The US Gerontocracy - should their be an age cap?

[Agarntrop]

Senate term limits would just cause office-hopping.

It would also discourage younger people to run for Senate in the first place.

[San Lumen]

Senate term limits would just cause office-hopping.

It would also discourage younger people to run for Senate in the first place.

We have term limits they are called elections.

[Agarntrop]

Senate term limits would just cause office-hopping.

It would also discourage younger people to run for Senate in the first place.

We have term limits they are called elections.

Limits on the amount of terms, not the length of a single term.

I think you know what I mean, stop trying to be obtuse.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

65 is the age of retirement with social security.

Congress forces an age of retirement on millions of federal employees. They have minimum age laws for many political offices.

[San Lumen]

65 is the age of retirement with social security.

Congress forces an age of retirement on millions of federal employees. They have minimum age laws for many political offices.

I have no problem with minimum age laws but i dont see why reaching a certain age should bar someone from running.

[Valrifell]

65 is the age of retirement with social security.

Congress forces an age of retirement on millions of federal employees. They have minimum age laws for many political offices.

I have no problem with minimum age laws but i dont see why reaching a certain age should bar someone from running.

Do you ever wonder why there are mandatory retirement ages?

[Saiwania]

Do you ever wonder why there are mandatory retirement ages?

There shouldn't be because how else is someone supposed to earn money if they're too old but all of their skills or knowledge is in one or a few specific career fields or industries? If they don't have a good pension or don't have much life savings for whatever reason- they're screwed.

Old people already deal with ageist biases that they're less capable than younger people. Just as some younger people aren't given any chance because older people are wanted for a different line of work because experience/seniority is more valued there.

[San Lumen]

I have no problem with minimum age laws but i dont see why reaching a certain age should bar someone from running.

Do you ever wonder why there are mandatory retirement ages?

No because it’s a stupid idea.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

65 is the age of retirement with social security.

Congress forces an age of retirement on millions of federal employees. They have minimum age laws for many political offices.

I have no problem with minimum age laws but i dont see why reaching a certain age should bar someone from running.

Why are minimum age laws ok, but mandatory retirement laws not ok? I reiterate that congress itself imposes mandatory retirement ages on millions of federal employees.

Any argument against a 30 year old running for office could be just as easily directed at a 70 year old.

[Sundiata]

No.

[Adamede]

Why stop with age? If we’re worried about politicians dying in office, why don’t we also bar people with potentially deadly medical problems from holding office as well?

[San Lumen]

I have no problem with minimum age laws but i dont see why reaching a certain age should bar someone from running.

Why are minimum age laws ok, but mandatory retirement laws not ok? I reiterate that congress itself imposes mandatory retirement ages on millions of federal employees.

Any argument against a 30 year old running for office could be just as easily directed at a 70 year old.

because one should be legal adult before being eligible for office. 18 seems reasonable for municipal office, state legislature or even Congress. Though 25 I suppose is ok for the last one.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Why are minimum age laws ok, but mandatory retirement laws not ok? I reiterate that congress itself imposes mandatory retirement ages on millions of federal employees.

Any argument against a 30 year old running for office could be just as easily directed at a 70 year old.

because one should be legal adult before being eligible for office. 18 seems reasonable for municipal office, state legislature or even Congress. Though 25 I suppose is ok for the last one.

Because because. You provide no reasoning.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I also think there shouldn't be a lower age limit.

I think there should be an upper age limit, because old people in our societies are a rich and powerful minority. And they look more like turtles than people.

I misread what they wrote then. A minimum age limit is fine but a upper no. It’s simply a term limit by another name.

But you support term limits, where they already exist.

Also, you've never given a reason for requiring a lower age limit of 18, instead all you have to say is that <18 is "absurd".

Why is it good enough to leave the decision to the voters, for a candidate/incumbent of advanced age? But not good enough to leave the decision to voters, when the candidate is a teenager or outright kid?

Maybe you think the voters can detect senility in an incumbent. But they can't detect a kid who hasn't finished puberty. It's about competency, right? If the voters can't tell then to hell with voters, they're useless.

[San Lumen]

I misread what they wrote then. A minimum age limit is fine but a upper no. It’s simply a term limit by another name.

But you support term limits, where they already exist.

Also, you've never given a reason for requiring a lower age limit of 18, instead all you have to say is that <18 is "absurd".

Why is it good enough to leave the decision to the voters, for a candidate/incumbent of advanced age? But not good enough to leave the decision to voters, when the candidate is a teenager or outright kid?

Maybe you think the voters can detect senility in an incumbent. But they can't detect a kid who hasn't finished puberty. It's about competency, right? If the voters can't tell then to hell with voters, they're useless.

I don’t support term limits.

I believe one should have a certain level of maturity plus someone under 18 has a school to attend. How can they be mayor and attend school for example?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

But you support term limits, where they already exist.

Also, you've never given a reason for requiring a lower age limit of 18, instead all you have to say is that <18 is "absurd".

Why is it good enough to leave the decision to the voters, for a candidate/incumbent of advanced age? But not good enough to leave the decision to voters, when the candidate is a teenager or outright kid?

Maybe you think the voters can detect senility in an incumbent. But they can't detect a kid who hasn't finished puberty. It's about competency, right? If the voters can't tell then to hell with voters, they're useless.

I don’t support term limits.

I believe one should have a certain level of maturity plus someone under 18 has a school to attend. How can they be mayor and attend school for example?

That's their problem. If they're mature enough in the opinion of voters to run for office, I'd let them drop school altogether if that's their choice. And it's not even necessary that they do that, though I suppose they should tell the voters how much school they plan to do.

"Maturity" is a personal characteristic which voters could judge for themselves, AND it will only increase during the term of the young person's service.

"Senility" is a personal characteristic which voters can judge for themselves (if they're still paying attention once the old person is an incumbent). Unlike maturity, senility gets worse over the elected term.

A lower age limit protects the voters from making a bad decision (for themselves) which they're really unlikely to do. An upper age limit protects the voters from making a bad decision which would be all too easy: renewing the term of someone they trust, even though they know that person is half gone in the head, on the expectation that representative will voluntarily resign if they can't do the job any more. But the senile representative no longer has the judgement to do that.

A lower age limit protects the voters against doing something they would never do anyway. An upper age limit protects them against the continued incumbency of someone who they will regret voting for, only when that representative makes an irreversible mistake.

[San Lumen]

I don’t support term limits.

I believe one should have a certain level of maturity plus someone under 18 has a school to attend. How can they be mayor and attend school for example?

That's their problem. If they're mature enough in the opinion of voters to run for office, I'd let them drop school altogether if that's their choice. And it's not even necessary that they do that, though I suppose they should tell the voters how much school they plan to do.

"Maturity" is a personal characteristic which voters could judge for themselves, AND it will only increase during the term of the young person's service.

"Senility" is a personal characteristic which voters can judge for themselves (if they're still paying attention once the old person is an incumbent). Unlike maturity, senility gets worse over the elected term.

A lower age limit protects the voters from making a bad decision (for themselves) which they're really unlikely to do. An upper age limit protects the voters from making a bad decision which would be all too easy: renewing the term of someone they trust, even though they know that person is half gone in the head, on the expectation that representative will voluntarily resign if they can't do the job any more. But the senile representative no longer has the judgement to do that.

A lower age limit protects the voters against doing something they would never do anyway. An upper age limit protects them against the continued incumbency of someone who they will regret voting for, only when that representative makes an irreversible mistake.

by your logic why should there be minimum age laws to do anything then?

Why do voters have to protected from themselves? If they want someone as old as Biden as president then thats their choice.

[The Marlborough]

because one should be legal adult before being eligible for office. 18 seems reasonable for municipal office, state legislature or even Congress. Though 25 I suppose is ok for the last one.

Because because. You provide no reasoning.

because one should be legal adult before being eligible for office

[Compassionate Centrist Christians]

I wouldn't say we need an age cap, voters can determine for themselves whether someone is fit.

[San Lumen]

I wouldn't say we need an age cap, voters can determine for themselves whether someone is fit.

Yes and if people don’t want that person in office anymore than they can vote them out. Ted Stevens the longest serving Republican senator in US history lost re-election in 2008 in a monumental upset having first been elected in 1968.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Because because. You provide no reasoning.

because one should be legal adult before being eligible for office

Seriously, tacking the word "legal" onto a circular argument, doesn't make "reasoning".

A legal adult can be prosecuted for crimes, and punished to an adult standard. However, the US does not apply the inverse: under-18 at the time of the alleged offense, can also be prosecuted as adults.

So what difference does a person being a "legal adult" make to their fitness for office?

Why should voters be protected from making this particular mistake, when apparently they don't need protection against electing an old person who becomes senile when in office?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

That's their problem. If they're mature enough in the opinion of voters to run for office, I'd let them drop school altogether if that's their choice. And it's not even necessary that they do that, though I suppose they should tell the voters how much school they plan to do.

"Maturity" is a personal characteristic which voters could judge for themselves, AND it will only increase during the term of the young person's service.

"Senility" is a personal characteristic which voters can judge for themselves (if they're still paying attention once the old person is an incumbent). Unlike maturity, senility gets worse over the elected term.

A lower age limit protects the voters from making a bad decision (for themselves) which they're really unlikely to do. An upper age limit protects the voters from making a bad decision which would be all too easy: renewing the term of someone they trust, even though they know that person is half gone in the head, on the expectation that representative will voluntarily resign if they can't do the job any more. But the senile representative no longer has the judgement to do that.

A lower age limit protects the voters against doing something they would never do anyway. An upper age limit protects them against the continued incumbency of someone who they will regret voting for, only when that representative makes an irreversible mistake.

by your logic why should there be minimum age laws to do anything then?

There shouldn't. Don't you remember, I'm the "votes for children of any age" advocate?

Why do voters have to protected from themselves? If they want someone as old as Biden as president then thats their choice.

Well I'm glad you're blatantly contradicting yourself. I don't need to say anything more: you just need some time to think it through.

[San Lumen]

by your logic why should there be minimum age laws to do anything then?

There shouldn't. Don't you remember, I'm the "votes for children of any age" advocate?

Why do voters have to protected from themselves? If they want someone as old as Biden as president then thats their choice.

Well I'm glad you're blatantly contradicting yourself. I don't need to say anything more: you just need some time to think it through.

Why shouldn’t there be?

I don’t see how that’s a contradiction. Kansas didn’t have any requirements to run for governor until very recently. One of the candidates in the primary in the last election was a teenager who had never been to the state.

[Arisyan]

my personal view is that if your retired, you can't run. Which means no one over the age of 65 should be able to run for office.

Also, you know what else comes with age? mental illness.

[San Lumen]

my personal view is that if your retired, you can't run. Which means no one over the age of 65 should be able to run for office.

Also, you know what else comes with age? mental illness.

Why not?

Your also generalizing. Its very likely such a rule would be deemed unconstitutional as it would probably deemed a form of discrimination among other things it would violate.