r/TooAfraidToAsk May 26 '22 Helpful 1 Take My Energy 1

should there be a maximum age requirement for politicians, presidency etc? Law & Government

There is a minimum age because you aren't considered mature enough but maybe you'd need one for the other extreme, like 70 or something, because I feel people in power should be open to change and that happens way too rarely in old people (like look at any of your grandparents or neighbors)

Thoughts?

Edit:I'm not American

4.9k Upvotes

1.9k

u/MizchiefKilz May 26 '22

If we can't stop voting in demented old people, we aren't going to be able to pass a law barring them from running either.

442

u/Knuckles316 May 26 '22

If the only options the DNC and GOP give us are two old guys, we don't really have the option to not vote for them.

97

u/SicksTea9 May 26 '22

I'm really curious to see how the primaries go for the GOP, because at this point I just consider the DNC as the only people choosing the Democrats and I'm curious if we will see something similar with the GOP this go around. If it's just Trump that would be so boring.

155

u/Knuckles316 May 26 '22

I still can't believe that last time around the Democrats could have put up pretty much anyone and beat Trump. The simple platform of not being him was enough that anyone could have won. And they put up an ancient, feckless, spineless man with no ambition.

20

u/fred_cheese May 27 '22

The idea that anyone could have beaten Trump is a dangerous fallacy. Look around and see that Trump still holds tremendous sway over a large percentage of the Republicans. Add to the mix, far left characteristics that could very likely compel a lot of centrists to a known quantity (for better or worse).

Bear in mind the Progressive wing wasn't crawling with a lot of youngsters either. Elizabeth Warren and Sanders are both septuagenarians (Warren just 2 years into, Bernie actually just becoming an octo-).

Lastly, you have to seriously ask yourself if a progressive left President would have the political clout to push their platform through Congress.

3

u/thegunnersdream May 27 '22

I'm not a Trump fan by any means, but I completely agree with you. It's easy on reddit to think "if only we put up a better candidate, Trump wouldn't have won." The reality is Trump ran maybe one of the most effective campaigns in recent memory. I firmly believe that without covid, he would have absolutely stomped Biden also. A lot of people genuinely love him and, even for right leaning people who don't love him, they believe he is mostly the leader the country needs. Like you said also, while there is a significant number of individuals who flipped from Bernie to Trump, there are a lot of left leaning people who do not care for the talking points of Progressives. Had Bernie gotten the nod, I believe we would have seen a similar number flip to voting R instead of D because the Progressive ideals are a bridge too far for them.

The Trump hate is strong on Reddit, but I think it is a mistake to write off his candidacy/presidency without trying to understand why so may people did/do like him and why he still holds so much sway. It is reductive to simply boil it down to "they are all racist or bad people."

→ More replies

60

u/Uffda01 May 26 '22

The problem is the money people in the Democratic party still pull the strings: that's why we had Hillary (whom the Repubs had been campaigning against for 25 years) and Biden this time - they know they won't lose the majority of the progressive wing of the party, because we have no where else to go

→ More replies

91

u/SuddenlyCelery May 26 '22

no ambition

If Joe Biden has anything, it's ambition. Dude ran for president four times!

29

u/zenkon May 26 '22

Wait, we have almost the same type of president?! I’m from Mexico, our current fool with power ran three times and finally won this last time ( collect many favors and probably promised many more ) and also is an old guy who doesn’t understand the world anymore.

13

u/MrThingsNStuff May 26 '22

"Fool with power" is now my new favorite derogatory term for politician.

3

u/toastof- May 27 '22

Powerfool, if you will

8

u/SuddenlyCelery May 26 '22

Seems like it!!

4

u/remag117 May 27 '22

And before that they picked one of the only candidates who could lose against him.

23

u/Mrsensi11x May 26 '22

Well thats not true at all. Trump got the 2nd most votes ever. It took a maasive effort to beat Republican turnout. Iove bernie but i dont think he wouldve won.

3

u/Merc_Mike May 26 '22

He def would have won, if the DNC had backed him like they did Hilary.

I bet a lot of votes was in protest of Hilary.

0

u/Savings-Lie5738 May 26 '22

A lot of moderates went with trump over Hillary because of her record. Trump ( conservative populist) vs Bernie ( democratic populist) would have been much closer

Ultimately trump and Bernie are much more similar with there ideas of relinquishing power and opportunity back to the forgotten base of this country ( blue collar workers / lower middle class )

36

u/Orcus424 May 26 '22 Take My Energy

last time around the Democrats could have put up pretty much anyone and beat Trump.

That's definitely not true. Biden was needed to take down Trump. Even with Trump's massive screw ups and bad choices he still had a decent chance at winning.

7

u/HaCo111 May 26 '22

Joe Biden did not draw in a single vote that wouldn't have voted Democrat anyway.

Unless that whole "Blue no matter Who" slogan was just a liberal lie to try and coerce actual leftists into voting for the ineffective hand wringing centrist.

19

u/JohnKellyesq May 26 '22

If your down ballot votes show anything I would think that there must have been a sizable number of Republicans voted for Biden. The Democrats got reduced numbers in the Congress so it seems that a number of Republicans voted to get rid of trump but then voted straight Republican the rest of the ballot. That probably won't happen next time so get out the vote! Just saying.🍺

→ More replies

17

u/KnDBarge May 26 '22

Biden absolutely draw moderate independents who would not have voted for Bernie. There were definitely other options who could have pulled those voters in too, but it wasn't a sure thing

2

u/mikypejsek May 26 '22

Trump is the DNCs secret weapon.

2

u/Astralaxy May 27 '22

Feckless is such a beautiful word…

-13

u/SicksTea9 May 26 '22

Who is creepy as hell on top of it. I was so pissed I voted third party. Blue state privilege.

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/CanIGetANumber2 May 26 '22

Thats the thing tho, there are always independents but everyone gets caught up in this 2 party bullshit. You definitely have the option to not vote for either of their noms.

16

u/Knuckles316 May 26 '22 edited May 26 '22

I know, but with the electoral college, the primaries, and just the way everything is basically built around the terrible two-party system you basically have to vote for one or the other. Personally, I'd love to do away with all of that and have each candidate run with no party affiliation and have each person vote for whose policies and stances they agreed with most. And whoever gets the most popular votes from that becomes the president.

8

u/Darnitol1 May 26 '22

The two party system is not nearly as much of a problem as first-past-the-post voting..

3

u/VizRomanoffIII May 26 '22

There’s the rub. We have a winner take all system. The option to vote for a third-party candidate that can win is totally chimeric. Even popular President Theodore Roosevelt couldn’t win as a third-party candidate. It’s gotten even tougher since then. The only current option is to fight within the parties to effect change that way.

-4

u/CanIGetANumber2 May 26 '22

You do not have to vote for their noms. Under any circumstance. Never vote for someone you dont want in office just because hes not the other guy. Doesnt matter about the systems if ppl start voting for more independents, it wont be instant, but over time we can start getting rid of this dumb 2 party shit.

6

u/epsdelta74 May 26 '22

Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich

4

u/Fantastic-Contract28 May 26 '22

There was 2 competitors in their 40s in the last DNC primaries. So no the only options aren't guys.

1

u/Crandervoid May 26 '22

They don't give us two old guys. People vote for them in the preliminary.

8

u/stunna_cal May 26 '22

You sweet innocent child

-6

u/Orangebeardo May 26 '22

Of course you do, or did. There's nothing preventing you from voting for a third party, except the frankly retarded idea of "strategic voting".

You should always be able to vote for the person you want in office most, and the system should, but doesn't, reflect that.

5

u/invalidConsciousness May 26 '22

You're saying it yourself:

the system should, but doesn't, reflect that

Of course, you can vote for some third party, but that's a wasted vote and mostly helps the person you want elected the least.

0

u/Knuckles316 May 26 '22 edited May 26 '22

The person I wanted to vote for was Bernie Sanders. The person most people wanted to vote for was Bernie Sanders. The Democratic party said no and gave us first Hillary and then Biden.

We do not have a say.

4

u/At_the_Roundhouse May 26 '22

If the person most people wanted to vote for was Bernie Sanders, he would’ve won his primaries

3

u/Ek0mst0p May 26 '22

He definitely had more delegates in 2016... but super delegates decided it... guess who they are...

6

u/DrakonIL May 26 '22

This isn't true. Clinton won by about 1200 delegates, of which less than 800 were supers.

But, those supers were shown as pledged very early in the primary, meaning that she started out being able to claim that the vast majority of people wanted her. Momentum is a thing, and Bernie was always fighting an uphill battle.

There was, of course, plenty of other fuckery going on.

3

u/Ek0mst0p May 26 '22

Yeah, the way I said that is fundamentally incorrect, thank you for the correction.

→ More replies

26

u/tony1449 May 26 '22

And the real problem isn't old people. It's billionaires and the massive corporations.

The problem is Captialism, the wealthy have captured our government

8

u/Merlin_560 May 26 '22

Spend a lot of time around the senior center. It’s not a political party thing….it’s a mental acuity and health thing. Look at the fossils we have running stuff. Most of them are shaking so bad they cannot think straight. Trump, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell, Grassley, etc. are all just too feeble to be trusted. They all need to go.

2

u/chocolatecows88 May 27 '22

I think term limits would be better. Helps prevent corruption imo too because it’s easier to grease someone up for decades then have to grease up new people every 4-8 years etc..

2

u/gooberdaisy May 26 '22

Don’t know why you’re being down voted but all we have to do if follow the money…

-1

u/everydayANDNeveryway May 26 '22

Getting downvoted because billionaire cobtrol isn’t a problem of capitalism.

Cronyism is a problem in any system. Look at Russia’s billionaires. Not much real capitalism in Russia these days either.

→ More replies

3

u/Orangebeardo May 26 '22

Of course you can't, the US is not a democracy.

→ More replies

484

u/BRAINIAC_BRIAN May 26 '22

Commercial airline pilots are forced to retire at 60. They can still fly 2nd seat, but not captain. In the US.

126

u/Dazzlinghalo2 May 26 '22

It’s 65 now, and there have been talks of raising it to 67

41

u/BRAINIAC_BRIAN May 26 '22

That is good. It affected my dad at the time. he was up lobbying congress about it because they still didn't have SS benefits.

44

u/OccasionalJazzHands May 26 '22

There’s a symptom of the labor shortage

75

u/Minimob0 May 26 '22

Wage shortage*

People want to work, just not for poor wages.

There's only so many times you can be told "If you don't like your job, find a better one!" before you actually do it.

14

u/pieman7414 May 27 '22

It really is a labor shortage in the case of pilots. Longer term yes it's a wage/affordable training shortage but in the short term there's just not enough pilots to fill seats

20

u/Tremelune May 27 '22

...because of what it costs to become a pilot.

I'll hop in the seat, I just can't land!

2

u/PhaseFull6026 May 27 '22

I have experience on microsoft flight sim they should give us full ride scholarships if they really want to fill up pilot positions since we've already demonstrated an interest and know the basics. Right now pilot is a rich kids game and they wonder why there's a shortage.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/PublicFurryAccount May 26 '22

It’s because the population is aging.

4

u/ToffeeMunchAndCrunch May 26 '22

It's because life expectancies are increasing, so governments are progressively paying more in state pension. Raising retirement ages decreases the years state pension has to be paid out.

→ More replies

3

u/LyingMars May 27 '22

And to maintain your first class status you have to complete yearly exams that prove your able to ensure people's safety. If you can't get your first class medical, you shouldn't be able to be in charge of a nation.

→ More replies

388

u/lqdizzle May 26 '22

Minimum age is to prevent de facto monarchy or nepotism situation. Lifelong leaders etc. The idea is we as voters can pick a frail president if his positives in our opinion outweigh any potential liabilities, but nothings perfect. America has a long history of buyers remorse with the guy in the Oval Office.

130

u/[deleted] May 26 '22

Laughed at "buyers remorse" 🤣

34

u/Orangebeardo May 26 '22

laughed at "buyers". Twice.

We're not the buyers. We get bought.

7

u/DrakonIL May 26 '22

Us getting bought would indicate that we get payment somehow. And that's a big ol' joke.

8

u/Orangebeardo May 26 '22

Or that we're what's being sold.

48

u/Botanicult May 26 '22

We'd have less remorse if we could hold them accountable for lying about campaign promises

14

u/SixthScaleCollectors May 26 '22

And insurrections!

8

u/TrueAlchemy May 26 '22

¿Por qué no los dos?

2

u/PhaseFull6026 May 27 '22

Found fathers should have put fines for every time a promise isnt kept, fines straight out of their personal bank account

13

u/Capital_Punisher May 26 '22

The 2 term maximum already prevents the de facto monarchy.

10

u/lqdizzle May 26 '22

Or nepotism. Teddy Kennedy for instance became a Senator at age 30. Campaigned while in his 20’s

→ More replies

99

u/Wrygreymare May 26 '22

I think a mental competency exam would be better. Some younger people are quite demented, and then you have the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs of the world

16

u/KAKrisko May 26 '22

Despite popular opinion here, dementia is fairly rare in the elderly. Many people nowadays are physically healthy as well, far into their 70s. They have decades of experience and long-term politicians are often well-known and respected on the international stage.

7

u/sweet-chaos- May 27 '22

<1% of my country's population suffer from dementia. Doesn't sound like loads until you realise that's around 850,000 people. 1 in every 14 people over the age of 65 suffers from dementia. I wouldn't call that rare.

3

u/muckdog13 May 27 '22

Who makes and administers the test though?

2

u/Wrygreymare May 28 '22

That is a problem , I concede. There are standard competency tests. I think it’s the administration and the results that have to transparent

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/[deleted] May 26 '22 edited 8d ago

[deleted]

8

u/christianharriman May 27 '22

I think the problem is how in touch with the average person they are rather than their intelligence. My grandfather is super intelligent still but I had to explain to him the other day the difference in house price vs average income between now and when he first bought a house and how you can't pay for college working at McDonald's 10 hours a week anymore. A lot of old retired people genuinely don't understand the reality of being a working person anymore because it's been so long.

→ More replies

219

u/RentalDildos May 26 '22

Absolutely. Most people I know would agree that these 70+ fucks are too old and their time under power is far too long. Will any of that get limited? Likely not

24

u/Spydamann May 26 '22

So, how much for a 24 hours with a Bad Dragon?

3

u/PublicFurryAccount May 26 '22

Depends on how the renter looks, if I’m being honest.

-6

u/hither_spin May 26 '22

So you're okay with discrimination and ageism...

A better idea would be for more younger people to become educated about the candidates and vote in all elections, local to national. Old people vote, younger people not so much.

24

u/RentalDildos May 26 '22

So you're okay with discrimination and ageism...

Yes

→ More replies

158

u/Kaitensatsuma May 26 '22

I think before that there should be an income cap on politicians in the first place - before and during their term.

Surely someone who has a net worth of $10 million or higher doesn't have a fucking idea of how their constituents are living.

58

u/MBP1969 May 26 '22

I am personally more concerned with politicians who, when they come into office are not wealthy, but within a couple terms are multi-millionaires.

13

u/cultured_banana_slug May 26 '22

It's amazing they get bought for so little.

2

u/DeliriousDila May 26 '22

And that little fact doesn’t get talked about of the evening news…

18

u/OneAdvertising9821 May 26 '22

Shouldn't this be at the discretion of the voters?

37

u/Kaitensatsuma May 26 '22

Why should it be?

The way the current political machine works is that with enough money you can simply drown out your opponents, regardless of what their platforms are.

People no longer vote based on objective facts, they vote on the marketing a candidate could afford. We've seen several lawmakers - from both sides - drown out all criticism this way - and thats before you get into how much control each party's National Committees (DNC/RNC) hold over who can even get to run. Don't suggest "Run as an Independent Then!" that's been such a joke of a concept for decades that even The Simpsons have lampooned it.

There is hardly any new blood in the House or Senate and the battle lines have been clearly drawn.

Income and Wealth caps are just one step, there are additional ones. Term limits might be considered, unless a referendum is run to the constituents, not the Party's National Committee as to whether a politician should run again after, say, four terms.

11

u/OneAdvertising9821 May 26 '22

I'm in-favor of term limits. I dislike the wealth limitation criteria.

→ More replies

6

u/MBP1969 May 26 '22

Agreed, the Democrats had a candidate that could easily be supported by both liberals AND conservatives. But, because she wasn’t part of the party elite, she was drowned out (even though she was a woman of color).

2

u/RealNeilPeart May 26 '22

Not sure who you could be referring to.

1

u/MBP1969 May 26 '22

Tulsi Gabbard.

2

u/muckdog13 May 27 '22

Bashar Al-Assad apologist*

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/RealNeilPeart May 26 '22

Stupid idea. Constituents can decide who does and doesn't represent their interests, and they do so with a little known mechanism known as "an election".

2

u/Kaitensatsuma May 26 '22

Yes, of course.

Because those are just full of accurate, objective information about politicians' platforms and goals and not rife with personal attacks and misinformation, something that isn't particularly new but has gotten something of a force multiplier in terms of reach and breadth between TV, Radio, Print, Social Media and other forms of communicating it.

→ More replies

2

u/Acrobatic-Ad-748 May 26 '22

That's a good point as well

5

u/Wide_Connection9635 May 26 '22

Alternatively... maybe someone who has $!0 million has some skills that allowed them to earn that money that would be useful in a leadership position.

It can go either way.

5

u/Kaitensatsuma May 26 '22

Herein lies the dilemma that needs addressing and which I am attempting to address:

Will that person, when elected to office, use that office to represent their constituents, or just further enrich themselves and their allies?

We have learned - several times, not just in recent history mind you - that 9 times out of 10, it's the latter.

You live in a country where people - as at least one person responding on this thread seems - think that Money is the same as Intelligence, or Honesty or Capability in Governance which it, well, simply isn't.

7

u/RealNeilPeart May 26 '22

Will that person, when elected to office, use that office to represent their constituents, or just further enrich themselves and their allies?

This is a question that can be asked of literally any elected official

0

u/boife1 May 26 '22

Stupid rule

10

u/Kaitensatsuma May 26 '22

The point of politicians being elected is for them to represent their constituents, not to enrich themselves or establish a political dynasty.

It would require some consistent and considerable policing, but it would be a step in the right direction.

-10

u/boife1 May 26 '22

You want to eliminate some of the smartest people from being able to help govern the world. You just have a irrational dislike of anyone with money and are projecting that.

10

u/Kaitensatsuma May 26 '22

Having generational wealth handed to you by daddy from the war profiteering and lobbyists he courted makes you smart now?

Jim Jordan, the most useless asshole of an asshole in Congress has a networth of between 12 and 21 million dollars, and he's a sex offender. How is his wealth an indication of his intelligence?

→ More replies
→ More replies

24

u/Equivalent_Ad8133 May 26 '22

As a hypothetical question, it is interesting. I think you are right to an extent. In actual office, yeah... the age of the politicians should be determined by the current retirement age. But i also would hate to see decades of experience be wasted. Create advisory board positions for higher levels of government. Have the last few that held that position be in a position to advise the current position holder. The current person wouldn't have to follow the advice but the voice of experience is valuable. In the position of the president and vice president, make it mandatory. Those politicians still get paid tons and this would be a way of using their knowledge without paying them extra. Not only will the current person benefit from the experienced, but if it is a life ling commitment... only the truly committed will run for that office.

6

u/heihowl May 26 '22

One 70 year old is not like the other, there should be an age where the person gets tested for like... Mental stability and stuff I guess, not just an age thing

83

u/Justthisdudeyaknow May 26 '22

No older than 65!

11

u/oniaddict May 26 '22

I'm a fan of being ineligible to register to run for a office after you can collect full SSI benefits currently it's 65. This would scale the age as we change retirement.

→ More replies

21

u/CallmeSas May 26 '22

Lol, here in Italy you must be at least 65 to become president

21

u/leaningtoweravenger May 26 '22

Which is false. To be elected president you have to be 50, according to Art. 83 of the constitution. Anyway, we are a parliamentary republic so the powers and role of the president are very limited. To be prime minister, which is the actual head of government, there are no age limits aside the ones already in place to be eligible.

5

u/emu4you May 26 '22

Totally off topic, but I love your username!

→ More replies

2

u/Orcus424 May 26 '22

That would rule out most Republican nominations for President. They tend to vote for people a lot older. Which is no real surprise considering their voting base. The last time the Republicans nominated some for President in their 40s was 1948.

-1

u/palfreygames May 26 '22

Honestly probably 55. Need to get people who have relevant knowledge, not people ready to retire and Stoke their retirement with the next generations wealth

1

u/Noltu May 27 '22

55 is not that old to be completely out of touch with relevant knowledge on how to tackle current issues.

→ More replies

6

u/AbuYates May 26 '22

I think age should be considered, be there shouldn't be a specific age cut off.

However, if there were term limits, that would significantly reduce the age most politicians reach while in office.

13

u/francisbaconthe3rd May 26 '22

Lots of people saying age is a problem. The bigger problem seems to be irrational people voted into politics. There are plenty of examples of politicians in their 30’s,40’s, and 50’s who say crazy stuff with no repercussions. I’d rather have a fossil of a politician who’s 80 than a maniac in his/her 30’s who might have a political career to destroy this country for the next 40 years.

10

u/Wide_Connection9635 May 26 '22

Well, I don't think someone having 'outdated' views is a reason to exclude them from office.

However, a valid problem in old age is a president who has big health issues. We can see that now with Putin. They say he is fighting cancer and who knows what other health problems. Assuming those are true, he's probably not in his best mental state to be making big decisions.

Fortunately, in the case of America, you have a lot of branches of government and lots of checks and balances, so that does reduce that problem somewhat. Nonetheless, I'd be open to some kind of test for a presidents health. You'd have to be really careful here though as you don't want it to political. Which is very tough.

I just want to advise you though to be humble in the face of history. Only looking back on it will you get a sense of whether a policy is good or bad. Just an example, Elon Musk is talking about population decline, which is a real problem in most developed economies. 200 years from now maybe the historians look upon the collapse of society and wonder how we let it get to that state. Why did society get rid of the family as the basic unit of society. They had warning signs from all the religious people.

I'm not saying I believe this, but understand that's a real possibility. You have to acknowledge it as such. Don't be so quick to assume what progress is or that old people have no wisdom. Only history will judge that. You just do your job now and vote as best you can.

11

u/leaningtoweravenger May 26 '22

Churchill was 65 when he entered office and almost 70 when he won the war. Old men can kick butt too but it depends on the man.

Anyway, age is not an achievement and youth is no guarantee of innovation.

A big misconception, very present in reddit tho, is that democracy should give you the best government. That is blatantly false, democracy only gives you the freedom to harm yourself in the way you prefer, contrary to all other forms of government in which you are denied even such pleasure.

→ More replies

12

u/Malpheous May 26 '22

I think term limits for all voted positions would be more productive. To include an overall term limit. So for example x terms for senator, x terms as governor, 2 terms for President. Total of all offices can not exceed x terms. It should be a public service and not a career choice.

6

u/PC-12 May 26 '22

I think term limits for all voted positions would be more productive. To include an overall term limit. So for example x terms for senator, x terms as governor, 2 terms for President. Total of all offices can not exceed x terms. It should be a public service and not a career choice.

Important to bear in mind that term limits tend to push real power to the (unelected) bureaucracy, and increase opportunities for corruption and unethical lobbying.

Experience in office isn’t a negative. Lethargy and cronyism are negatives.

The best way to impose term limits is at the ballot box, IMO.

8

u/lilltlc May 26 '22

Not only age limits, but TERM LIMITS. All branches.

2

u/muckdog13 May 27 '22

Voters can’t decide when people shouldn’t be in Congress anymore so we should take their choice from them

5

u/karrotwin May 26 '22

It would be a self correcting problem if young people voted.

6

u/PublicFurryAccount May 26 '22

The youth vote’s favorite was noted young man Bernard Sanders.

5

u/Direct-Chipmunk-3259 May 26 '22

All politicians should have a term limit of 4 years, with the possibility of reelection one time. Just like the presidency. No more career politicians. They should also not make any more money than that of the current minimum wage of their state. Certainly should not make their salary for the rest of their life either. They are meant to be a servant of the people. Not get rich and make themselves richer for life while ignoring the people they serve.

33

u/[deleted] May 26 '22 edited 29d ago

[deleted]

9

u/RealNeilPeart May 26 '22

This thread is so obsessed with restricting voter choice.

If the people think you're ready for the job, then that's what matters. Free elections should be the goal.

→ More replies

17

u/OneAdvertising9821 May 26 '22

Shouldn't this be at the discretion of the voters? Your recommendation forces a career politician path.

15

u/[deleted] May 26 '22 edited 29d ago

[deleted]

7

u/OneAdvertising9821 May 26 '22

I question why that can't be a factor at the ballot box instead of creating a new law. If people actually wanted candidates with a long history of political engagement then that would be a huge factor at the ballot box.

I personally value candidates with experience outside of politics and would be disappointed to see my options limited.

7

u/[deleted] May 26 '22 edited 29d ago

[deleted]

0

u/OneAdvertising9821 May 26 '22 edited May 26 '22

Unfortunately, that's the person that the was elected. There were at least four other presidents who were not former politicians.

Edit: Replaced "the people" with "was" since a couple people find that confusing.

7

u/BarbedPenguin May 26 '22

Correction.. that's the person the electoral college elected

-2

u/OneAdvertising9821 May 26 '22

...that's how our system works. The US has never had a popular vote, intentionally.

3

u/DeadRed402 May 26 '22

You said “the people” elected trump . More people voted for Clinton so that’s not true .

3

u/OneAdvertising9821 May 26 '22

Trump was elected. I didn't intend for "the people" to imply that we use a popular vote.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/Fresh_Technology8805 May 26 '22

As a general thing for politicians (I am not American), i have said that the minimum age should be 35 with at least 10 years work experience in Any field (I don't care if its being a doctor or stacking shelves in tesco but you have to have been in the work place because we need to end career politicians)

Max age is new but I would agree it's a good change, I would put it at 65 as its retirement age here anyway.

4

u/BardotLoren May 26 '22

21 is too young to be president.

The brain isn't fully developed at that age.

→ More replies

4

u/MidichlorianAddict May 26 '22

No, we should have term limits for congress members.

If the president gets term limits, everyone gets term limits

2

u/soukidan1 May 26 '22

I wouldn't say there should be a maximum age but after you hit a certain age (70 if you ask me) you should have to take a mental acuity test of some sort, kind of like when you have to get your eyes checked when you go to renew your drivers license when you turn 80. I think that as a decision maker if you get so old that you have trouble forming coherent thoughts it's time to step aside

2

u/shatteredmatt May 26 '22

I was talking about this with my 70 year old father only recently. He thinks the retirement age of 65-68 depending on what country you live in should apply to politicians. We both agreed that 45 to 55 was the optimum age for a world leader. After that you become out of touch somewhat.

2

u/19senzafine81 May 26 '22

Politicians should have real life work experience in their field. In Norway you can be minister for agriculture one year, and minister for defence the next. To me that seems crazy!! It's not too much to ask that the minister for defence has some military experience, or that our health minister has done some actual work related to that field. And they should be forced to retire at 72 like the rest of us.

3

u/Acrobatic-Ad-748 May 26 '22

Absolutely agree, a minister of education that hasn't spent a day as a teacher can fuck right off

2

u/chesterT3 May 26 '22

Let’s say you put the max age cap at 70. Does that mean the candidate has to be 70 years old or younger by Election Day? By Inauguration Day? And since most candidates for president want to serve two terms, that means most parties would not choose a candidate to back who would be over 70 after four years into office, which means the candidates we get would be in their mid 60s at most. Also there are some people in their 70s who have no cognitive problems and people in their 50s who do, it’s not fair to make general assumptions based on someone’s age.

→ More replies

2

u/Historybitcx May 26 '22

I think there need to be more young people in government but I don’t think it’s fair to make that a law. Elderly people still deserve a say in the world for as long as they are here and I think it’s wrong to take away someone’s rights simply because they are too old. Also no set age number will be accurate across the board for when elderly people shouldn’t be allowed to vote or serve in office or whatever. Age 70? Someone could still live and be in a normal mental state for nearly 30 years. Plus with more medical advancements the lifespan would change and so if people start living into their 100s more frequently then those people should still be represented in government. Basically, I get why people think that- I just disagree.

2

u/No-Introduction4480 May 26 '22

Yes. For US, I think:

Age 21 minimum, 70 maximum (at time of election) for Congress. Can serve through term if they age past 70, but cannot run again if they are over 70.

Age 30 minimum, 70 maximum (at time of election) for President.

2

u/JlTlS May 26 '22

All people used to have a retirement age, but people who could still do their job didn't like it. Vote people out if you don't want them.

2

u/DS_1900 May 26 '22

Yeah, 400 or so. Keep out the ancient vampires who can cause lots of trouble.

How do you think blood banks were funded and built?

2

u/r0f1m0us3 May 26 '22

Well the military has mandatory retirement at 64, full social security can be claimed at 67, so I think 65 mandatory retirement is fair.

I do believe term limits for congress is more pressing than mandatory retirement. It is ridiculous that someone can hold a seat for three or four decades.

I think term limits would also lead to a younger congress as a whole and would be a work around for forced retirement.

2

u/shadeandshine May 27 '22

I feel like a term limit is more important then anything else so either you move up or down but you can’t be a career politician in one position. The issue with broader American politics is how they are incentivized to keep power so you see the same people basically lead the parties for multiple decades. Then again we need to destroy the two party system and have ranked voting to actually start making changes but currently we are politically held hostage as a nation.

2

u/wholetthestankout May 27 '22

If you are old enough to get retirement benefits from the government (age 62) you should be legally blocked from holding any position of office, simple as that.

2

u/Rocknb007 May 27 '22

Absolutely. They are so far removed from everyday life 99.999999% of the time.

2

u/Azmodari May 27 '22

American and damn right there should be a maximum age hell how i hear biden (at the time current president) has dementia (unsure the truth behind that) and think there were rumors trump may have had a brain tumor? But i never researched either of these personally think the last few presidents were all morons buuuut.. biden literally gave away think it was like.. 41 million dollars worth of military hardware to the taliban so he's on my shit list for arming the enemy which is borderline treason imo

2

u/Chris300000000000000 May 27 '22

I'd say more like 60. Even guys like Biden and Donald, some of thier political suckness is because of their age rather than it just being who they are.

2

u/Competitive_Status91 May 27 '22

I personally believe that the age limit for Presidency should be 35 to 65.

6

u/samsonity May 26 '22

No. We should be smart enough to elect good people. However we have constantly demonstrated that we can’t do that. But whatever. Tough times crest strong people.

→ More replies

5

u/james7003 May 26 '22

I mean if the only candidates on the ticket are 80 year old men, who do we honestly have to blame but ourselves. There’s only so far we can take complaining about the old suits before it comes back to well why didn’t we push harder for a younger one instead

3

u/mycathasastinkybutt May 26 '22

Yup. If younger people want younger politicians then they need to actually vote at the same rate as our seniors.

1

u/ThePrussianPrez May 26 '22

Right? People who want age limits are incapable of outvoting the people voting for them. This is just democracy reflecting itself.

→ More replies

4

u/nanadoom May 26 '22

Age discrimination is illegal under federal law

9

u/Acrobatic-Ad-748 May 26 '22

Why is being too old to be fit to rule illegal but being "too young" even if you're legally an adult common sense?

3

u/nanadoom May 26 '22

Because the law was designed to stop older people getting fired just because they are old. There was no problem with young people being fired just for being young. In the case of elections, if people are stupid enough to keep electing old farts, that is their right

5

u/Acrobatic-Ad-748 May 26 '22

Someone pointed out its legal to force commercial pilots to retire at 60, this law seems to come up with exceptions, so why couldn't this be one without old people having to lose jobs?

1

u/nanadoom May 26 '22

The main reason is because they get to decide those rules. Is it a good rule? Absolutely!! Have you ever had to work with someone over 65? The knowledge gap for technology and cognitive decline and loss of energy makes it frustrating. But if the person who holds the power gets to decide when they can't be in power anymore, they will never vote to remove themselves from power. Its the same reason there are term limits on the president but not members of congress. They are not really interested in fairness or making the country better

5

u/sinnytear May 26 '22

is it me or is this question seemingly just about one real person

9

u/Acrobatic-Ad-748 May 26 '22

I feel like a lot of people took it to mean "ah yes Biden" but I was thinking about my country where you only see old people that were old enough to be communist senators 30 years ago too

3

u/MayRoseUsesReddit May 26 '22

When you said 70 in your post my mind went straight to Putin going cray-cray in the recent months. In my country both final candidates from the last presidential election were 48, but many prominent political figures still remember communist times by mostly being prominent opposition members, or sometimes being in the party.

3

u/Weak-Newt-5853 May 26 '22

I don't think age is an issue and if a 75 year-old is the right person for the job then so be it. Likewise a 30 year-old. I really don't see an issue here, Bernie is like 80 and I'd still like to see him as President of the US.

1

u/mulde89 May 26 '22

I am with you here. I think it is the people who has to be more critical in who we are electing and voting for.

I don't think you can put it quite so black and white.

With age comes experience and with youth comes new ideas so a combination if these two would be ideal!

1

u/Weak-Newt-5853 May 26 '22

Absolutely. I find it quite refreshing seeing more leaders outside of the usual 45-60 bracket these days.

1

u/mulde89 May 26 '22

Yes! I live in a country where the median age in our Parliament is 46 years. I think this give a good mix of old and young. And our prime minister she is 44 years old. So we are not burdened with an old person😅

3

u/Orangebeardo May 26 '22

No, and lower the minimum age to 18/21. Let them try, too old or too young, if they're not able they won't get elected. If they do, they must have something to offer.

2

u/the_facts_please May 26 '22

No. If people didn't want them, they wouldn't vote for them.

4

u/Wheedies May 26 '22

No there should not be. There should be a test to prove knowledge, loyalty to the country, and decision making ability.

2

u/Amadeo78 May 26 '22

I would have said no in the past. Then I realized how many people have been in office since I was young. More to the point, Boomers reached a majority in my childhood and have held it into Gen Z coming of age. People are living longer and despite Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z all growing up...Boomers are still holding sway.

→ More replies

3

u/KinggArthurr May 26 '22

Yes 70 or 65 And there should also be a minimum educational qualification like a degree or post graduate depending upon the role

2

u/iamtheclaudius May 26 '22

I think you have to confront the fact that maximum age limits are fundamentally anti-democratic.

Term limits might be viewed as anti-democratic, but they aren't actually because they function to prevent corrupt politicians from disrupting the political process/rigging elections to stay in power in perpetuity.

Do I think it's the best idea to elect super old people? No. But that doesn't mean that I think people should not be allowed to do so when in their judgment they believe it's the best option.

2

u/DanSRedskins May 26 '22

This is such a bad idea. "We can't beat them so let's legally disqualify them."

2

u/IamAJediMaster May 26 '22

Yeah for sure. 35 minimum age and then 55 max age. That's 20 years you can serve your country in the office of politics and that's plenty. We don't need fuckin more Mitch bitch tits in office or even Bernie's. We need people that will come in and be effective for their country and get out of the way for the next generation.

4

u/yrallusernamestaken7 May 26 '22

Honestly till 65 imo is acceptable

And 35 is a good min age

1

u/watch_over_me May 26 '22

Yes. I don't want people in office who have no stake in the future.

7

u/iamtheclaudius May 26 '22

Just because someone is going to die within the next 20 years doesn't mean they don't want the best for their children, grandchildren, friends, fellow countrymen, etc.

4

u/PublicFurryAccount May 26 '22

It’s a funny opinion because young people are famously shortsighted and old people irrationally obsessed with how they’ll be remembered.

3

u/[deleted] May 26 '22

We don’t want them behind the wheel of a car, but they sure can run the entire country and make laws for people, who will still be here dealing with those laws, looong after they’re in their fucking grave. 😃

I agree.

1

u/puffferfish May 26 '22

No real reason for it. If the people were concerned with that, they wouldn’t make it to the level of even being on the ballot. It also makes the vice-president pick a lot more important. In the US, people were very concerned with John McCain’s Vice President pick because he was an older candidate. He also happened to pick the absolute worst running mate.

1

u/MamaAIDS May 26 '22

Yes because old people are tone Def to what's the new generation wants

→ More replies

1

u/noplaceinmind May 26 '22

don't bother.

guess who would have to vote that into law?

1

u/Acrobatic-Ad-748 May 26 '22

Yea I'm not sending them a project rn just curious

Also they can't stop us in like 10 years =)

4

u/noplaceinmind May 26 '22

they definitely can.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '22

Isn’t this question posted here on a daily basis? Look back at yesterday’s comments.

1

u/Acrobatic-Ad-748 May 26 '22

I didn't see it, I don't actively follow this thread all I saw were the gun control posts

→ More replies

1

u/siskulous May 26 '22

Yes, I think there should be a maximum age. Like, right now Gen-X should have been running things for at least a decade now and Millenials should be starting to get a decent percentage in the halls of power, but the Boomers (as in the generation, but the newer definition of "out of touch older person" also seems to fit) refuse to get out of the way.

Seriously, the average Congressman is old enough to collect social security retirement, and a lot of them are in their 80s. These folks should be off golfing in Florida or something, not setting policies that they're not going to be around to experience in the mid-to-long term.

→ More replies

1

u/thomport May 26 '22

Yes. And term limits. And make lobbing highly illegal.

-8

u/YodaHead May 26 '22

Ageist.

10

u/Acrobatic-Ad-748 May 26 '22

Why? 20 yo aren't allowed either even if theyd be the best candidate somehow, why is an 80 year old different?

2

u/BardotLoren May 26 '22

I'm having difficulty believing a 20 year old could lead an entire country. The brain isn't fully developed until 25. I'm curious how much life experience a 20 year would have to lead a country.

The average 20 year old just graduated high school two years ago and is probably still in university. No thanks.

I think 35 to 65 is a good gap

1

u/Acrobatic-Ad-748 May 26 '22

Well I agree a 20 year old really shouldn't and it's not ageist to say that

I meant if there unbelievably was a 20 yo that was so well developed and had the best ideas etc, like a super genius they still wouldn't be allowed and that's fair so idk why it is not ok if it were a really old person

→ More replies