2022 US Elections

[Raoul]

Yes, there should be a mandatory retirement at 70 or 72 or something.

Bernie Sanders 81
Joe Biden 79
Donald Trump 76

... and it is not like we can't find anyone better in a population of 330 million people...

Voters can find those "better" people now. They just continue voting for the olds.

 

[WI_Red]

Yes, there should be a mandatory retirement at 70 or 72 or something.

Bernie Sanders 81
Joe Biden 79
Donald Trump 76

... and it is not like we can't find anyone better in a population of 330 million people...

not a fan at all of artificial restrictions on who can run/hold a position.

 

[matherto]

not a fan at all of artificial restrictions on who can run/hold a position.

Surely being too old is a reasonable restriction. Maximum terms in office should be a thing.

You already have a too young one for being President.

 

[calodo2003]

Just not even hiding it...

 

[WI_Red]

Surely being too old is a reasonable restriction. Maximum terms in office should be a thing.

You already have a too young one for being President.

It is the job of the voters to chose their candidates and then representatives.

Beyond that, where does it end once you start imposing restrictions on candidacy?

 

[calodo2003]

 

[Ekkie Thump]

It is the job of the voters to chose their candidates and then representatives.

Beyond that, where does it end once you start imposing restrictions on candidacy?

There are already age restrictions on Senators and Presidents - you can be too young to run. Seems to me like there's at least as good a reason to impose an upper age limit as a lower one.

I would say it ends at like 70 years old, or 75 by the end of your term.

 

[Raoul]

There are already age restrictions on Senators and Presidents - you can be too young to run. Seems to me like there's at least as good a reason to impose an upper age limit as a lower one.

I would say it ends at like 70 years old, or 75 by the end of your term.

Being too young is understandable given that humans tend to accrue more wisdom and experience as they age.

 

[WI_Red]

There are already age restrictions on Senators and Presidents - you can be too young to run. Seems to me like there's at least as good a reason to impose an upper age limit as a lower one.

I would say it ends at like 70 years old, or 75 by the end of your term.

Again, where does it stop? We used to have “common sense” rules around who could vote and hold office. It took over a century to undo those. No thank you, I have zero trust in any amendments to the constitution that establish precedent for restricting who can hold office.

 

[Shez]

Being too young is understandable given that humans tend to accrue more wisdom and experience as they age.

Couldn’t you argue that you run the risk the other way round as well as with age you tend to fall out of touch with the latest developments in science, technology as well as the most pressing issues for the majority of the workforce

 

[Raoul]

Couldn’t you argue that you run the risk the other way round as well as with age you tend to fall out of touch with the latest developments in science, technology as well as the most pressing issues for the majority of the workforce

As long as the person receiving the information is objectiveI don’t think their age would be an issue. It’s the wisdom and experience but that is also a factor.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Being too young is understandable given that humans tend to accrue more wisdom and experience as they age.

And being too old is understandable given that people begin to lose their ability to parse information; to act with alacrity, to recall correctly, etc.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Again, where does it stop? We used to have “common sense” rules around who could vote and hold office. It took over a century to undo those. No thank you, I have zero trust in any amendments to the constitution that establish precedent for restricting who can hold office.

You still have "common sense" rules around who can vote and hold office. Currently you have to be 18 to vote, 30 to be a senator and 35 to be Pres.

 

[WI_Red]

You still have "common sense" rules around who can vote and hold office. Currently you have to be 18 to vote, 30 to be a senator and 35 to be Pres.

Yes, those are hard coded into the constitution, but what was not hard coded was the right of any person to vote. It took a over a century for the all men (1870, 15th Amendment, but not really), and women (19th Amendment, 1920!!), and finally all people (25th Amendment in 1964!!!!!!). Each of those hard fought updates to the constitution added right to people, and we are far better for it. I have no trust that any politician, and especially the current GOP, could be trusted to sensibly walk back any rights.

People are healthier and more capable into their 70’s now then people were in their 60’s a few decades ago. In another few decades that may be true of people in their 80’s. To limit what people can and can’t do in the future based on current conditions, and to hard code it into law, is a horrible idea.

 

[calodo2003]

Former Obama supporter...

 

[maniak]

Being too young is understandable given that humans tend to accrue more wisdom and experience as they age.

You could argue that it would be the voters job to determine that, same as it is argued for older politicians.

 

[WI_Red]

You could argue that it would be the voters job to determine that, same as it is argued for older politicians.

I would support this, as the only criteria should be that you are of legal age to vote to run for office.

 

[maniak]

I would support this, as the only criteria should be that you are of legal age to vote to run for office.

My position is always that if you are old enough to pay taxes, then you should be able to participate in the system that imposes and manages those taxes.

 

[WI_Red]

My position is always that if you are old enough to pay taxes, then you should be able to participate in the system that imposes and manages those taxes.

I am essentially in the same boat as I think 18 is too old to start the vote. 15 or 16 would seem to be more appropriate as at that age a young adult is more or less part of wider society via jobs and/or purchasing power. Under that though I think is too young, as to even work at that age you need a special waiver I think.

 

[Raoul]

And being too old is understandable given that people begin to lose their ability to parse information; to act with alacrity, to recall correctly, etc.

In some instances yes. But it’s the experience, wisdom, and intuition factors that would set them apart from someone at 30. The main issue here as I see it, is there are too many older politicians who tend to skew more conservative, which is why some would like to get rid of them by using old age as the excuse.

 

[RedC]

Just not even hiding it...

Ah yes, all of that famous American culture.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Yes, those are hard coded into the constitution, but what was not hard coded was the right of any person to vote. It took a over a century for the all men (1870, 15th Amendment, but not really), and women (19th Amendment, 1920!!), and finally all people (25th Amendment in 1964!!!!!!). Each of those hard fought updates to the constitution added right to people, and we are far better for it. I have no trust that any politician, and especially the current GOP, could be trusted to sensibly walk back any rights.

People are healthier and more capable into their 70’s now then people were in their 60’s a few decades ago. In another few decades that may be true of people in their 80’s. To limit what people can and can’t do in the future based on current conditions, and to hard code it into law, is a horrible idea.

Ain't nobody suggesting tampering with the ability to vote - just the ability to rule on the basis of age. Not on the basis of ethnicity, or gender, or wealth (although that, of course, is almost baked in anyway), just age. Congress is currently populated by an entire generation of people that now struggle to put on their own socks yet come hell or high water they will fight to retain personal control of a 23 trillion dollar economy. This is not good for democracy, it is good for producing fiefdoms and multigenerational domination of party and congressional apparatus. It's also pretty good for setting up dynasties and fuelling stable avenues of corruption.

In not having an upper limit to the age at which someone can serve what you have is a series of ever ageing politicians who have successfully drawn power to themselves and who are now understandably reluctant to relinquish it irrespective of whether or not they can still competently wield it. Diane Feinstein is 87 years old. Chuck Grassley is 87 years old. They struggle to remember the subject matter of the committees they attend. They literally struggle to stay awake. Due to the lack of an age limit RBJ was still attempting to mete out justice from her death bed and the GOP now control your Supreme Court for at least the next generation and almost certainly two.

An Octogenarian gatekeeper deciding who or who should not get DNC funding is not good for democracy. It is, in fact, an affront to it. Having a single generation hold the levers of the power literally denudes society of a more reflective representation. In and of itself it holds democracy hostage. An 87 year old meting out justice from her death bed isn't the finest method for producing justice ever devised. It is, in fact, an affront to it. Declining mental faculties and potential senility at the heart of government isn't something to be lauded because it demonstrates a can do attitude on behalf of your elderly it's an invitation to ineptitude - as your current iteration of Congress so aptly demonstrates.

 

[WI_Red]

Ain't nobody suggesting tampering with the ability to vote - just the ability to rule on the basis of age. Not on the basis of ethnicity, or gender, or wealth (although that, of course, is almost baked in anyway), just age. Congress is currently populated by an entire generation of people that now struggle to put on their own socks yet come hell or high water they will fight to retain personal control of a 23 trillion dollar economy. This is not good for democracy, it is good for producing fiefdoms and multigenerational domination of party and congressional apparatus. It's also pretty good for setting up dynasties and fuelling stable avenues of corruption.

In not having an upper limit to the age at which someone can serve what you have is a series of ever ageing politicians who have successfully drawn power to themselves and who are now understandably reluctant to relinquish it irrespective of whether or not they can still competently wield it. Diane Feinstein is 87 years old. Chuck Grassley is 87 years old. They struggle to remember the subject matter of the committees they attend. They literally struggle to stay awake. Due to the lack of an age limit RBJ was still attempting to mete out justice from her death bed and the GOP now control your Supreme Court for at least the next generation and almost certainly two.

An Octogenarian gatekeeper deciding who or who should not get DNC funding is not good for democracy. It is, in fact, an affront to it. Having a single generation hold the levers of the power literally denudes society of a more reflective representation. In and of itself it holds democracy hostage. An 87 year old meting out justice from her death bed isn't the finest method for producing justice ever devised. It is, in fact, an affront to it. Declining mental faculties and potential senility at the heart of government isn't something to be lauded because it demonstrates a can do attitude on behalf of your elderly it's an invitation to ineptitude - as your current iteration of Congress so aptly demonstrates.

But in a sense you are tampering with the ability to vote as you are removing from the people the power to select who represents them. I am not arguing that I want or like the relative demographic homogeneity of my government, but instead I am arguing that laws prohibiting who can run for, and hold, office reeks of "we know what's best for you" patronization. I will repeat what I have been saying, where does this end? Term limits are a different animal, and one I can, and do, support, but never can I get behind laws defining who can hold office. The history of my country does more than suggest those laws would be corrupted in short order.

All that being said, I do believe that some state offices (maybe Judgeships??) have age limits, but I do not know if those offices are elected or appointed. In either case I would argue that term limits are a better control than age limits

 

[MrMarcello]

General officers and admirals (four-star grade) have a mandatory retirement age of 64 that can be waived up to age 66 (SECDEF) or age 68 (POTUS). Professors at service schools have mandatory retirement age of 62.

Four-star flag officer positions and ranks are appointed by the President through varying levels of nomination.

So, it's ok for senators and SCOTUS judges to serve into their 80s and 90s but the most senior-ranking officers must retire after xx years of service or by an age factor. There absolutely should be a mandatory retirement age for all publicly held positions, elected or appointed.

And term limits for judgeships, arguable for politicians.

 

[Raoul]

General officers and admirals (four-star grade) have a mandatory retirement age of 64 that can be waived up to age 66 (SECDEF) or age 68 (POTUS). Professors at service schools have mandatory retirement age of 62.

Four-star flag officer positions and ranks are appointed by the President through varying levels of nomination.

So, it's ok for senators and SCOTUS judges to serve into their 80s and 90s but the most senior-ranking officers must retire after xx years of service or by an age factor. There absolutely should be a mandatory retirement age for all publicly held positions, elected or appointed.

And term limits for judgeships, arguable for politicians.

There is no mandatory retirement age for most federal jobs. Instead of making a one size fits all blanket policy, I think it should be done on a case by case basis. If someone is very good at what they do, has tons of experience, and wants to work until they are 75 or more, then that should be up to them.

Its a bit different in the military where there are throngs of junior people who need to be promoted, which means the senior people have to leave at some point. This is less an issue on the civilian side.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Voters can find those "better" people now. They just continue voting for the olds.

That hardly tells the whole story. The truth is no, we can't find those better people on the actual ballot.

I'd certainly vote for a Xavier Becerra or a dozen or more current California Reps in the House over Feinstein but none of them want to challenge the machine despite the fact they would all do better.

Due to the uncontained influence of money in US politics, political favors to the private sector, and long-standing political machinery (from the times of Tammany Hall, the Daleys in Chicago to the present-day networks), younger, wiser, and more informed candidates are heavily deterred and incentivized to not run against the decrepit incumbents like Feinstein. Rising stars like Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom would never have run against Feinstein for the very real fear that doing so would ignite blowback that could end their political careers. With these mechanisms in place, better candidates that are pragmatic simple end up over-paying their dues and "waiting their turn" to the detriment of the voters who often have no viable choice to vote out the outdated incumbent.

Add to the fact that long-time Senators like Feinstein seem to care more about their personal relationship to GOP wackos than actually representing the views of their constituents and you get a calcified and stagnant rate of political choice that doesn't lend itself to the rate of turnover necessary for a healthy Republic. No one that watched the hearings of the last 4 years that Feinstein participated in can argue that she is wise and engaged enough in the proceedings to represent the 40 million citizens adequately. Hubris and obvious lust for personal power have prevented her from stepping down 4-8 years ago when she really should have let a new generation take over.

There are plenty of 40 to 50-year-olds that wiser than people like Feinstein but won't just challenge an established political machine with built-in wealthy donors and allies that she has played quid pro quo with for decades for fear that will just end their careers. It's not as simple as claiming "people just keep voting in the olds." It's more like the old established political machines don't give voters any other choice.

 

[frostbite]

In some instances yes. But it’s the experience, wisdom, and intuition factors that would set them apart from someone at 30. The main issue here as I see it, is there are too many older politicians who tend to skew more conservative, which is why some would like to get rid of them by using old age as the excuse.

Unfortunately, when these people stay at their job past 75 or 80, very often it is not because of "experience, wisdom, and intuition", but because they don't want to give up the Power. And many of them have established networks that make it very hard to dislodge them, even when they are on the verge of being completely incapable of functioning. People in lower positions still support them because their own positions and wealth depends on the older person.

And this happens to both democrats and republicans. One example: Ruth Ginsburg. Thanks to her, we will have Amy Barrett deciding for our lives for another 30+ years.

 

[WI_Red]

That hardly tells the whole story.

Due to the uncontained influence of money in US politics, political favors to the private sector, and long-standing political machinery (from the times of Tammany Hall, the Daleys in Chicago to the present-day networks), younger, wiser, and more informed candidates are heavily deterred and incentivized to not run against the decrepit incumbents like Feinstein. Rising stars like Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom would never have run against Feinstein for the very real fear that doing so would ignite blowback that could end their political careers. With these mechanisms in place, better candidates that are pragmatic simple end up over-paying their dues and "waiting their turn" to the detriment of the voters who often have no viable choice to vote out the outdated incumbent.

Add to the fact that long-time Senators like Feinstein seem to care more about their personal relationship to GOP wackos than actually representing the views of their constituents and you get a calcified and stagnant rate of political choice that doesn't lend itself to the rate of turnover necessary for a healthy Republic. No one that watched the hearings of the last 4 years that Feinstein participated in can argue that she is wise and engaged enough in the proceedings to represent the 40 million citizens adequately. Hubris and obvious lust for personal power have prevented her from stepping down 4-8 years ago when she really should have let a new generation take over.

There are plenty of 40 to 50-year-olds that wiser than people like Feinstein but won't just challenge an established political machine with built-in wealthy donors and allies that she has played quid pro quo with for decades for fear that will just end their careers. It's not as simple as claiming "people just keep voting in the olds." It's more like the old established political machines don't give voters any other choice.

I disagree with none of what you posted, but the solution is not, and will never be in my opinion, to restrict who can hold or run for office. That slope is way too slippery and should never be approached.

 

[Raoul]

Unfortunately, when a person stays at his job past 75 or 80, very often it is not because of "experience, wisdom, and intuition", but because they don't want to give up the Power. And many of them have established networks that make it very hard to dislodge them, even when they are on the verge of being completely incapable of functioning. People in lower positions still support them because their own positions and wealth depends on the older person.

And this happens to both democrats and republicans. One example: Ruth Ginsburg.

Who wouldn't want to give up the power ? Its a great job in terms of making policy for the most powerful nation on earth.

 

[WI_Red]

General officers and admirals (four-star grade) have a mandatory retirement age of 64 that can be waived up to age 66 (SECDEF) or age 68 (POTUS). Professors at service schools have mandatory retirement age of 62.

Four-star flag officer positions and ranks are appointed by the President through varying levels of nomination.

So, it's ok for senators and SCOTUS judges to serve into their 80s and 90s but the most senior-ranking officers must retire after xx years of service or by an age factor. There absolutely should be a mandatory retirement age for all publicly held positions, elected or appointed.

And term limits for judgeships, arguable for politicians.

As you noted, those positions are appointed and so are by definition different to elected positions. Right now the restriction is by age, but what is to stop the Army from creating a regulation that only men can be Generals? Or only white men? What prevents this from happening?

 

[frostbite]

Who wouldn't want to give up the power ? Its a great job in terms of making policy for the most powerful nation on earth.

That's why it was very wise to restrict Presidents to two terms.

They should have placed similar limits to other positions, too. Especially the Senate, the House, the Governors and the Justices.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Who would want to give up the power? Its a great job in terms of making policy for the most powerful nation on earth.

Someone that actually possesses the wisdom you claim these people have in spades due to their age.

I disagree with none of what you posted, but the solution is not, and will never be in my opinion, to restrict who can hold or run for office. That slope is way too slippery and should never be approached.

It's a complex problem that has decades or even centuries of political and cultural inertia that should be reversed. We need to address the campaign finance problem, the established political favor problem, the embedded "pay your dues or else" problem, and more. Term limits does seem like a good start but it probably isn't enough.

 

[syrian_scholes]

What are the polls looking like in Texas?

 

[Raoul]

Someone that actually possesses the wisdom you claim these people have in spades due to their age.



It's a complex problem that has decades or even centuries of political and cultural inertia that should be reversed. We need to address the campaign finance problem, the established political favor problem, the embedded "pay your dues or else" problem, and more. Term limits does seem like a good start but it probably isn't enough.

Wanting to continue working is in no way synonymous with a lack of wisdom.

 

[Raoul]

What are the polls looking like in Texas?

Not good for Dems. Beto appears to be behind. He may need another viral moment or two.

 

[Raoul]

That's why it was very wise to restrict Presidents to two terms.

They should have placed similar limits to other positions, too. Especially the Senate, the House, the Governors and the Justices.

I would be for term limits, but not for ageist reasons.

 

[nimic]

That's why it was very wise to restrict Presidents to two terms.

Perhaps, though FDR is the only one to actually do more than two terms, and he was indisputably top 3 of all the presidents.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Wanting to continue working is in no way synonymous with a lack of wisdom.

Insisting on not stepping down to hold onto personal power when you are clearly not as mentally capable nor as in touch with what your constituents want as Feinstein has proven the last few years absolutely demonstrates a severe lack of wisdom.

Feinstein might be a lot of things, but a font of wisdom she is not.

 

[WI_Red]

Insisting on not stepping down to hold onto personal power when you are clearly not as mentally capable nor as in touch with what your constituents want as Feinstein has proven the last few years absolutely demonstrates a severe lack of wisdom.

Feinstein might be a lot of things, but a font of wisdom she is not.

An absolute piece of shit is one of the things she is though. Horrible, horrible, horrible person, and that is just her time as Mayor of San Francisco.

 

[frostbite]

I would be for term limits, but not for ageist reasons.

But on what basis do you make this distinction? You could argue in a similar way about the opposite. For example, why have term limits for the House? If someone keeps his seat for 40 years, then he has "experience, wisdom, and intuition", and apparently he is well liked by his voters. I guess you think that avoiding a power hungry incumbent who stays in power for 40 years is more important for the health of our democracy than the wishes of the voters.

On the other hand, all systems have imperfections, it is just a matter of counterbalancing the positives and the negatives. An age limit of 72 for politicians is not agism. It is just a realization that the possibility of having a failing but power hungry old politician with connections is much higher than having a "wise old person who is irreplaceable".


(There is no universal agreement on term limits, either. California has a limit of 2 four-year terms a lifetime for governors, Illinois does not have any limit I think. )