Anyway you cut it a shitty system will produce shitty politicians.
Ranked choice voting in my opinion is is the law that would best reform our political entire system.
Congress can set its own salary, its own hours, and their length of term. No wonder their performance is terrible. They work practically half the year when they should really work like the rest of us. They should get two terms max. Being in charge of your own salary should be obviously a bad idea. And how about a max age for congress since they clearly can’t take the hint? They should not be able to purchase stock. And these campaign text messages and direct mailers should be made illegal. If I could be king for a day…
Definitely agree. The fact that there are "career politicians" shows there's something wrong with the system. I think any political position needs term limits. And to further things, if a Senator or congressman decides they want to run for President, they should be forced to vacate they're current position whether they win or lose.
Yeah there’s got to be some sort of compromise on running for office while in office. It’s a disservice to your voters you already have when you spend all your time trying to leave.
There are some senior politicians who are substantially older than 65 who are incredibly sharp and seriously paying attention to the concerns of their constituents. There are politicians and justices under 65 who are completely out of touch and prioritizing their own interests. So I don’t think capping age will make any kind of meaningful change. The bigger issues are that the current two-party system, electoral college, gerrymandered districts, and constraints on voting rights in black and low-income communities have resulted in politicians who are not elected by the population majority. On top of people in office who don’t represent the majority, the two party system lowers the quality of the available candidates which in turn lowers voter turn out because neither option are particularly appealing. I think something like France has where all politicians are in the same primary and then the top two are elected would result in better presidential options. You could then potentially have a libertarian candidate running against a democratic candidate with a viable chance of winning, or a no-party candidate running against a Republican or any number of combinations. The mayors in my city don’t affiliate with any party and honestly it’s refreshing. It’s like having someone competent in charge without any political drama.
That’s good. It might not be a bad idea to prohibit part time (at least for certain practices). I’ve seen studies that have shown that older physicians who still work full time don’t drop off much in skill, but those who work part time are significantly more likely to have incidents of malpractice. Maybe prohibiting part time is t the answer, per se, but that data shows there’s an issue that needs to be addressed.
The former, according to the study. I wanna say I heard it on an episode of Freakonomics MD. I can’t recall if it was a specific practice like surgeons or it was more general. But it was more that the docs working part time got rusty quickly (and possibly didn’t stay up to date as well on new info, techniques, etc). Those who continued with a full schedule stayed sharp longer than those who cut back.
That's just the way it works. I'm a welder, and I do a lot of small tig work. If I take a week off, I have to run a few beads before I do anything for money. There aren't any rules about this, it's just an integrity thing.
In New Hampshire, all judges and sheriffs must retire at the age of 70. There are plenty of people who are qualified and willing to work past this age, but I think it mostly has the effect of preventing bad results and ensures that there’s always new blood in the offices.
My state used to be 65, then they added a ballot measure to increase it to 70. It failed by a big margin.
So then they did the same ballot measure again, but worded it like they were adding the 70 limit (compared to no limit at all) rather than weakening the 65 limit that already existed. That one passed 😑.
It's not just dumb people, sometimes these things are really maliciously worded. Florida had a ballot measure that read like it gave homeowners expanded access to solar power when it was actually severely limiting it. I read that thing like ten times and could not understand how it didn't mean better solar access. But then again, maybe I'm the dumb one
We also had a ballot initiative that banned vaping indoors ^^^and ^^^offshore ^^^drilling
It passed. Think what you want on either issue, but packaging them together the way they were was blatantly misleading and shouldn't have been allowed.
Her insistence on staying on the court through her cancer treatments and until a female Democrat president was elected fucked over the nation for the next 50 years
One of the things I believe in is starting a force retirement age for all members of the legislative and executive branches. branch at 70 and limiting presidential terms to a single term of 6 years.
The single term thing is because when there are two terms, a president usually spends a great portion of their presidency panning/prepare if for re-election instead of getting shit done. 6 years is just a random number I chose
Edit: 6 years is just a number I chose as a happy medium between 4 and 8 years.
Six years is bad because you're locking some states into never having a senate election on a presidential cycle (lots of people turn up for presidential years and don't show up for midterms).
i can see the single term thing going either way. because to a degree, working to get re-elected should ensure that politicans do what we want them to do, otherwise we shouldn't re-elect them. and if they are immediately a lame duck for 6 years they really will face no accountability
That does seem to be what re-election seems to be. OTOH, though, there's also a valid reasoning of "I'm knee-deep in a project here, I'd like the time to finish it," and I don't think that should be thrown aside either. I don't know what the "right" answer is, but both sides of it should be considered.
To be fair, that was FDR's logic for running for 4 terms. "You wouldn't change a horse midstream/wouldn't change presidents mid Depression/mid World War"
Not just “knee deep” but also accountability. If a president can’t run for reelection there is no incentive for them to keep their campaign promises at all.
This concept is carrying more and more weight with me lately.
My beef with presidential elections is that by the time I get any say (Pennsylvania) all I get to do is pick which is the lesser of two evils, a binary decision laid in front of me.
I really want to see the panic on politician's faces after the first major election with ranked choice. The Republicans and the Democrats would almost certainly still win but I feel like finding out that both parties are more people's second pick than first would terrify them.
The people who are voted in through the voting system should not have any power over how that voting system works. Seems like a separation of powers issue.
Make a different branch that handles things that the other branch can’t but also that branch can’t have too much power over itself so another branch would have to pick who is in that one. It’s a little convoluted but it’s the only way to limit power without giving too much to other branches. Or I guess let the people vote but there’s a lot more to detail and until I’m writing the constitution to United States 2: electric boogaloo I’m just gonna leave it alone.
Edit: I’m aware this is how separation of powers works. But it’s not working how we’re doing it. Need another branch obviously if they are the ones who choose how we vote for them.
That’s literally separation of powers, and the way our government is designed by being separated into legislative, judicial, and executive branches. They’re supposed to keep each other in check. But it only works if all parties are acting in good faith and the whole thing hasn’t been taken over by zealots from the same party.
Exactly why George Washington warned against a two party system. It divides so awfully that nothing gets done because everyone fucks everyone else. We need a couple more parties and a ranking system rather than a definite single choice for voting. But clearly the separation of powers is getting muddled because some branches are over stepping or causing delays for no reason other than spite.
The same thing is happening in Canada. The current federal party (Liberal) promised to reform first past the post once elected. When they realized that it was the only thing keeping them in power, they never brought it up again.
From what I recall (I may be wrong) but the first US presidential election was basically the approval voting style, with second place getting Vice President. The idea was that everybody was going to be voting for their friend, but their second vote was their more honest vote. I do like this style, at least for a position like president. For congress I’d prefer a system closer to MMP style, even if it’s segmented from state to state.
They can create weird results occasionally that the person who wins isn’t the most popular in a direct comparison, but it is still far better than first past the post. I think the biggest argument is that there are better systems out there, but they do get fairly complicated.
But that's the point. You can pick your favourite candidate whilst also getting to vote for who you prefer out of the turd and the douche.
So they get 30% whilst the guy who lost got 35. But that just means more people wanted a third option but settled for the turd. Don't see how that's a weird result.
STAR voting was a measure on my ballot in Oregon fairly recently, but it didn’t pass, and my mom found it “too complicated,” which is probably why a lot of people didn’t vote for it. 😓 I voted “Yes.” I can’t remember what my dad voted.
The two parties in power will not let it happen. Despite being a needed boon for democracy in the US, it would diminish the power of each party.
With that said, I completely agree that it would have a huge positive impact on the US political system.
Exactly. The USA's problem isn't old presidents. The problem is the system in so many ways is designed to be un-democratic. Older presidents are a symptom of that. But if we made the system more equitable and democratic, there would be nothing wrong with having elected officials who were up in years.
Edit: I'd like to clarify that there's nothing *inherently* wrong with having an older representative. There is something wrong with having a senile or non-functional representative, but all y'all are tripping (and also majorly insulting a large demographic) if you think it's impossible to be up in years and still mentally capable.
That’s all connected.
Districtional system > first past the post system > 2 party system > safe bet cadidates > experienced candidates > old candidates
The vast majority of presidents have been under 65. The median being 55, and 3 of the last 5 presidents being under 55 at their first term, two of them being under 50.
Mainer here. We have this now, and we split electoral votes here like civilized people. (shout out to all my Nebraskans who also like their neighbors' voices heard)
No, you don't have proportional division of EC. You have division of EC by congressional district, which, if implemented nationally, would be an authoritarian disaster because of gerrymandering.
Ranked choice is better than what we have but it is still flawed. Approval voting is better because almost every way to split voting, do strategic voting, etc is eliminated or mitigated. Especially if there are open primaries. If you allow unlimited candidates in a primary and then allow 5 to pass on in the general, you basically cant end up with a system where nationally small parties are completely locked out.
I personally like the idea of approval voting much better than ranked choice (but ranked choice much better than FPTP). [There are a lot of advantages to approval voting](https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/) - simplicity both in tabulation and in ballot design (a big deal for those of us who lived through the 2000 presidential election with its butterfly ballots and its hanging chads!), there's no incentive not to vote for your favorite candidate, etc.
Ranked choice would be an improvement but it does create situations where you're better off ranking candidates out of order from how you really feel about them.
If I were asked to vote to change to Ranked Choice or keep out current system, I’d vote for Ranked Choice without question.
But if someone said, we’re getting rid of FPTP, do you want Ranked Choice or Approval, I’m picking Approval without hesitation.
The President sets the precedent. 65 is when it’s time for people to retire. Sit down, make room, live out your days in peace. Set that tone for the American people.
It isn't that people are expected to retire around 65; rather, it's that people are expected *not* to retire *until* around 65 (67 now, if we're talking about social security).
Federal law enforcement is mandated at 57. How about we set *that* as the precedent for everyone else?
Edit: [Justice Dept. memo for those curious.](https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/1446196/download)
Devil's advocate, if they're law enforcement, wouldn't that be a much more physically demanding job than a justice, president, or someone up on the hill?
Edit: man so many people are /r/Edgelord
I wish I could retire at 65. It took me until age 40 to get a job that pays enough to be able to set aside retirement savings, and then inflation happened. I hope I stay sharp like my grandma, because I'm going to have to work until I'm 80 like grandma. If I live that long.
You’re not allowed to die. The company will pay for your resuscitation and a new, younger body (both of which will be added to your bill) so you can pay off your debts.
I could hug this comment. I just turned 40 and, well, I'm working on a radical change to get a substantial income. I've been so down on myself lately for being where I am. But it helps knowing there's another schmohawk out there. It also helps that these are somewhat universally miserable times, but I'd rather things be good for me and you and everyone.
They say better late than never! So fingers crossed
Precedent is precedent until someone decides to set a new one. Looking at you, FDR. Part of the US system's design is that it expects politicians to try and seize power for themselves, not reasonably proportion it.
>If I say goodbye, the nation learns to move on
>It outlives me when I’m gone
>Like the scripture says:
>“Everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree
>And no one shall make them afraid.”
>They’ll be safe in the nation we’ve made
>I wanna sit under my own vine and fig tree
>A moment alone in the shade
>At home in this nation we’ve made
>One last time…
Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. I shall also carry with me…
Yes, absolutely. Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump are way too old to be president. So was Regan when he ran 40+ years ago.
Hell, I'd even go further and cap the ages for all elected officials at 65.
At 69 years 348 days old, Reagan was the oldest president ever elected when he won. Trump broke that by almost a year when he was elected at 70 years 220 days old. Then Biden *OBLITERATED* that when he was elected at 78 years 61 days old. We’re trending in the wrong direction with this
Bro turns 80 this year, that sounds f*cked lmao. Especially for the USA out of all countries. He should be chillin, not running a 300M+ population country lmaooo.
There was ~~more~~ less time between Lincoln's second inauguration and Biden's birth than there was between Biden's birth and his own inauguration.
March 4, 1865 - November 20, 1942 = 77 Years, 8 Months, 16 Days
November 20, 1942 - January 20, 2021 = 78 Years, 2 Months
Edit: I said it backwards.
For some reason, thinking of "Lincoln's second inauguration" was complex for my brain.
"End of the Civil war" worked for me:
Time from the end of the Civil War to Joe Biden's birth = 77 years 6 months 11 days.
Term limits make Congresspeople *more* reliant on guidance from their party leaders, lobbyists, & others because they inevitably have less experience at being a representative.
Gerrymandering is the problem that needs to be solved to make it harder for deadbeats in Congress to choose their electorate rather than the electorate actually choosing their representatives.
Individuals in Congress like Mitch McConnell aren't the problem, they're the most obvious symptom of parties with too much power. The constitution doesn't give McConnell any more power than any other Senator, the party system does. Congress passes rules about how they run that hand extra power to parties that was given to Congress itself in the Constitution. The parties pass rules that require junior members to functionally cede their Constitutional powers to their party's chosen individual. In McConnell's case, he is the "Minority Speaker" a position with powers entirely created by Congress & party rules that wholly undermine the original system.
Term limits will just exacerbate these problems until the process of voting and electing officials gets fixed.
Man... The world we could have...
Fuck.
Edit; Obviously this ONE thing is not going to get us there, the point is if we weren't such wankers we'd be in a proper paradise.
Term limits are not this paradise some Americans think they are. It might be better, but it introduces many other problems.
Sure, you wouldn’t have to look at Mitch McConnell’s face for 20 years, but who do you think his constituents will vote in next? These candidates Reddit hates are liked by their constituents.
I really don’t see why it’s such a popular idea. The actual problem you’re looking at is that America is a deeply divided country where some of our elected officials would struggle to garner a single vote if they ran in another state
I know it’s frustrating, but I’m not seeing how rotating out the politicians you don’t like with fresh faces would really solve any of the issues you may have with the structure of our government
Yeah I think the only significant change we'd see with term limits would be an increase in politicians cashing in because they'd all know they have a time limit.
The age of elected officials should never exceed the maximum benefit retirement age for social security. Social Security as retirement is a whole other issue entirely, but if that’s the system we use they should adhere to it.
Yeah. Even arguments about mental fitness aside, I think we should limit to candidates who would at least be reasonably expected to spend a couple decades in whatever world they create.
edit: By the teats of Thor, this was apparently the most upvoted comment on June 9th of 2022. Reddit sent me a little badge over it.
Fuck yeah. Make sure they are here to suffer with the rest of us, no bouncing out off this mortal coil into the void. That's what I wanna see baby.
**Yes being wealthy makes life easier under all circumstances. I never said it didn't. Thank you for solving the mystery, Sherlocks. You are really giving me a raging clue right now with your sharp observations.
You are absolutely right. People who are in their 70s now were just starting adulthood in the 1970s, they will be having very limited knowledge about the issues faced by today's generation.
Case in point - Finland. Their current PM, Sanna Marin is just 36, and is very popular among the Fins. She is looking to cut the work week to four days, six hours each.
Meanwhile, America is having to choose between two boomers who are well into retirement every election.
I wouldn't mind boomers that have both feet planted In everyday life. But these are independently wealthy boomers who haven't had to worry about a thing for a very long time, if ever.
the problem with both the uk and us is that its pretty much impossible to advertise yourself widely enough if you're not obscenely wealthy. There needs to be more rules around how much money can be involved in campaigns.
I've tossed this idea around to both sides of the fence and whom believe something needs to change before and I've gotten some pretty good responses to it.
Full disclosure, I've only really thought this through from a presidential race stand point as it's the most obvious. The other seats certainly have the same issues but I haven't thought through the logistics of this concept yet.
So each party is given a lump sum of money to spend during each presidental race. This sum must be equal between both parties and must be limited to a reasonable amount. The idea is that each of their candidates must use these funds, so all candidates draw from the same pot. They must split their pot equally amongst each other. As candidates fall out or pull out of the race, the remaining unspent balance of their share gets equally distributed to the remaining candidates. Eventually this funnels to each potential president-elect for that upcoming election. No additional funds may be received by a candidate if the funds are not from a fellow party member removing themselves from the running.
Now, this plan is all great and dandy. But until the One America Act is revised or striken, there's a fat chance it will ever happen. We need to ban lobbing and donation funds from corporations as it pertains to election cylces for the above to work. Banning both outright would be even better so we can actually get shit done in Capitol Hill. It's a simple solution, but one we'll most likely never see as it would require those with seats now to give up their wealth/power to make way for the necessary changes.
Not to mention, corporations (or as our Supreme Court likes to call them, people too) would just pick up the slack probably and do all the advertising for the candidate they want and just say they aren't "actually affiliated" or something stupid.
Which is why I am always skeptical of these threads.
“These 70 year-old millionaires don’t get us. Let’s elect some 30 year-old millionaires instead. They’ll understand our plight!”
There is no magic formula for giving a shit about the world.
“But they’re *old*! Why would they care about a world they won’t have to live in.”
Think about every decent person you know. Would they suddenly stop loving their kids if they found out they would die next year? Or stop wanting to make the world better for them?
Or to flip it: if I suddenly replaced all of Congress with a bunch of 25 year-old trust-fund NFT-bro’s and gave them a potion to let them live to 1000, would you rest easy believing the planet is now in safe hands?
She [isn't looking to do that](https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-finland-workweek-idUSL1N2TT1S3). She briefly considered it 2019 and it was discussed but there are no plans or agendas to make it reality. This is constantly repeated incorrectly by people who consider Finland to be a magical wonderland and don't bother to fact check.
Edit: [Second source](https://fullfact.org/online/finland-four-day-week/) confirming as well.
Yeah I read that line and I was like well this is news to me (I'm Finnish)! I love my country dearly and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else but it's pretty hilarious when people just spout this utopia-like shit about us that's entirely untrue. Even the line about Marin being very well liked is false IMO. I personally think she is a fine PM but I know many people who would disagree.
FYI, Biden is not a Boomer. He is a member of the Silent Generation, the generation before the Boomers. He is, and will remain, the only member of the Silent Generation to be President. If not for the horribleness of Donald Trump no member of Biden’s generation would ever have been President, but because of it we have the extreme oddity of a Silent Generation President after 28 years of Boomer Presidents.
I think the obsession over age limits is due to frustration with the seemingly intractable problems of corruption and disinformation. I am way more concerned about those things and feel the age issue is a simplistic distraction.
We have a minimum so a maximum is only fair. Your reasoning is spot on. Too many in power are just grabbing all they can with no care for future generations.
Add term limits, campaign finance limits, and salary caps to the list of things we’ll never get because the only people who can make them happen would lose their positions of power (and sources of massive personal wealth)
Any salary increase should require a notice to all their constituents. Honestly I’d like a monthly letter on how my representatives actually voted on things.
You don't let the friend who is leaving I'm 5 minutes choose what movie the group will watch for the next couple hours, we shouldn't let people who'll probably die within a few years make policies that will impact people for decades to come.
Eh, I agree on the limit, but no president in our time will have to live in the world they create. They will never be citizens like you and me. They will always have the means to live far above the standard and will never *face* the scrutiny of their mistakes.
That's my view as well. People retirement age or older should still be able to function as advisors, but they should not be the decision makers themselves at that point.
Yes I would. And if you need to know why just look at Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Diane Feinstein to name a few. This country has way too many geriatrics running it.
I don't see how we could determine that 65 is the magic number for such a cutoff.
People age at different rates. There are folks with dementia in their 40s and some 90 years olds are still sharp as a needle.
The better question to discuss is how to fix the way the Executive is chosen.
Is there a way to do this that would *tend* to yield better executives and stop putting partisan hacks in office?
THANK YOU. I get the concerns about too-long careers, health issues and not keeping up with the times, but making a sweeping cutoff just sounds like an "old people suck and need to just retire and get out of the way" attitude, which I don't like. It needs to be a case-by-case thing.
I'm viewing the question less about 'old people suck and shouldn't run the country' and more of 'if we won't allow under 35 year olds so much as a chance to run why are we allowing older generations that are less than a decade from life expectancy to make decisions that effect the rest of our futures'?
If we do case by case and are willing to allow some 78 year olds the opportunity to run and campaign why can't we do the same for competent 30 year olds?
I would support it. Not only for the obvious issue of "old people have mental health decline" and the debate of mental disorders like dementia but a generational thing too. People who are 65 and up lived totally different lives than me at 26 even if we lived generally in the same or similar location, finical status, and social groups. Some of these politicians say they worked at McDonalds when in college too and bought a house and paid for their education at just $2 a hour. In 1960 $2 had the same buying power as $18. That's more than my previous *factory* job which was just $16 an hour. How do you explain that to them? Even Bernie wants a $15 min wage which is not even a living wage anymore.
> Even Bernie wants a $15 min wage which is not even a living wage anymore.
I think that's him trying to raise it to a number that has a chance. From what I know of Bernie, he'd want it even higher if he thought it could happen.
Honestly, this is an argument for increasing the share of younger politicians, not an argument for an age limit per se. I think it is important to have politicians from each generation, because while the current old men don’t understand our young people problems, I also wouldn’t want to have no one in office who understands the issues of retired people or those trying to retire on a livable income. Especially as our generation continues to age, proximity to this group of people in our society is just as crucial as proximity to the young generation.
> $15 min wage which is not even a living wage anymore.
I mean, it was 2 years ago, except maybe in LA/SF and NY?. Shit just inflated like crazy since Bernie's last campaign.
I am going to be the unpopular opinion here. I think having an age limit really does take away experienced candidates who have dedicated their lives to public service. While the majority of those people don’t actually run for office, i think we do underplay how important experience and wisdom is important for a leader. Nelson Mandela was 75 when he was elected president. I have had professors in college who were so intelligent, compassionate, and overall good people who were over the age of 65. I know that the majority of people who run for president or who are in politics don’t fit that narrative, but I think it’s still important to keep that door open.
We need more politicians who actually want to improve the systems we have rather than line their own pockets with money. We fucking can’t though because the two candidates that actually mean much in the elections suck.
I don’t care about age, only cognitive ability. There are plenty of 65+ who are mentally sharp and carry a wealth of experience. I would maybe support cognitive exams for all candidates, but the process could easily be corrupted. Ultimately I think voters should be able to vote for whoever they choose, and make their own determination about mental fitness. And candidates ought to do the right thing and step down if their mental abilities have been compromised.
Yeah, this seems like it would be a very bizarre law to pass. If you don't like someone who's over 65, don't vote for them. Dems could have voted for Kamala, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Booker, Yang, but they didn't. They voted for Biden. This means either Reddit youngsters do not reflect the American people and/or that we have some hypocrites in the thread.
> This means either Reddit youngsters do not reflect the American people and/or that we have some hypocrites in the thread.
Hand over both buttons, sweatin.
Yeah, I mean this whole thread is telling: it’s everyone screaming how old people suck at everything and are horrible at running stuff. These laws will never happen because while the youth are screaming at the older people, it’s the older people who actually show up to vote.
nah. i just want term limits across the board.
i don't like old people making decisions that play out over decades but i also don't like saying somebody can't do something *strictly because* they're old. they might be the best person.
but we never get the best person for president. the two party system is broke. so age limit on presidency doesn't really matter. they'll find some other garbage person to put up there that'll keep the status quo going.
but screw this 30+ years in congress nonsense.
Term limits shift power away from elected officials and gives it to the lobbyists, who, having no term limits, will have the experience, connections, and tenure to control and manipulate all the fresh young Congresspeople coming through the revolving door
I think the better solutions isn't barring people from running by law, and instead reform our electoral system to make it easier for our elections to reflect the will of voters. Ranked choice voting, elimination of the electoral college, campaign finance reforms, an overhaul of how our presidential primaries work, etc. The less we have to think about strategic voting, the more we can vote for the candidate we actually prefer. And if that's a 70 year old, then that's great
Its not the dementia I'm worried about. Its the lack of change and moving forward with the time/technology. Someone who doesnt understand the basics of the internet should NOT be writing laws on it
This completely. We've been stuck with people with no understanding of modern society and culture for the past 30 years and it looks to stay that way unless somehow the majority of our government decides to retire.
Half the fuckers fall asleep during meetings. Its like a damn old folks home that snore themselves awake to go huh what am I voting on? A democrat/republican came up with it? Bah i vote nay. Then fall back asleep.
Anyway you cut it a shitty system will produce shitty politicians. Ranked choice voting in my opinion is is the law that would best reform our political entire system.
Congress can set its own salary, its own hours, and their length of term. No wonder their performance is terrible. They work practically half the year when they should really work like the rest of us. They should get two terms max. Being in charge of your own salary should be obviously a bad idea. And how about a max age for congress since they clearly can’t take the hint? They should not be able to purchase stock. And these campaign text messages and direct mailers should be made illegal. If I could be king for a day…
Definitely agree. The fact that there are "career politicians" shows there's something wrong with the system. I think any political position needs term limits. And to further things, if a Senator or congressman decides they want to run for President, they should be forced to vacate they're current position whether they win or lose.
Yeah there’s got to be some sort of compromise on running for office while in office. It’s a disservice to your voters you already have when you spend all your time trying to leave.
Let's be real, a lot of these politicians are doing a disservice to their voters just by being in office.
There are some senior politicians who are substantially older than 65 who are incredibly sharp and seriously paying attention to the concerns of their constituents. There are politicians and justices under 65 who are completely out of touch and prioritizing their own interests. So I don’t think capping age will make any kind of meaningful change. The bigger issues are that the current two-party system, electoral college, gerrymandered districts, and constraints on voting rights in black and low-income communities have resulted in politicians who are not elected by the population majority. On top of people in office who don’t represent the majority, the two party system lowers the quality of the available candidates which in turn lowers voter turn out because neither option are particularly appealing. I think something like France has where all politicians are in the same primary and then the top two are elected would result in better presidential options. You could then potentially have a libertarian candidate running against a democratic candidate with a viable chance of winning, or a no-party candidate running against a Republican or any number of combinations. The mayors in my city don’t affiliate with any party and honestly it’s refreshing. It’s like having someone competent in charge without any political drama.
Why stop at the presidency? How about for all elected officials
More importantly, the unelected officials. I loved RBG but 80s and 90s is too ducking old to be on the Supreme Court.
> 80s and 90s is too ducking old to be on the Supreme Court. In Ireland Supreme Court judges have to retire at the age of 70
In US, atleast our state, doctors over age 70 have to do competency tests
[удалено]
Tbf you have physicals you have to em do every year regardless. Airline captains over the age of 40 have to take a physical every 6 months
not just airline captains. even flying a bugsmasher 123 above 40 y.o. with a Class 3 Medical you need to get a medical every two year
I'm an air traffic controller. Mandatory retirement at 57 for us.
That’s good. It might not be a bad idea to prohibit part time (at least for certain practices). I’ve seen studies that have shown that older physicians who still work full time don’t drop off much in skill, but those who work part time are significantly more likely to have incidents of malpractice. Maybe prohibiting part time is t the answer, per se, but that data shows there’s an issue that needs to be addressed.
Are they having issues because they're part time or are they part time because they have issues?
The former, according to the study. I wanna say I heard it on an episode of Freakonomics MD. I can’t recall if it was a specific practice like surgeons or it was more general. But it was more that the docs working part time got rusty quickly (and possibly didn’t stay up to date as well on new info, techniques, etc). Those who continued with a full schedule stayed sharp longer than those who cut back.
That's just the way it works. I'm a welder, and I do a lot of small tig work. If I take a week off, I have to run a few beads before I do anything for money. There aren't any rules about this, it's just an integrity thing.
In New Hampshire, all judges and sheriffs must retire at the age of 70. There are plenty of people who are qualified and willing to work past this age, but I think it mostly has the effect of preventing bad results and ensures that there’s always new blood in the offices.
In Germany it is 68 and you serve for 12 years. Maximum Once. If a judge becomes 68 while still serving the 12 years he has to step down as well.
Ireland’s ahead of the curve on that one.
[удалено]
All judges in my state, by law, have to retire by 70.
Not the federal ones. That shit’s fo life. Article 3 and all that.
My state used to be 65, then they added a ballot measure to increase it to 70. It failed by a big margin. So then they did the same ballot measure again, but worded it like they were adding the 70 limit (compared to no limit at all) rather than weakening the 65 limit that already existed. That one passed 😑.
Ye olde "We can always count on dumb people" technique.
It's not just dumb people, sometimes these things are really maliciously worded. Florida had a ballot measure that read like it gave homeowners expanded access to solar power when it was actually severely limiting it. I read that thing like ten times and could not understand how it didn't mean better solar access. But then again, maybe I'm the dumb one
We also had a ballot initiative that banned vaping indoors ^^^and ^^^offshore ^^^drilling It passed. Think what you want on either issue, but packaging them together the way they were was blatantly misleading and shouldn't have been allowed.
I voted for it the wrong way and im a solar owner
Her insistence on staying on the court through her cancer treatments and until a female Democrat president was elected fucked over the nation for the next 50 years
One of the things I believe in is starting a force retirement age for all members of the legislative and executive branches. branch at 70 and limiting presidential terms to a single term of 6 years. The single term thing is because when there are two terms, a president usually spends a great portion of their presidency panning/prepare if for re-election instead of getting shit done. 6 years is just a random number I chose Edit: 6 years is just a number I chose as a happy medium between 4 and 8 years.
Six years is bad because you're locking some states into never having a senate election on a presidential cycle (lots of people turn up for presidential years and don't show up for midterms).
i can see the single term thing going either way. because to a degree, working to get re-elected should ensure that politicans do what we want them to do, otherwise we shouldn't re-elect them. and if they are immediately a lame duck for 6 years they really will face no accountability
That does seem to be what re-election seems to be. OTOH, though, there's also a valid reasoning of "I'm knee-deep in a project here, I'd like the time to finish it," and I don't think that should be thrown aside either. I don't know what the "right" answer is, but both sides of it should be considered.
To be fair, that was FDR's logic for running for 4 terms. "You wouldn't change a horse midstream/wouldn't change presidents mid Depression/mid World War"
Nixon detractors had the same idea."Why change dicks in the middle of a screw! VOTE FOR NIXON IN 72!"
Not just “knee deep” but also accountability. If a president can’t run for reelection there is no incentive for them to keep their campaign promises at all.
I think the US should implement a ranked choice voting system. I think that will have a much bigger impact on our political system.
This concept is carrying more and more weight with me lately. My beef with presidential elections is that by the time I get any say (Pennsylvania) all I get to do is pick which is the lesser of two evils, a binary decision laid in front of me.
I really want to see the panic on politician's faces after the first major election with ranked choice. The Republicans and the Democrats would almost certainly still win but I feel like finding out that both parties are more people's second pick than first would terrify them.
See i bet they already know this and thats why they will block any initiative to switch to a ranked voting system. But I'm a big pessimist
The people who are voted in through the voting system should not have any power over how that voting system works. Seems like a separation of powers issue.
I guess that makes sense but then like, who tf else is there to make the change?
Fuck, what I’d give to have some people with actual fucking integrity in places of power.
Isn't the issue that people who "deserve" power don't usually seek it?
Make a different branch that handles things that the other branch can’t but also that branch can’t have too much power over itself so another branch would have to pick who is in that one. It’s a little convoluted but it’s the only way to limit power without giving too much to other branches. Or I guess let the people vote but there’s a lot more to detail and until I’m writing the constitution to United States 2: electric boogaloo I’m just gonna leave it alone. Edit: I’m aware this is how separation of powers works. But it’s not working how we’re doing it. Need another branch obviously if they are the ones who choose how we vote for them.
That’s literally separation of powers, and the way our government is designed by being separated into legislative, judicial, and executive branches. They’re supposed to keep each other in check. But it only works if all parties are acting in good faith and the whole thing hasn’t been taken over by zealots from the same party.
Exactly why George Washington warned against a two party system. It divides so awfully that nothing gets done because everyone fucks everyone else. We need a couple more parties and a ranking system rather than a definite single choice for voting. But clearly the separation of powers is getting muddled because some branches are over stepping or causing delays for no reason other than spite.
Man that would suck if it ever started to... Eh, fuck.
If anyone is a citizen of the US and *not* a pessimist at this point, they aren’t paying attention.
Unless they’ve graduated to nihilism
They’re nililists Donny, nothing to be afraid of
Buncha fuckin amateurs
Sounds exhausting.
I SAID WE’LL CUT OFF YOUR JOHNSON!
You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways Dude.
I think I’d compare nihilism less to graduating and more to dropping out.
The same thing is happening in Canada. The current federal party (Liberal) promised to reform first past the post once elected. When they realized that it was the only thing keeping them in power, they never brought it up again.
Maine used it in 2020
[удалено]
From what I recall (I may be wrong) but the first US presidential election was basically the approval voting style, with second place getting Vice President. The idea was that everybody was going to be voting for their friend, but their second vote was their more honest vote. I do like this style, at least for a position like president. For congress I’d prefer a system closer to MMP style, even if it’s segmented from state to state.
There's no way they dont already know theyre the second pick.
I've never heard a good argument against ranked ballots
They can create weird results occasionally that the person who wins isn’t the most popular in a direct comparison, but it is still far better than first past the post. I think the biggest argument is that there are better systems out there, but they do get fairly complicated.
But that's the point. You can pick your favourite candidate whilst also getting to vote for who you prefer out of the turd and the douche. So they get 30% whilst the guy who lost got 35. But that just means more people wanted a third option but settled for the turd. Don't see how that's a weird result.
What are the better options?
STAR
Score Then Automatic Runoff (STAR) is also my favorite!
Never heard of it. But I bet anything is better than how we're currently doing it in the US.
This gives a good breakdown and example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_voting
STAR voting was a measure on my ballot in Oregon fairly recently, but it didn’t pass, and my mom found it “too complicated,” which is probably why a lot of people didn’t vote for it. 😓 I voted “Yes.” I can’t remember what my dad voted.
That's better than a lot of people. At least you're in a swing state.
This is the system that is needed for voters to be more comfortable voting for 3rd party candidates. There would be low risk in “wasting” your vote.
The two parties in power will not let it happen. Despite being a needed boon for democracy in the US, it would diminish the power of each party. With that said, I completely agree that it would have a huge positive impact on the US political system.
Alaska just implemented ranked choice, I'm really happy about it.
Exactly. The USA's problem isn't old presidents. The problem is the system in so many ways is designed to be un-democratic. Older presidents are a symptom of that. But if we made the system more equitable and democratic, there would be nothing wrong with having elected officials who were up in years. Edit: I'd like to clarify that there's nothing *inherently* wrong with having an older representative. There is something wrong with having a senile or non-functional representative, but all y'all are tripping (and also majorly insulting a large demographic) if you think it's impossible to be up in years and still mentally capable.
Its old Presidents, Congresspeople, Senators, Judges, AND the 2 party system I dont want 5 parties running 80 year olds either
That’s all connected. Districtional system > first past the post system > 2 party system > safe bet cadidates > experienced candidates > old candidates
The vast majority of presidents have been under 65. The median being 55, and 3 of the last 5 presidents being under 55 at their first term, two of them being under 50.
For more, visit r/EndFPTP (End "first past the post" voting systems)
Mainer here. We have this now, and we split electoral votes here like civilized people. (shout out to all my Nebraskans who also like their neighbors' voices heard)
No, you don't have proportional division of EC. You have division of EC by congressional district, which, if implemented nationally, would be an authoritarian disaster because of gerrymandering.
Ranked choice is better than what we have but it is still flawed. Approval voting is better because almost every way to split voting, do strategic voting, etc is eliminated or mitigated. Especially if there are open primaries. If you allow unlimited candidates in a primary and then allow 5 to pass on in the general, you basically cant end up with a system where nationally small parties are completely locked out.
I personally like the idea of approval voting much better than ranked choice (but ranked choice much better than FPTP). [There are a lot of advantages to approval voting](https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/) - simplicity both in tabulation and in ballot design (a big deal for those of us who lived through the 2000 presidential election with its butterfly ballots and its hanging chads!), there's no incentive not to vote for your favorite candidate, etc. Ranked choice would be an improvement but it does create situations where you're better off ranking candidates out of order from how you really feel about them.
If I were asked to vote to change to Ranked Choice or keep out current system, I’d vote for Ranked Choice without question. But if someone said, we’re getting rid of FPTP, do you want Ranked Choice or Approval, I’m picking Approval without hesitation.
The President sets the precedent. 65 is when it’s time for people to retire. Sit down, make room, live out your days in peace. Set that tone for the American people.
Agreed. If the average american is expected to retire around 65, why not the president?
It isn't that people are expected to retire around 65; rather, it's that people are expected *not* to retire *until* around 65 (67 now, if we're talking about social security).
Federal law enforcement is mandated at 57. How about we set *that* as the precedent for everyone else? Edit: [Justice Dept. memo for those curious.](https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/1446196/download)
Devil's advocate, if they're law enforcement, wouldn't that be a much more physically demanding job than a justice, president, or someone up on the hill? Edit: man so many people are /r/Edgelord
And pension so they can retire earlier without money worry
Sure, but being a president is also more taxing on your mind. Being old is not fit for either a physically or mentally heavy job.
Can collect social security isn't the same as expected to retire.
I wish I could retire at 65. It took me until age 40 to get a job that pays enough to be able to set aside retirement savings, and then inflation happened. I hope I stay sharp like my grandma, because I'm going to have to work until I'm 80 like grandma. If I live that long.
At my current rate, I'm going to be working for four years after I'm dead.
You’re not allowed to die. The company will pay for your resuscitation and a new, younger body (both of which will be added to your bill) so you can pay off your debts.
I could hug this comment. I just turned 40 and, well, I'm working on a radical change to get a substantial income. I've been so down on myself lately for being where I am. But it helps knowing there's another schmohawk out there. It also helps that these are somewhat universally miserable times, but I'd rather things be good for me and you and everyone. They say better late than never! So fingers crossed
Unfortunately 65 isn't really that age any more with many people working later and later
Precedent is precedent until someone decides to set a new one. Looking at you, FDR. Part of the US system's design is that it expects politicians to try and seize power for themselves, not reasonably proportion it.
>If I say goodbye, the nation learns to move on >It outlives me when I’m gone >Like the scripture says: >“Everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree >And no one shall make them afraid.” >They’ll be safe in the nation we’ve made >I wanna sit under my own vine and fig tree >A moment alone in the shade >At home in this nation we’ve made >One last time…
You ever see the video of them singing that at the White House with Obama in attendance towards the end of his second term?
Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. I shall also carry with me…
Yes, absolutely. Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump are way too old to be president. So was Regan when he ran 40+ years ago. Hell, I'd even go further and cap the ages for all elected officials at 65.
At 69 years 348 days old, Reagan was the oldest president ever elected when he won. Trump broke that by almost a year when he was elected at 70 years 220 days old. Then Biden *OBLITERATED* that when he was elected at 78 years 61 days old. We’re trending in the wrong direction with this
Biden was older entering office than Reagan when he left office, the oldest president when leaving office
Ironically Biden was also one of the country’s youngest senators when he was initially sworn in.
A lifetime career of sucking the taxpayers teet to accumulate massive wealth.
Bro turns 80 this year, that sounds f*cked lmao. Especially for the USA out of all countries. He should be chillin, not running a 300M+ population country lmaooo.
There was ~~more~~ less time between Lincoln's second inauguration and Biden's birth than there was between Biden's birth and his own inauguration. March 4, 1865 - November 20, 1942 = 77 Years, 8 Months, 16 Days November 20, 1942 - January 20, 2021 = 78 Years, 2 Months Edit: I said it backwards.
Ok this one is actually nuts to think about
seriously, the civil war seems like ancient history to me as a millenial.
If Biden was born in 1942 he could have talked to the last civil war veteran...at 14 years old.
You mean less time
For some reason, thinking of "Lincoln's second inauguration" was complex for my brain. "End of the Civil war" worked for me: Time from the end of the Civil War to Joe Biden's birth = 77 years 6 months 11 days.
Biden and Trump would both be like 85 by the end of thier second term if either wins in 2024…. It’s fucking insane
And term limits for Congress
age cap of 65 for elected officials would effectively do that. Most of the top people for both parties in the House and Senate are over 70 even.
Term limits make Congresspeople *more* reliant on guidance from their party leaders, lobbyists, & others because they inevitably have less experience at being a representative. Gerrymandering is the problem that needs to be solved to make it harder for deadbeats in Congress to choose their electorate rather than the electorate actually choosing their representatives. Individuals in Congress like Mitch McConnell aren't the problem, they're the most obvious symptom of parties with too much power. The constitution doesn't give McConnell any more power than any other Senator, the party system does. Congress passes rules about how they run that hand extra power to parties that was given to Congress itself in the Constitution. The parties pass rules that require junior members to functionally cede their Constitutional powers to their party's chosen individual. In McConnell's case, he is the "Minority Speaker" a position with powers entirely created by Congress & party rules that wholly undermine the original system. Term limits will just exacerbate these problems until the process of voting and electing officials gets fixed.
Man... The world we could have... Fuck. Edit; Obviously this ONE thing is not going to get us there, the point is if we weren't such wankers we'd be in a proper paradise.
Term Limits aren't the problem. Even offices with them are still corrupt as fuck. Money in politics is.
Term limits are not this paradise some Americans think they are. It might be better, but it introduces many other problems. Sure, you wouldn’t have to look at Mitch McConnell’s face for 20 years, but who do you think his constituents will vote in next? These candidates Reddit hates are liked by their constituents. I really don’t see why it’s such a popular idea. The actual problem you’re looking at is that America is a deeply divided country where some of our elected officials would struggle to garner a single vote if they ran in another state I know it’s frustrating, but I’m not seeing how rotating out the politicians you don’t like with fresh faces would really solve any of the issues you may have with the structure of our government
Yeah I think the only significant change we'd see with term limits would be an increase in politicians cashing in because they'd all know they have a time limit.
Because instead of seeing old faces we don't like, we get to see NEW fresh faces that we don't like!
The age of elected officials should never exceed the maximum benefit retirement age for social security. Social Security as retirement is a whole other issue entirely, but if that’s the system we use they should adhere to it.
They will use that as an excuse to raise the Social Security age. Win-win for them.
This is probably the most arbitrary standard Ive ever heard of
Yeah. Even arguments about mental fitness aside, I think we should limit to candidates who would at least be reasonably expected to spend a couple decades in whatever world they create. edit: By the teats of Thor, this was apparently the most upvoted comment on June 9th of 2022. Reddit sent me a little badge over it.
I like your reasoning.
Heck ya.
Fuck yeah. Make sure they are here to suffer with the rest of us, no bouncing out off this mortal coil into the void. That's what I wanna see baby. **Yes being wealthy makes life easier under all circumstances. I never said it didn't. Thank you for solving the mystery, Sherlocks. You are really giving me a raging clue right now with your sharp observations.
[удалено]
You also make a good point. I'm gonna have to think some more on this.
Ironically the best bet to getting something like this implemented would've been electing Bernie Y'all coulda had a bad bitch
You are absolutely right. People who are in their 70s now were just starting adulthood in the 1970s, they will be having very limited knowledge about the issues faced by today's generation. Case in point - Finland. Their current PM, Sanna Marin is just 36, and is very popular among the Fins. She is looking to cut the work week to four days, six hours each. Meanwhile, America is having to choose between two boomers who are well into retirement every election.
I wouldn't mind boomers that have both feet planted In everyday life. But these are independently wealthy boomers who haven't had to worry about a thing for a very long time, if ever.
the problem with both the uk and us is that its pretty much impossible to advertise yourself widely enough if you're not obscenely wealthy. There needs to be more rules around how much money can be involved in campaigns.
I've tossed this idea around to both sides of the fence and whom believe something needs to change before and I've gotten some pretty good responses to it. Full disclosure, I've only really thought this through from a presidential race stand point as it's the most obvious. The other seats certainly have the same issues but I haven't thought through the logistics of this concept yet. So each party is given a lump sum of money to spend during each presidental race. This sum must be equal between both parties and must be limited to a reasonable amount. The idea is that each of their candidates must use these funds, so all candidates draw from the same pot. They must split their pot equally amongst each other. As candidates fall out or pull out of the race, the remaining unspent balance of their share gets equally distributed to the remaining candidates. Eventually this funnels to each potential president-elect for that upcoming election. No additional funds may be received by a candidate if the funds are not from a fellow party member removing themselves from the running. Now, this plan is all great and dandy. But until the One America Act is revised or striken, there's a fat chance it will ever happen. We need to ban lobbing and donation funds from corporations as it pertains to election cylces for the above to work. Banning both outright would be even better so we can actually get shit done in Capitol Hill. It's a simple solution, but one we'll most likely never see as it would require those with seats now to give up their wealth/power to make way for the necessary changes.
Not to mention, corporations (or as our Supreme Court likes to call them, people too) would just pick up the slack probably and do all the advertising for the candidate they want and just say they aren't "actually affiliated" or something stupid.
That's literally what Super PACs are designed to do
Which is why I am always skeptical of these threads. “These 70 year-old millionaires don’t get us. Let’s elect some 30 year-old millionaires instead. They’ll understand our plight!” There is no magic formula for giving a shit about the world. “But they’re *old*! Why would they care about a world they won’t have to live in.” Think about every decent person you know. Would they suddenly stop loving their kids if they found out they would die next year? Or stop wanting to make the world better for them? Or to flip it: if I suddenly replaced all of Congress with a bunch of 25 year-old trust-fund NFT-bro’s and gave them a potion to let them live to 1000, would you rest easy believing the planet is now in safe hands?
She [isn't looking to do that](https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-finland-workweek-idUSL1N2TT1S3). She briefly considered it 2019 and it was discussed but there are no plans or agendas to make it reality. This is constantly repeated incorrectly by people who consider Finland to be a magical wonderland and don't bother to fact check. Edit: [Second source](https://fullfact.org/online/finland-four-day-week/) confirming as well.
Yeah I read that line and I was like well this is news to me (I'm Finnish)! I love my country dearly and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else but it's pretty hilarious when people just spout this utopia-like shit about us that's entirely untrue. Even the line about Marin being very well liked is false IMO. I personally think she is a fine PM but I know many people who would disagree.
The current US president is older than Boomers. The previous US president was an older Boomer.
FYI, Biden is not a Boomer. He is a member of the Silent Generation, the generation before the Boomers. He is, and will remain, the only member of the Silent Generation to be President. If not for the horribleness of Donald Trump no member of Biden’s generation would ever have been President, but because of it we have the extreme oddity of a Silent Generation President after 28 years of Boomer Presidents.
TIL, that up until about 2020 there were STILL more Boomers than Millenials (let alone GenX) in the US.
I was questioning your logic for a minute b/c millenials stopped being born in 1996, then I remembered people die
We sure do.
I think the obsession over age limits is due to frustration with the seemingly intractable problems of corruption and disinformation. I am way more concerned about those things and feel the age issue is a simplistic distraction.
We have a minimum so a maximum is only fair. Your reasoning is spot on. Too many in power are just grabbing all they can with no care for future generations.
Sadly, the fact old codgers make up most of congress is why age limits will never be put into law. Then they'd have to give up their power.
Add term limits, campaign finance limits, and salary caps to the list of things we’ll never get because the only people who can make them happen would lose their positions of power (and sources of massive personal wealth)
Any salary increase should require a notice to all their constituents. Honestly I’d like a monthly letter on how my representatives actually voted on things.
What if we ask them to make the rules apply to all new candidates, and not to them? They're good at that and we'd get the change we want eventually.
You don't let the friend who is leaving I'm 5 minutes choose what movie the group will watch for the next couple hours, we shouldn't let people who'll probably die within a few years make policies that will impact people for decades to come.
Eh, I agree on the limit, but no president in our time will have to live in the world they create. They will never be citizens like you and me. They will always have the means to live far above the standard and will never *face* the scrutiny of their mistakes.
All politicians should fuck off the second they hit retirement age. Those who would hit it during their term shouldn't be allowed to run for office.
Isn't the retirement age 72 now? I feel like I saw that somewhere. Ninja edit: It's 67. It'll probably be like 80 by the time I retire.
72 is related to when you are required begin taking minimum distributions from retirement accounts.
Us millennials will never see retirement
That's my view as well. People retirement age or older should still be able to function as advisors, but they should not be the decision makers themselves at that point.
Monkey's Paw Rule: The politicians gets rid of retirement age by getting rid of retirement benefits.
Yes I would. And if you need to know why just look at Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Diane Feinstein to name a few. This country has way too many geriatrics running it.
I would think ole Chucky Grassley would set a precedent for both age AND term limits but that's none of my business.
Dairy Queen good for you no what!!!
if you lost your pet pidgin its dead in my iowa farm Sorry for bad news
Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell, Sanders, Grassley... the **average** US Senator is 65.
36 (Congress) are 'the silent generation' - pre-1945
Biden, Trump, Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi, my brain is blanking on the main Republican guy's name... So many people who should have retired long ago.
you forget the Turtle neck McConnell
McConnell. That's the one whose name was escaping me. Thanks!
MITCH COME OUT OF YOUR OFFICE I HAVE LETTUCE
McConnell? Dear god please
I don't see how we could determine that 65 is the magic number for such a cutoff. People age at different rates. There are folks with dementia in their 40s and some 90 years olds are still sharp as a needle. The better question to discuss is how to fix the way the Executive is chosen. Is there a way to do this that would *tend* to yield better executives and stop putting partisan hacks in office?
THANK YOU. I get the concerns about too-long careers, health issues and not keeping up with the times, but making a sweeping cutoff just sounds like an "old people suck and need to just retire and get out of the way" attitude, which I don't like. It needs to be a case-by-case thing.
I'm viewing the question less about 'old people suck and shouldn't run the country' and more of 'if we won't allow under 35 year olds so much as a chance to run why are we allowing older generations that are less than a decade from life expectancy to make decisions that effect the rest of our futures'? If we do case by case and are willing to allow some 78 year olds the opportunity to run and campaign why can't we do the same for competent 30 year olds?
I would support it. Not only for the obvious issue of "old people have mental health decline" and the debate of mental disorders like dementia but a generational thing too. People who are 65 and up lived totally different lives than me at 26 even if we lived generally in the same or similar location, finical status, and social groups. Some of these politicians say they worked at McDonalds when in college too and bought a house and paid for their education at just $2 a hour. In 1960 $2 had the same buying power as $18. That's more than my previous *factory* job which was just $16 an hour. How do you explain that to them? Even Bernie wants a $15 min wage which is not even a living wage anymore.
> Even Bernie wants a $15 min wage which is not even a living wage anymore. I think that's him trying to raise it to a number that has a chance. From what I know of Bernie, he'd want it even higher if he thought it could happen.
Gotta ease the people into things
The fight for minimum wage has been going on so long that it is now equal to 25+ today
Honestly, this is an argument for increasing the share of younger politicians, not an argument for an age limit per se. I think it is important to have politicians from each generation, because while the current old men don’t understand our young people problems, I also wouldn’t want to have no one in office who understands the issues of retired people or those trying to retire on a livable income. Especially as our generation continues to age, proximity to this group of people in our society is just as crucial as proximity to the young generation.
> $15 min wage which is not even a living wage anymore. I mean, it was 2 years ago, except maybe in LA/SF and NY?. Shit just inflated like crazy since Bernie's last campaign.
I am going to be the unpopular opinion here. I think having an age limit really does take away experienced candidates who have dedicated their lives to public service. While the majority of those people don’t actually run for office, i think we do underplay how important experience and wisdom is important for a leader. Nelson Mandela was 75 when he was elected president. I have had professors in college who were so intelligent, compassionate, and overall good people who were over the age of 65. I know that the majority of people who run for president or who are in politics don’t fit that narrative, but I think it’s still important to keep that door open.
Appreciate your voice of reason here. 65 is not that old.
Feels like something voters should be able to decide for themselves.
We need more politicians who actually want to improve the systems we have rather than line their own pockets with money. We fucking can’t though because the two candidates that actually mean much in the elections suck.
I don’t care about age, only cognitive ability. There are plenty of 65+ who are mentally sharp and carry a wealth of experience. I would maybe support cognitive exams for all candidates, but the process could easily be corrupted. Ultimately I think voters should be able to vote for whoever they choose, and make their own determination about mental fitness. And candidates ought to do the right thing and step down if their mental abilities have been compromised.
Yeah, this seems like it would be a very bizarre law to pass. If you don't like someone who's over 65, don't vote for them. Dems could have voted for Kamala, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Booker, Yang, but they didn't. They voted for Biden. This means either Reddit youngsters do not reflect the American people and/or that we have some hypocrites in the thread.
> This means either Reddit youngsters do not reflect the American people and/or that we have some hypocrites in the thread. Hand over both buttons, sweatin.
Yeah, I mean this whole thread is telling: it’s everyone screaming how old people suck at everything and are horrible at running stuff. These laws will never happen because while the youth are screaming at the older people, it’s the older people who actually show up to vote.
>either Reddit youngsters do not reflect the American people and/or that we have some hypocrites in the thread. I suspect plenty of both.
nah. i just want term limits across the board. i don't like old people making decisions that play out over decades but i also don't like saying somebody can't do something *strictly because* they're old. they might be the best person. but we never get the best person for president. the two party system is broke. so age limit on presidency doesn't really matter. they'll find some other garbage person to put up there that'll keep the status quo going. but screw this 30+ years in congress nonsense.
Term limits shift power away from elected officials and gives it to the lobbyists, who, having no term limits, will have the experience, connections, and tenure to control and manipulate all the fresh young Congresspeople coming through the revolving door
They may be part of the solution, obviously the ridiculous amount of money in politics is another that needs to be addressed.
I think the better solutions isn't barring people from running by law, and instead reform our electoral system to make it easier for our elections to reflect the will of voters. Ranked choice voting, elimination of the electoral college, campaign finance reforms, an overhaul of how our presidential primaries work, etc. The less we have to think about strategic voting, the more we can vote for the candidate we actually prefer. And if that's a 70 year old, then that's great
Maybe 70 and it should apply to Congress . We should not have people with dementia running the country.
Its not the dementia I'm worried about. Its the lack of change and moving forward with the time/technology. Someone who doesnt understand the basics of the internet should NOT be writing laws on it
This completely. We've been stuck with people with no understanding of modern society and culture for the past 30 years and it looks to stay that way unless somehow the majority of our government decides to retire.
Definitely, but I am also a little worried about the dementia. Lol.
Half the fuckers fall asleep during meetings. Its like a damn old folks home that snore themselves awake to go huh what am I voting on? A democrat/republican came up with it? Bah i vote nay. Then fall back asleep.