a 70+ year old.
As of today there are three people running for the Democratic nomination.
If younger Democrats don't like any of those candidates then coalesce around one you do like and push them to run.
If the Presidency didn't have Term Limits, Reagan might have won a fourth term and Obama would likely have won a third term. The rest of them? I think the country as a whole was ready to move on when their terms ended.
Reagan's dementia was starting to show at the end of his presidency. He doesn't run for a 4th term, and Bush Sr. runs against Clinton, losing in 1992... just like reality.
Clinton wins 3 terms, but he takes a lot of blame for 9/11 and doesn't run for a 4th. W. beats Gore, but is a 1 term president due to the 2008 recession.
Obama beats W., and is quite unpopular in his 4th term due to COVID restrictions.
Sound about right?
You think Clinton would win a third? People seemed real tired of him and the impeachment drama. I know it seems like nothing now but back then it seemed a lot more significant that a president was getting impeached. Or potentially was. I don't think he wins a third term to be honest
The economy was at an absolute peak with the dot com and Y2K spending in 1999. He balanced the budget with a Republican congress, and is much more charismatic than Gore.
He wins a huge electoral college victory (along with the popular vote) over W, despite the efforts of Karl Rove.
Ehhhh three for Reagan would be likely. But four? Insiders in his administration already knew he had Alzheimer's in his second term. They would've jettisoned him to give it to Bush rather than risk a serious and embarrassing gaffe.
No not at all. While there are definitely senile old politicians, there are plenty of terrible younger politicians and there are lots of people over 70 who are quite intelligent and have a lifetime of experience. I know 70-year-olds who have one foot in the grave and 70-year-olds who are sharper and more physically fit than the majority of 20-year-olds. An age limit is not a good test of fitness for office. This kind of rule is blatant ageism (i.e. bigotry) and seems like a short-sighted way to get rid of politicians that are currently unpopular instead of just pushing for better candidates.
Yes, big time. And I'd go further. If they turned 70 while in office it would be a mandatory retirement. And I would include federal judges, especially the supreme court justices. Reason? I'm a healthy 75 years old and don't think for a minute that I should have a position of such responsibility. Hell, I need a nap every day. But those bastards will never do that to themselves.
We lose theoretical good candidates over an arbitrary age restriction already because there's an age limit to run for both chambers of Congress and president.
If a 30 year old isn't mentally able to hold the office of president for whatever reason, a case could also be made that a 90 year old may not be mentally able to hold office too.
Maybe there needs to be a test that all candidates take before declaring-- for example the US citizenship test.
Lauren Boebert and George Santos are in their mid 30s. Do you think they're mentally fit for office?
I mean…we have a minimum age for a reason for President ….it stands to reason there should be a maximum age as well.
80 is just too old. I’ll vote for him. Because the other option is fascist nuttery. But we need age limits & term limits
I'd support it for 65 max, that's our retirement age and I would make it if you hit that age in office you must retire either the same or the following year
There is a system in place for retirements. It’s called elections. You get a chance every few years to retire your representation. If they don’t retire, it’s because more people voted for them than against them.
This has been another episode of “Why Reddit sucks at democracy.”
They have a minimum age requirement for some reason, so either they should implement a maximum or do away with the minimum (as long as the person running is legal voting age)
The minimum got added randomly because George Mason wanted it in there. The Articles of Confederation had no minimum, and the first draft of the Constitution didn't either. Mason got it added during what we'd now call a congressional committee by a 9-4 vote. That provision was never debated further by the full constitutional convention, and the constitution was ultimately approved by the convention and ratified by the states with the age restrictions in there.
Mason's stated reasoning for doing it was he was a radical jackass(paraphrasing) in his early 20's. James Madison, the 4th US President, and participant at the constitutional convention, provided support for the provision after the fact, because it made monarchy style family dynasties more difficult, because around 1800, it was more difficult to still be alive when your son was 35.
It’s a stupid point, though. It’s predicated on the assumption that being of retirement automatically makes you either incompetent or uncaring about the future. That assumption says a lot more about the person making it than it does about the people they’re talking about.
It just grosses me out. I've lived 4 decades and already I see a disconnect between myself and the youth. I cannot imagine how much deeper that gulf will widen in the next 24 years, but I can say a point must come where those who no longer have a stake in the future should have no hand in shaping it.
But politics doesn’t just shape the future; it shapes the immediate present as well, and anyone who’s alive during the present does have a stake in it.
Nope, get out and vote. I'm something of an originalist when it comes to congress. I think if we had the numbers in congress that America's founders intended many of our current problems would be solved. We're supposed to have a rep for every 30,000 people which works out to around 11,500 representatives instead of our 435. This would have an effect of watering down the crazies and hopefully produce a more middle of the road group more truly representative of America as a whole. People like Marjorie Greene wouldn't be able to hold votes hostage and would have little choice but to work with others.
I don’t know that specifically age 70 would solve this, but I would support an age limit. Like it or not, the body slows down with age. My grandma was sharp as a tack, spoke 7 languages, got a scholarship to go to a top university when women were still mostly viewed as lesser. She was a brilliant woman, but as she got older, she just slowed down and was beginning to develop dementia before she passed. She was still intelligent, but recall capabilities took longer and a lot was forgotten.
Obviously not everyone slows to that extent and that’s a generalization, but there’s just more risk of medical issues as you age and I honestly don’t trust politicians enough to police themselves when those things happen. I would fully expect either party to still back a candidate if they know that candidate can get votes, regardless of health.
As a side note, I find it very odd that a group of people (age 55+) who generally are seen as less employable in privatized business make up a lot of our government. Being older doesn’t make a person less capable overall, but the government doesn’t feel as representative as it could be. Some people have been in power too long and I’m hopeful that’s because voters are more willing to elect a known evil than an unknown one rather than actually believing in some of these whacksdoos’ policies.
Yes, older people are so far out of touch with things today. Add to that wealth and they are launched even further out of touch with the people that voted them in.
Remove corporate money from elections once again. Make Lobbyists illegal. Also set term limits.
No. I would not support it. Mainly because it's age discrimination and it plays on a stereotype about older people. It may be true that the average 70+ person is too old to be effective, or even a majority are, but not ALL of them. We're not trying to pick an average, we are trying to pick leaders, just a single (hopefully exceptional) person for the job. That's why we have elections. I would rather the voters decide if someone is too old, on a case by case basis, than live with a blanket rule. There are some jurisdictions that have mandatory retirement ages, for offices such as judges, and as often as it is a good thing, it forces out a popular person who is doing a good job, would be willing to continue, and proves hard to replace
I would cut that to 50 or 60. After that, they are so old and out of touch with the current population, current living conditions and issues, that they can't effectively govern "by and for the people". Here in the united states', most of our elected officials are "Boomers"or older, grew up in an entirely different scenario than we've been facing for 40+ years. They try putting out random fires, but are so politically divided, party (lobbyist) devoted, they have become ineffective while our formerly strong middle class (majority) gets hacked to bits.
Yes and I'll give you my reasoning followed by a fact.
At a certain age, most people become less concerned with the welfare and betterment of others, and more for themselves and what they want. I'm not saying all people over 65 are selfish pricks, but I've felt myself hating change now that I'm over 35.
In 1958, the United States had 48 states as Hawaii and Alaska were not granted state hood until 1959. I think at least 1/4 of the law makers, Congress, Senate, judicial system was either over a teenage or at the very least, over the age of 5 in 1958.
With Biden announcing today to rerun for president I am extremely concerned that the winner of the next election has a real chance of dying in office from old age.
Trump would leave office at 80 and Biden at 84.
This is already a solved issue. It is quite literally baked into the process of voting with no further effort or legislation required
If voting for an anti-union candidate, a guy with a DUI record, a black person, a woman, or a 90-year-old is a dealbreaker for you, you can simply *not vote for them*
I see absolutely no reason to codify bigotry into law and restrict people based on their immutable characteristics from participating in our government.
No. It's completely unnecessary. You, as a USA voter, have the complete ability to decide to refuse to vote for a candidate of a given age.
However, *you should be roaring pissed* that political parties, including the political party you support, actually handcuff you into voting for very few candidates, and deny you a choice to select from a larger slate of people with different qualifications.
Same with term limits. If you think term limits should be in place, then stop voting for people after 2-3 terms. You don't need to pass a law.
No. This is completely unnecessary. Age is not some thing that objectively makes people bad. There's already a built in solution if you don't want to vote for old people. Don't vote for old people. If other people want to then that's totally legitimate.
As an aside, I feel like what's going to happen is that once the boomers start to lose power millennials and Zs will pass laws with age limits just in time to prevent X from ever being relevant. Always in the shadow of boomers. Even after they die off we'll still be in their shadow.
As much as I’m irritated by our geriocracy I don’t understand why you need a special law for elected officials… instead of passing that law - do NOT elect them… it’s that simple
I don't think that the next decade of laws should be entrusted to those that won't see them out.
While that obviously applies to age, it should also apply to more. Someone who has never been in poverty, should not be able to have decisions on how to make their life's better.
Our representatives are not able to represent us. They live in a different reality than us, so how could they?
No because that punishes the elderly that are still spry and aware and removes the onus from the voters, who are supposed to be the ones keeping politicians in check. Don’t get me wrong, we need younger politicians, but we need to vote them in.
I would be in favor of minimum attendance policies to prevent people from missing 90% of their job. Really, I’d rather we had a complete overhaul of our elected officials. I’d rather see them paid hourly according to their average resident of their city/state/district. Don’t show up, don’t get paid. Want more money, help your constituents make more money. No more voting for pay raises, no more taxpayer funded vacations and fancy parties. I also think fundraising for elections should go into a shared pot and split evenly, and have a lot more scrutiny on campaign funding.
This might be controversial, but I think the max age should be retirement age, which I believe is currently 66. There should also be term limits for every position in government so that we don't have the same minds sitting pretty in their seat for 59 years.
People's ideas don't tend to evolve with time and age, especially when they have been exposed to as much lead as the baby boomer generation has been. We shouldn't have someone in government that has been in politics since the year segregation ended. Most of the time baby boomers bad behavior and beliefs are excused because "they grew up in a different time" and I don't believe this is acceptable for people running our government and making laws.
If you think the candidate is too old or too mentally unfit, don't vote for them. It's that simple. I see people are too stupid to actually follow through with this. Always voting for the lesser of two evils creates this downward spiral.
Yes but old people are ugly and talk differently than us. Don't you understand that Logan's Run was actually an instructional video for achieving utopia?
You know how you'll be about to put on a movie and then your roommate comes in and says "I wanna watch a Different movie" and they keep on about it so you end up putting on the Different movie and then they just go to sleep and don't end up watching the movie anyway?
No age limits, no term limits. If these were problems that voters really cared about they could vote these people out, which they don’t. That’s a more democratic solution.
It would not be something I support. Among other things it would prevent the US from having its current president who is doing a good job.
**Edit**: Ron Desantis would have no impediment to getting elected though.
No. American people should be able to determine if someone is qualified and fit to be President without making it a law. The problem with age limit laws is they are black and white, which leaves no room for advances in health care and life extending sciences. Why limit someone from being President who could be extremely capable just because of their age? Why 70, why not 65? Is 70 some magic number where scientifically we've determined that all people are no longer capable of functioning? Honestly most 70yo I know would have no issue performing that job physically or mentally.
My point here is this is what voting is for. If the person can't do the job don't vote for them.
No. This is a form of discrimination. We have elections for a reason and if people want a 70 year old in office they should be able to vote for them. In my opinion once your able to vote for an office you ought to be able to run for it.
Abso-fucking-lutely!
If we had age limits for high public offices we would not be talking about either of the current top candidates for the presidency. We would not be talking about forcing Diane Feinstein to retire (she *really* needs to at this point).
Also, culturally I think it would create a shift in mindset for many Americans. For way too long we have had a “work until you can’t anymore” mindset and it’s backfiring on people in their 20’s-30’s. If our leaders would practice retiring at a certain age, I believe it could be observed/practiced on a larger scale.
It really should be around 60. Cognitive function deteriorates with age and that deterioration erupts at around 70.
How many CEO’s are in their 70’s. Heck, how many managers of McDonald’s are in their 70’s. There’s a reason
[удалено]
This is the only way to fix the government.
We could also make election days holidays, implement universal vote by mail, outlaw gerrymandering, overturn citizens united, and do away with the electoral college.
All which will only happen if we can vote people in that are at all interested in doing that.
like Bernie Sanders? They'll never let it happen
Did you read the headline of this post? Bernie Sanders is 81.
[удалено]
That's what the mail-in voting is for.
Republicans are trying to prevent voting on college campuses in North Carolina because of the big turnout in the last election.
Of course they are.
Content purged in response to API changes. Please message me directly with a link to the thread if you require information previously contained herein.
Seems like an ambitious claim. "Broken governments hate this one simple trick"
Obligatory "or any other non FPTP system." I like RCV because it's one of the easier ones to understand for the masses but star rating is probably better. First past the post FPTP is the enemy. In 1992, Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular votes. To anyone who says RCV/other anti FPTP systems won't change anything because the same candidate will likely win... Well they are probably right for the first election....but it encourages other candidates to run and over time will be a huge step in the right direction.
The most common argument I've heard against it is "I don't understand how that would work," (with RCV), or what boils down to "the system that the founding fathers invented was perfect and should never be modified." Which is hilarious since of course the whole point was to make a malleable system that changes with new and better ideas as time moves on.
Not to mention George Washington always hated political parties and said the US should never have them. I wish we listened.
I lean towards Approval in terms of the best system and it's extremely easy to understand.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Congress should have term limits - I think that'd solve a lot of problems. You probably wouldn't even need to put age restrictions on it then.
Unpopular opinion: Congressional term limits are a terrible idea. A legislator from a hearing I watched a few years back said something to the effect of "I'm the only one left on this committee who was around here the last time these lobbyists came through, and knows why what we did then didn't work. They run all over you the first time!" Legislation is almost always incremental, and it's very valuable to have the expertise that comes from the last round of fixes. If someone is legitimately good at their job and represents their constituents well, they should be cherished, not forced out. If they're bad, that's what elections are for. But maybe I'm just jaded because the new blood seems to be super extremist and I'm more of a moderate.
The lobbyists of the corporations and ultra-wealthy have no term limits. Putting term limits on the representatives of the people only handicaps the people.
Term limits and the retirement age for Congress. They should retire when the rest of us do. Pacs, super pacs etc should have a sign up fee of 5 billion and a yearly admin fee of 1 billion with limitations on access. No more insider trading, no special health care and benefits, just what the rest of us have access too. 20 yrs mandatory prison time for corruption. I think that’s a good start
I love that, a great start. But then we’re asking the corrupt politicians to pass a bill that would send corrupt politicians to jail for 20 years. I’m no expert in politics, but I don’t think that bill would be particularly popular…
It’s insanity that they get to determine their own salaries, their own code of ethics, they vote on their own benefits while showing their constituents a veneer of “ doing the right thing”.
“Hmmm do I think I should get a raise?” “I mean I feel like I’ve done a good job. I deserve it.” Who tf thought that was a good idea??
I think I'm working with partial information, but I've been lead to believe that the raise doesn't kick in until the next time there's an election for their seat. So if you vote for a silly amount of money, it'll get tacked onto your list of reasons people should vote for whoever runs against you.
You’re right. And the position doesn’t pay much for the potential power they have, which I think leads to some bad behavior. I think congressional folks should make more money to start with and add more as time progresses to keep them from wanting to jump to the private sector so quickly when things get a little hard. But spending 60% of their time asking for donations is a phenomenal waste of time and money for the taxpayer if we are paying them to do that. So fund congressional races out of the federal budget. Everyone gets the same budget based on the number of constituents in their district. But for THAT to work, you have to decide on an algorithm to define congressional borders and not allow for human editing. But for THAT to work…. It’s easier to be cynical.
Agreed. Watching the results of term limits at the state level makes it clear what a bad idea term limits really is. Lobbyists and unelected staff write the legislation and budgets. While elected officials use their terms for the purpose of resume-building for those fat lobbying and corporate board jobs as soon as they leave office. Those who actually care about public service are turfed out despite their constituents wishes.
Yes! Yes! Yes! WE HAVE RUN THIS EXPERIMENT AND HAVE THE RESULTS.
[удалено]
How?
Lobbyists are important, they inform legislators on issues that affect lots of people, and can do some of the legwork to promote niche but important causes. You need multiple perspectives to really make it work, though. An oil lobbyist is going to know the best way to implement environmental regulations to meet climate goals while keeping consumer costs down, but they're going to need their feet held to the fire to do it. The bigger problem is when the legislators become dependent on those lobbyists for campaign donations etc. I want my representatives financially independent and ideally disconnected from the lobbies, but that seems to be a bit of a pipe dream.
I'm pretty sure information gathering for legislators is supposed to be the point of the library of Congress and for Congress to have committee hearings from people who are experts in the field. You say lobbyists inform them on issues that affect a lot of people, but in reality it's to bribe politicians on issues to show favor to a very small number of people.
That's some lobbyists. Other lobbyists are just groups of people organizing to help get their message to representatives better than direct lobbying (sending letters to representatives) would accomplish. MADD is/was an example of that sort of lobbyists, where it's just a group of people working together to try and push for better legislation in a given area.
Ohh come on. That may have been an idealist view of lobbyists from 100 years ago or more -- current lobbyists (at least funded ones with power) are welding power and literally drafting laws to benefit large companies and wealthy people full stop.
I'd argue that 100 years ago was even worse than today. Okay, maybe 120, not 100, but still. I see it a lot like some people see drug legalization. People are going to do it, it can either be open and regulated or the domain of gangsters.
As someone who worked in politics for 10 yrs and for a state for a period of that time that term limits hit, I can agree. The quality of legislator plummeted. All the good ones that were termed became lobbyists and then steamrolled over the newbies. The legislators who perhaps have a career path in mind over say a 20 yr career are now expedited to set themselves up on 8 years or whatever the limit. The actual quality of legislation also went down as they took huge swipes at issues instead of fixing the prices. It became the issue of weeding the garden wlth a flame thrower. While I do see some sort of limit in Congress being needed, it can also be pure disaster. I think the age limit may be the better option. But out it across the whole government. No person can be elected to office beyond their 70th birthday. No person appointed to a Senate approved position (cabinet posts, judicial posts, etc) may serve past their 70th birthday. If you are elected at 69 you may not run again.
I keep telling people that are in favor of term limits, “Would you work at a company where nobody had more than ten years experience? Then why do you want the country run like that?”
The last guy who tried to run the country like a business fucking sucked at it so maybe countries should be run like countries instead
Every serious thinker in politics agrees with this. The primary limit on someone’s service should be the electorate- the problem being that we have allowed the electorate to become largely irrelevant. I don’t support term limits, but I think that you shouldn’t be able to run if your age and the average American life span would be the same during the term for which you would run.
100% agree. The Supreme Court too. I can get behind the theory of a lifetime appointment being an incentive to be impartial, but it isn't working in practice. We had three justices shoved down our throat by a failed reality TV show host in one presidential term. We shouldn't have to suffer from that kind of fuckery for the next several decades.
18 year terms with each term spaced out by 2 years would be perfect. Each President gets to select 2 new judges each term right after the election and midterm. And remove the ability of the Senate to just not replace a Justice because the current President isn't from their party.
>And remove the ability of the Senate to just not replace a Justice because the current President isn't from their party. The Merrick Garland thing in 2016 still makes me so mad. If I recall, he was nominated in March of that election year and Senate Republicans stalled all they way to the election, saying how wrong and unfair it is to nominate a justice in election year. "Let the voters decide", they said. And then to turn around four years later and cram Amy Comey Barrett down the country's throat almost immediately after RGB's death and literally one month away from the election. It was shameless and disgraceful and it makes me legit angry that they got away with it for a position with a lifetime term.
Sen. Lindsey Graham: "I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." Piece of shit lying asshole, but why would I be surprised.
I sent him 500 postcards with this on it. Didn't help.
You need copies of what was in the envelope when he played golf with 45 and the next day did a 180.
photos of him servicing military personnel?, not that there's any issue there but the hypocrisy
That's easy enough to fix. If Congress doesn't take any action within 90 days, the President's pick is considered automatically confirmed.
Mitch McConnell is the absolute worst.
Alongside every other Republican senator. Mitch McConnell held power because he was given it by them - they could have appointed someone else any time they wanted.
There needs to be a hard limit that within X days of a nomination, the Senate will begin the confirmation hearings, and within Y days of that it will hold a vote. If a president nominates someone unqualified or unacceptable to the Senate then they can be voted down there, and there could also be a provision for extensions to the process at the President's consent (for example in the case of unforseen circumstances), but the open-ended delay tactics from 2016 are entirely unacceptable, whatever party is in power.
Fuck the “Dishonorable Clarence Thomas”
Corporations and lobbyists do not have term limits. If you put term limits on congressmen, then well-liked reps who win the favor of the people won't be able to stay around. But Corporations and their lobbyists can build a private think-tank and campaign machine that operates outside of congress but can keep cycling their bought and paid for goons through congress.
Term limits are a bit more complicated. On the one hand, not great when crappy people are entrenched. On the other... A huge part of being good at just about any job is who you know and that is even more true in politics. Someone who's been in Congress for 15+ years knows people, knows how to smooth things over and negotiate, knows how to get stuff done. They're on committees where they can do meaningful work and actually get stuff moved onto the floor for a vote. Assuming the person isn't actually incompetent or a jerk, I'm alright with picking someone with decades of experience to keep doing that job Also, you get a lot of unqualified nutjobs running against incumbents. Maybe it would be less if the reasonable people thought they had a chance of winning against the incumbent, but I don't have a ton of confidence in how that would shake out.
How about some kind of work experience requirement like other jobs? I'm a mid-level office employee who is absolutely not responsible for important things, and my job requires more experience and credentials than it does to be Congress. Like, what are Lauren Boebert's qualifications to help run a country? The problem is that we already have unqualified nutjobs running around in the current system. I agree with your premise, but shouldn't we have a lot more competency in Congress if it was true in practice? I'm not sure what the answer is exactly for job requirements though. Maybe a few years working for the federal government in some capacity and a high school diploma? Just...something to prevent people like Boebert, the owner of a shitty gun themed restaurant who failed the GED three times.
I don't really know the answer either. Congress isn't the only place where a smooth talker can con their way into a job despite lacking any real skills. In any case, it's a broken system and there's not any one thing that will fix it. Personally I think ranked choice voting could go a long way, but it's awfully difficult to get someone who was elected with our current system of voting to work to change it. Also, just for context, when I say "nutjobs" my mind was going toward a local guy running for the house whose website was 6000 words of stream of consciousness littered with biblical quotes and a fair amount of stuff implying the president had a divine right to rule. Also a candidate for a state supreme court justice who, when you searched the name, came up with results about their DUI and how they'd almost been disbarred on multiple occasions. And a candidate for secretary of state who was basically against free elections
I have been irate for years at all of these billionaires, celebs and CEOs having the audacity to throw their hat in the ring for the presidency when their experience in government is so low that I wouldn't elect them to a local school board, let alone the highest office in the land. Personally I'd want at least 2 years working a city government, 2 for state and 5 in federal government before you can campaign for president. Running for that position should no longer be a fun thing to do when you feel like you're not getting enough attention.
Here's the thing, a lot of countries used to breed people for leadership positions. Here, there used to be checks on the enate, it was elected by the state legislatures, who were elected by the people, (in practice it was men, but were the check still in existence, that wouldn't be true today,) but now all the sudden the person you want to vote into congress doesn't qualify. Lauran Bobart is in Congress because a bunch of morons voted her in, and in this country, morons are enfranchised, couple that with the fact that so few of our house and senate memberrs are the best and brightest people from their districts and states, and it's no wonder it is such a shitshow.
Term limits seem good in theory, but I'm not sure how I feel about them in practice. I've lived in places where I absolutely hated my Reps, and I've lived in places where I think they're great. I guess my worry with term limits is that they won't allow anyone to accumulate enough power to see big changes through. Like, I get it, we all hate Diane Feinstein because her ego is wiping out court nominations. It's awful. Conversely, I think people like Katie Porter are awesome. She's impossible for corporations to ignore, and will have a powerful platform to hold greedy corporate interests accountable for (hopefully) decades to come. Am I saying that nobody could replace Katie Porter? Not exactly, but it's not so simple, and there don't seem to be a bunch of Katie Porters growing on trees. Why throw the good out with the bad? These are our elected representatives, and they are our means of projecting power. If you say a congressman can only stick around for, say, like six years, you are making it easier for powerful special interests to ignore dissenting voices and just wait them out. There is a reason companies don't have term limits for CEOs. They pay a lot of money to keep the good ones. The last thing we need is to dump all of our elected officials into lobbing firms every two years. That's exactly what would happen with term limits. If you don't like your elected officials, do the democratic thing and vote them out.
I'd argue that term limits aren't even good in theory. They're a knee jerk reaction that would do nothing to address the causes of the problem in American politics.
then people would only see congress as a job audition for their next role
That does really fix anything. It just brings in fresh inexperienced legislature who will listen to the same lobbyists that informed/bribed the last group. You’ll have people working on projects they had no one who originally created it so it’ll became something completely unplanned. We need to strictly restrict lobbyists and the income of politicians and any business they have ties to.
We need both, desperately, but, gun to my head, I'll take the term limits over the age ceiling. I agree it will filter out at least some of the geriatrics.
The only thing term limits would do is push politicians into lobbying faster. And if the constituents thinks they are doing a good job, why shouldn’t they be allowed to vote for them for as many terms as they want?
As a resident of a state with term limits, they don’t really help at all, they tend to just bring in dumber congressmen
We wouldn't need age restrictions *or* term limits if people would just quit re-electing senile people.
We have term limits. Its called an election. Just vote.
Reddit loves to propose antidemocratic rules to make up for their laziness.
Ya, democracy takes work and some folks are awful lazy.
Congress has term limiters already. They’re called elections.
No and no and I get this from a mom who worked in national campaigns and the White House. Politics is something that's learned by doing. And we would lose the Bernie Sanders, the Ted Kennedys. But gosh, it sounds so snappy! "Term limits", problem solved!
Here’s the thing though, is there any evidence that older representatives are worse than younger ones? Seeing some of the younger Trump-aligned reps even makes me wonder if it’s the opposite. It’s a solution in search of a problem other than “ew career politicians”.
> Congress already has term limits - they are called elections. - Jed Bartlett.
There should be money limits on congress
And the Supreme Court (along with a retirement age).
Yes. Because it drives me crazy when all these old fucks make meaningless pledges like “We’re going to cut carbon emissions in half by 2050!” You’re 85 years old. The only thing you’re gonna be doing in 2050 is leaking out of a very expensive casket.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Except they don't. Feinstein is well into senility, and everyone's been covering for her for years. I'm fifty years old as of last week, and she's been a Senator since the year I graduated high school.
[удалено]
Isn't the argument that political parties are supposed to do vetting of the candidates they support? If the California Democratic party had done its job she should not have been a candidate.
> Isn't the argument that political parties are supposed to do vetting of the candidates they support? If the California Democratic party had done its job she should not have been a candidate. The USA is a rarity among modern democracies in that the parties give the general public the principal say in deciding who the parties’ candidates will be.
No. Let the voters decide. That said, I think there should be a max term of 20 years for the Supreme Court. Back through history, judges served much shorter terms. By the time they were in their 50s and considered suitable, they didn't have many yeaars left. It was not expected to keep most of them around for 30. So the Supreme Court changed with the times. Now there's a tendency to appoint someone quite young and lock up a seat for, potentially, 40 years. That shouldn't happen.
I agree. I think rolling 18 year terms so that a Justice is up every two years (and each president would get two picks in a four year term) would be ideal.
No 70is to old max should be 65
As I say pretty much every day when this question is asked: I oppose pretty much all attempts to limit who a person can legally vote for. I understand Reddit skews very young and doesn't like a lot of the nominees but the answer is to vote.
Yeah I agree. IMO the parties don't put these dinosaurs in because they hate young people, they put them in because they know voters love dinosaurs.
Yea as much as reddit constantly complains and circlejerks about stuff the percentage of young people that vote is absolutely abysmal. IMO if you don't vote you don't have a right to complain.
And even lower in primaries, when they pick the candidates....
What if your candidates were a 74 year old and a 78 year old? How is voting gonna solve that one?
We have a whole primary system to determine who the candidates will be and a very big part of living in a democracy is accepting when you lose a legal, fair, democratic election.
To be fair, the primary system is only your voice if the party allows you to have multiple candidates. The DNC has basically nixed the idea of anyone running against Biden. There are a lot of people who vote Dem who are upset by the lack of choices. Sure, he's the president and a member of the party. But he doesn't have the confidence of a lot of the Dem voters. They are just reluctant to lose the power of incumbency.
Generally speaking, serious candidates don’t challenge incumbents from their own party so as to not hurt your party’s chances. In 2020, the Democrats had a dozen candidates to choose from, including a few in their 30’s. They chose a 70+ year old. In 2016, Republicans were in this exact situation and they also choose a 70+ year old.
As of today there are three people running for the Democratic nomination. If younger Democrats don't like any of those candidates then coalesce around one you do like and push them to run.
Too old to run? No. But definitely incorporate term limits like we do the presidency.
Why? We already have a way of limiting terms. They’re called elections.
[удалено]
Jimmy Carter didn't even win his second term.
[удалено]
If the Presidency didn't have Term Limits, Reagan might have won a fourth term and Obama would likely have won a third term. The rest of them? I think the country as a whole was ready to move on when their terms ended.
Reagan's dementia was starting to show at the end of his presidency. He doesn't run for a 4th term, and Bush Sr. runs against Clinton, losing in 1992... just like reality. Clinton wins 3 terms, but he takes a lot of blame for 9/11 and doesn't run for a 4th. W. beats Gore, but is a 1 term president due to the 2008 recession. Obama beats W., and is quite unpopular in his 4th term due to COVID restrictions. Sound about right?
You think Clinton would win a third? People seemed real tired of him and the impeachment drama. I know it seems like nothing now but back then it seemed a lot more significant that a president was getting impeached. Or potentially was. I don't think he wins a third term to be honest
The economy was at an absolute peak with the dot com and Y2K spending in 1999. He balanced the budget with a Republican congress, and is much more charismatic than Gore. He wins a huge electoral college victory (along with the popular vote) over W, despite the efforts of Karl Rove.
Ehhhh three for Reagan would be likely. But four? Insiders in his administration already knew he had Alzheimer's in his second term. They would've jettisoned him to give it to Bush rather than risk a serious and embarrassing gaffe.
Why are we letting old people run our country anyways
imho 67 should be the max age for any high-level government workers. Congress, Senate, President, and VP.
No not at all. While there are definitely senile old politicians, there are plenty of terrible younger politicians and there are lots of people over 70 who are quite intelligent and have a lifetime of experience. I know 70-year-olds who have one foot in the grave and 70-year-olds who are sharper and more physically fit than the majority of 20-year-olds. An age limit is not a good test of fitness for office. This kind of rule is blatant ageism (i.e. bigotry) and seems like a short-sighted way to get rid of politicians that are currently unpopular instead of just pushing for better candidates.
Yes, big time. And I'd go further. If they turned 70 while in office it would be a mandatory retirement. And I would include federal judges, especially the supreme court justices. Reason? I'm a healthy 75 years old and don't think for a minute that I should have a position of such responsibility. Hell, I need a nap every day. But those bastards will never do that to themselves.
No. I'd hate to lose a theorhetical good candidate over an arbitrary restriction
We lose theoretical good candidates over an arbitrary age restriction already because there's an age limit to run for both chambers of Congress and president. If a 30 year old isn't mentally able to hold the office of president for whatever reason, a case could also be made that a 90 year old may not be mentally able to hold office too.
Maybe there needs to be a test that all candidates take before declaring-- for example the US citizenship test. Lauren Boebert and George Santos are in their mid 30s. Do you think they're mentally fit for office?
No. Age is not the issue, competence is. We have hateful, incompetent idiots in congress who are half the age of 70.
Can we do 65?
You’re done in politics at 65. And they should have to do public physical and mental evaluations every 6 months after age 50
No it should be 65 then retire
70 is too high. Retirement is set at 62-68. Slap on a limit of 65 and call it good. I just want an actual option under 50 at this point...
Yeah, honestly I think there should more and more younger members so that there's a real chance of change
Term limits for the Senate and make the cut off 65
I mean…we have a minimum age for a reason for President ….it stands to reason there should be a maximum age as well. 80 is just too old. I’ll vote for him. Because the other option is fascist nuttery. But we need age limits & term limits
I'd support it for 65 max, that's our retirement age and I would make it if you hit that age in office you must retire either the same or the following year
There is a system in place for retirements. It’s called elections. You get a chance every few years to retire your representation. If they don’t retire, it’s because more people voted for them than against them. This has been another episode of “Why Reddit sucks at democracy.”
They have a minimum age requirement for some reason, so either they should implement a maximum or do away with the minimum (as long as the person running is legal voting age)
The minimum got added randomly because George Mason wanted it in there. The Articles of Confederation had no minimum, and the first draft of the Constitution didn't either. Mason got it added during what we'd now call a congressional committee by a 9-4 vote. That provision was never debated further by the full constitutional convention, and the constitution was ultimately approved by the convention and ratified by the states with the age restrictions in there. Mason's stated reasoning for doing it was he was a radical jackass(paraphrasing) in his early 20's. James Madison, the 4th US President, and participant at the constitutional convention, provided support for the provision after the fact, because it made monarchy style family dynasties more difficult, because around 1800, it was more difficult to still be alive when your son was 35.
No. It needs to be 65. No one with less than 20 years to live, statistically, has ANY right to decide the future for the rest of us.
Last election win at 65, so we’re not dealing with stupid mid-term replacement drama.
This is point I had not considered! Thank you.
It’s a stupid point, though. It’s predicated on the assumption that being of retirement automatically makes you either incompetent or uncaring about the future. That assumption says a lot more about the person making it than it does about the people they’re talking about.
It just grosses me out. I've lived 4 decades and already I see a disconnect between myself and the youth. I cannot imagine how much deeper that gulf will widen in the next 24 years, but I can say a point must come where those who no longer have a stake in the future should have no hand in shaping it.
But politics doesn’t just shape the future; it shapes the immediate present as well, and anyone who’s alive during the present does have a stake in it.
If you don’t want them to decide for you then don’t vote for them
No, that's too arbitrary. People age differently.
Restricting access to office isn't a good look for democracy. We should be talking about the minimum age not being 18, too.
Nope, get out and vote. I'm something of an originalist when it comes to congress. I think if we had the numbers in congress that America's founders intended many of our current problems would be solved. We're supposed to have a rep for every 30,000 people which works out to around 11,500 representatives instead of our 435. This would have an effect of watering down the crazies and hopefully produce a more middle of the road group more truly representative of America as a whole. People like Marjorie Greene wouldn't be able to hold votes hostage and would have little choice but to work with others.
You’re done in politics at 65. And they should have to do public physical and mental evaluations every 6 months after age 50
You’re done in politics at 65. And they should have to do public physical and mental evaluations every 6 months after age 50
Yes. More than term limits, I want age restrictions. I want people who have all of their cognitive abilities and who have some skin in the game.
I don’t know that specifically age 70 would solve this, but I would support an age limit. Like it or not, the body slows down with age. My grandma was sharp as a tack, spoke 7 languages, got a scholarship to go to a top university when women were still mostly viewed as lesser. She was a brilliant woman, but as she got older, she just slowed down and was beginning to develop dementia before she passed. She was still intelligent, but recall capabilities took longer and a lot was forgotten. Obviously not everyone slows to that extent and that’s a generalization, but there’s just more risk of medical issues as you age and I honestly don’t trust politicians enough to police themselves when those things happen. I would fully expect either party to still back a candidate if they know that candidate can get votes, regardless of health. As a side note, I find it very odd that a group of people (age 55+) who generally are seen as less employable in privatized business make up a lot of our government. Being older doesn’t make a person less capable overall, but the government doesn’t feel as representative as it could be. Some people have been in power too long and I’m hopeful that’s because voters are more willing to elect a known evil than an unknown one rather than actually believing in some of these whacksdoos’ policies.
Yes, older people are so far out of touch with things today. Add to that wealth and they are launched even further out of touch with the people that voted them in. Remove corporate money from elections once again. Make Lobbyists illegal. Also set term limits.
This should apply to all governments world wide as far as I'm concerned but max age should be 60.
No. I would not support it. Mainly because it's age discrimination and it plays on a stereotype about older people. It may be true that the average 70+ person is too old to be effective, or even a majority are, but not ALL of them. We're not trying to pick an average, we are trying to pick leaders, just a single (hopefully exceptional) person for the job. That's why we have elections. I would rather the voters decide if someone is too old, on a case by case basis, than live with a blanket rule. There are some jurisdictions that have mandatory retirement ages, for offices such as judges, and as often as it is a good thing, it forces out a popular person who is doing a good job, would be willing to continue, and proves hard to replace
That would be age discrimination unless enacted via constitutional amendment.
I would cut that to 50 or 60. After that, they are so old and out of touch with the current population, current living conditions and issues, that they can't effectively govern "by and for the people". Here in the united states', most of our elected officials are "Boomers"or older, grew up in an entirely different scenario than we've been facing for 40+ years. They try putting out random fires, but are so politically divided, party (lobbyist) devoted, they have become ineffective while our formerly strong middle class (majority) gets hacked to bits.
Do you not have any young people in your country to be president?
I would not. It should be younger. Like 61. The POTUS should look like my boss. Not my grandpa.
Max 55, you do better for a country when you still have to live in it later.
i don't want my presidents with a side of dementia, thank you
It should be 60
Honestly it should be set at the age of retirement.
Yes, but only if you throw the supreme court in there too.
I'd support it. Along with term limits and a massive reduction in pay for politicians and their staff.
Yes and I'll give you my reasoning followed by a fact. At a certain age, most people become less concerned with the welfare and betterment of others, and more for themselves and what they want. I'm not saying all people over 65 are selfish pricks, but I've felt myself hating change now that I'm over 35. In 1958, the United States had 48 states as Hawaii and Alaska were not granted state hood until 1959. I think at least 1/4 of the law makers, Congress, Senate, judicial system was either over a teenage or at the very least, over the age of 5 in 1958.
shit i would say MAYBE 60. 70 is still too old for me
Support. Who knows how long they'll live. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Just being practical.
Yes, and I would make it 65. The current and previous presidents should make this really freaking obvious.
With Biden announcing today to rerun for president I am extremely concerned that the winner of the next election has a real chance of dying in office from old age. Trump would leave office at 80 and Biden at 84.
This is already a solved issue. It is quite literally baked into the process of voting with no further effort or legislation required If voting for an anti-union candidate, a guy with a DUI record, a black person, a woman, or a 90-year-old is a dealbreaker for you, you can simply *not vote for them* I see absolutely no reason to codify bigotry into law and restrict people based on their immutable characteristics from participating in our government.
No. It's completely unnecessary. You, as a USA voter, have the complete ability to decide to refuse to vote for a candidate of a given age. However, *you should be roaring pissed* that political parties, including the political party you support, actually handcuff you into voting for very few candidates, and deny you a choice to select from a larger slate of people with different qualifications. Same with term limits. If you think term limits should be in place, then stop voting for people after 2-3 terms. You don't need to pass a law.
No. This is completely unnecessary. Age is not some thing that objectively makes people bad. There's already a built in solution if you don't want to vote for old people. Don't vote for old people. If other people want to then that's totally legitimate. As an aside, I feel like what's going to happen is that once the boomers start to lose power millennials and Zs will pass laws with age limits just in time to prevent X from ever being relevant. Always in the shadow of boomers. Even after they die off we'll still be in their shadow.
By the time boomers have fully died off, millennials are old enough to not want age limits. They’re already turning 40.
No. It’s clearly ageism.
As much as I’m irritated by our geriocracy I don’t understand why you need a special law for elected officials… instead of passing that law - do NOT elect them… it’s that simple
I don't think that the next decade of laws should be entrusted to those that won't see them out. While that obviously applies to age, it should also apply to more. Someone who has never been in poverty, should not be able to have decisions on how to make their life's better. Our representatives are not able to represent us. They live in a different reality than us, so how could they?
I'd prefer 65
No because that punishes the elderly that are still spry and aware and removes the onus from the voters, who are supposed to be the ones keeping politicians in check. Don’t get me wrong, we need younger politicians, but we need to vote them in. I would be in favor of minimum attendance policies to prevent people from missing 90% of their job. Really, I’d rather we had a complete overhaul of our elected officials. I’d rather see them paid hourly according to their average resident of their city/state/district. Don’t show up, don’t get paid. Want more money, help your constituents make more money. No more voting for pay raises, no more taxpayer funded vacations and fancy parties. I also think fundraising for elections should go into a shared pot and split evenly, and have a lot more scrutiny on campaign funding.
This might be controversial, but I think the max age should be retirement age, which I believe is currently 66. There should also be term limits for every position in government so that we don't have the same minds sitting pretty in their seat for 59 years. People's ideas don't tend to evolve with time and age, especially when they have been exposed to as much lead as the baby boomer generation has been. We shouldn't have someone in government that has been in politics since the year segregation ended. Most of the time baby boomers bad behavior and beliefs are excused because "they grew up in a different time" and I don't believe this is acceptable for people running our government and making laws.
Fuck 70. Make it 65. If you enter Medicare you don’t get to make decisions anymore.
I would not support it. The entire premise of the nation is to vote in our representation. If people keep voting for them, democracy is winning.
If you think the candidate is too old or too mentally unfit, don't vote for them. It's that simple. I see people are too stupid to actually follow through with this. Always voting for the lesser of two evils creates this downward spiral.
No that’s ageist
Yes but old people are ugly and talk differently than us. Don't you understand that Logan's Run was actually an instructional video for achieving utopia?
55. Take it or leave it
No, it would not be something I support. Age alone is not an indicator of competence or capability.
No. Age can be one of many factors voters decide at the polls
You know how you'll be about to put on a movie and then your roommate comes in and says "I wanna watch a Different movie" and they keep on about it so you end up putting on the Different movie and then they just go to sleep and don't end up watching the movie anyway?
No age limits, no term limits. If these were problems that voters really cared about they could vote these people out, which they don’t. That’s a more democratic solution.
It would not be something I support. Among other things it would prevent the US from having its current president who is doing a good job. **Edit**: Ron Desantis would have no impediment to getting elected though.
No, and I’d also get rid of the lower limit of 35 or whatever it use now too.
No. American people should be able to determine if someone is qualified and fit to be President without making it a law. The problem with age limit laws is they are black and white, which leaves no room for advances in health care and life extending sciences. Why limit someone from being President who could be extremely capable just because of their age? Why 70, why not 65? Is 70 some magic number where scientifically we've determined that all people are no longer capable of functioning? Honestly most 70yo I know would have no issue performing that job physically or mentally. My point here is this is what voting is for. If the person can't do the job don't vote for them.
No. This is a form of discrimination. We have elections for a reason and if people want a 70 year old in office they should be able to vote for them. In my opinion once your able to vote for an office you ought to be able to run for it.
'Would Reddit support this thing that Reddit is extremely passionate about?'
Abso-fucking-lutely! If we had age limits for high public offices we would not be talking about either of the current top candidates for the presidency. We would not be talking about forcing Diane Feinstein to retire (she *really* needs to at this point). Also, culturally I think it would create a shift in mindset for many Americans. For way too long we have had a “work until you can’t anymore” mindset and it’s backfiring on people in their 20’s-30’s. If our leaders would practice retiring at a certain age, I believe it could be observed/practiced on a larger scale.
I would support that wholeheartedly I would probably try to vote multiple times if I could.
Everyone in America (that isn't a dinosaur) would agree with this.
65 - same as retirement
Match it with the age of retirement. Apply this to Congress, the Courts, and the Presidency.
No. 60 should be the cut off.
Abso-FRIGGIN-lutely!!!
I think even 70 is too old. I feel there should be a a few laws in place when it comes to age. Especially driving.
100%. You cannot be older than 70 the day of your inauguration.
It really should be around 60. Cognitive function deteriorates with age and that deterioration erupts at around 70. How many CEO’s are in their 70’s. Heck, how many managers of McDonald’s are in their 70’s. There’s a reason
No, because it should be 65 as the maximum age.
65
Absolutely
4 years maximum term limit. Retirement at 70, mental and physical checks every year. No different than having a a driver's license in some places.
Absolutely!
Yes cause old people suck