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

    • kava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

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

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

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

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

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

        • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

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

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

    • LifeInMultipleChoice
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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