Yeah, but probably I’d make it lower (like 67) and allow exceptions with large majority (like a four year exception with a two thirds or three quarters vote of the senate).
I also think Supreme Court justices should have terms and term limits, and shouldn’t be allowed to receive gifts over a certain value (like $2,000).
Younger than that. 65
Yes, but agree with most of the other comments here. It should be lowered to 65-67 instead.
65-67 is perfect.
65-67=-2
An innovative idea, but difficult to implement.
60 for retirement, but allowed to sub contact into the party as advisor positions as staff and encouraged to. But no on the floor decision making positions.
I wouldn’t because the age doesn’t really matter. Fuckwit politicians will still be fuckwits politicians, even when they are young. See Zelensky and his team, for example. Maybe they look more “presentable” to the media, but they do the same shit old men before them did
See the tall guy who had a stroke
I mean, if they are to ill to do their duties that’s a whole other thing than being too old
No.
- I think that 75 is already too old, especially because they won’t let go of their positions until their terms end even after the “mandated” age of retirement (unless the law specifically forbids taking a position you won’t be able to complete)
- Politicians will argue that this age is either too young or too old and will either never update this law, or update it so often it becomes meaningless.
An alternative could be to set the limit to a percentage of average life expectancy, or some other variable, so the law isn’t as easy to ignore or mess with, the law can remain unchanged for decades and remain relevant without adverse effects (hopefully), and politicians are encouraged to improve the quality of life.
No, because 75 is too old. I’d support an age limit of 65. I’d also support a minimum age of 25 for the House/Senate and 35 for the Supreme Court.
I’d also like to see term limits imposed on the house, senate, and Supreme Court. As well as a limit on the total amount of time a judge can serve as a judge in the federal court system.
75?
Fuck that. Social security retirement age.
Let’s compromise and make it 69.
Maybe don’t bring social security retirement age until it. They already want to raise that. This would just be another excuse to do it.
President
Yes, aside from their senility, our politicians are simply way too out of touch to comprehend the average American’s issues. Spent most of their life in politics with the easiest 6 figure salary (plus bribes) you can have.
Granted politicians will probably remain out of touch but I’d like to imagine it’d be better
Yeah. Hard for them to relate when they all grew into wealth, lived sheltered lives, spend all day doing office work/politics.
Let them live off of 40k a year and see how their demeanor changes.
Note: I am not an expert in anything. Go ahead and ignore me. I’m just a random person thinking about and answering the prompt. These are just my ill formed opinions, feel free to CMV (even though I don’t take a hard stance) but please be respectful.
Maybe. I lean towards yes that at a certain point you’re way too old to be effective but I feel like the age caps and term limits arguments have some good points in multiple different positions. Which is my roundabout way of saying there are good points on either side but I hate saying that because of the connotations associated with it but here we are.
Anyway.
One argument I think actually holds water and relates to your question is: what age is the cutoff, and why did you pick it?
What criteria merits an age cap? If someone who met or exceeded the cap was able to “pass” the criteria you used for determining that number, what justification then do you have to deny them eligibility? “Because we said so” isn’t a good justification and amounts to age discrimination.
Also, now I fully admit this is a slippery slope fallacy but: once a limit is adopted, the barriers to changing that limit are lessened. Meaning if you cap it at 75 and society undergoes a significant cultural shift it is much easier to reduce it to 45 since there is a framework in place. Yes, this is a fallacy, but one I believe has some bureaucratic believability albeit in a very pessimistic Logan’s-Run-esque sense.
Counterpoint though: there are age minimums for certain positions like the presidency (probably others but I’m not sure) and the same fears of manipulation of the cutoff shenanigans have never born fruit. That said other age barriers are undergoing challenges so… it’s a bit muddy but something worth discussing. Yes, I just countered my counter point.
The current system is supposed to be that candidates run on merit and the people choose whom they believe is the best fit to represent their interests. This is supposed to counteract the election of unfit candidates. Which we clearly see has broken down in places (for a non-inflammatory example: that place that elected a dead person).
I don’t have a solution and all of this is to say it seems like common sense that at some point you have to be too old to do a demanding job like those listed, but when you sit down and try to define where the boundaries are the conversation gets complicated.
I wonder if it would be better to have a term limit. I don’t really care if you are 125, but there should be a limit to how long you sit there with huge amounts of power. Especially since they aren’t directly re-elected.
No. For two reasons, one you don’t want to force the people to give up an actually good representative. Two, term limits for Representatives and Senators actually creates more corruption and entrenches the party as the entity instead of the politician.
This was an engagement bait question on Reddit that was frequently posted. It seems so far Lemmy is overwhelmingly in favor just like reddit probably as the population is not old (I’m not either).
I don’t know how I feel about it as the constant repost and bait question were something I disliked on Reddit.
I did post the question because I thought it would be engaging, and many people could participate. I like Lemmy and seeing discussions thrive here.
You are free to downvote the post, and engage with it however you choose. Or post questions that you wish to see to shape this community.
I agree that being critical is easy and I should be “the change I want to see in the world”.
Thanks for creating Lemmy content in good faith.
I don’t think so. One you’d lose Bernie. Two it’s a bit harsh to assume anyone over a certain age isn’t mentally capable of governing or changing with the times.
I think term limits would serve you much better.
Losing Bernie and a bunch of other politicians would open a lot of seats for younger Bernies
I’m a Bernie fan too, but Diane Feinstein bothered me in multiple ways. She was infirm and senile for years but still chose to run for reelection when she and her staff knew she had multiple health problems. Her aids were telling her how to vote, but the voters didn’t elect them, and who knows who’s interests they represented. Her stubbornness to not retire was a disservice to Californians. I also have concerns that Mitch McConnell is doing a similar disservice to the state of Kentucky with his health problems due to age.
Bernie still has his mental faculties, and could still inspire, and sway representatives while being out of office. I would listen to him, and think progressive representatives would as well.
Medical test for competency would make sense.
My point is forced retirement is basically ageist.
I think the people of the United States should be allowed to elect whoever they want, without us interfering.
No, because democracy. But we shouldn’t vote for these old guys
