Youre entirely right. How exactly will you enforce a law that says “unless youre still sharp as a tack at 80”, though? There has to be a provable line or else the law is meaningless.
All candidates for elected office should undergo standardized cognitive and psychological testing. The latter should include things like personality and bipolor disorder tests and some kind of personality test if there even one that is roughly valid (I don’t know). These tests should not bar anyone from office necessarily but the results should be made public so voters can assess for themselves. These tests should be completed immediately after the candidate files to run.
Well a law is a hell of a lot harder to enforce if it’s not drawing a line somewhere in the sand, and I’d rather disqualify someone we should than qualify someone we shouldn’t
Perfectly happy to draw a line in the sand, it should just be based on what we care about - competence, intelligence, experience, not being a raging psychopath… that kind of thing. Saying 65 is too old is no better than saying 35 is too young.
Well, that should be standardized then, and 65 seems like a nice median
Based on what?
I’ve known high energy 80 year olds who were sharp as a tack and 50 year olds with early onset dementia or who were just plain nuts to begin with.
This isn’t about age.
Youre entirely right. How exactly will you enforce a law that says “unless youre still sharp as a tack at 80”, though? There has to be a provable line or else the law is meaningless.
All candidates for elected office should undergo standardized cognitive and psychological testing. The latter should include things like personality and bipolor disorder tests and some kind of personality test if there even one that is roughly valid (I don’t know). These tests should not bar anyone from office necessarily but the results should be made public so voters can assess for themselves. These tests should be completed immediately after the candidate files to run.
Well a law is a hell of a lot harder to enforce if it’s not drawing a line somewhere in the sand, and I’d rather disqualify someone we should than qualify someone we shouldn’t
Perfectly happy to draw a line in the sand, it should just be based on what we care about - competence, intelligence, experience, not being a raging psychopath… that kind of thing. Saying 65 is too old is no better than saying 35 is too young.
I like all of those things. Can we draw the sand line now?