How would you feel about an age limit for politicians?

[Dave Gray]

I propose this:

For elected national political service (President, VP, Senate, House), you cannot accept a new term in office once you are past 65 years old.

If you want to be the mayor of some small town and be 90, knock yourself out.  I also don't care as much about appointed positions, especially in an advisement capacity.

[Engineering Owl]

I like.

how about adding some hard cap to SCOTUS ages as well.

[Dave Gray]

how about adding some hard cap to SCOTUS ages as well.

I'm not 100% against it in terms of age limit, but I fear term limits for SCOTUS.  I like the idea that once appointed, you don't ever have to answer to political interests ever again (in theory).  So, it's not like you're angling for your next job.  Public approval, societal pressure, political pressure -- those things aren't supposed to matter and I think that's good in theory.  Once you get where you are, you are only beholden to right and wrong as viewed through the laws of the Constitution.

But I think they need to be more accountable in terms of checks and balances, corruption, etc.

[Fau Teixeira]

i'm down, but unless i'm wrong, it needs a constitutional amendment for make it a reality

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

While I wouldn't oppose such a change, it is not a priority for me and near impossible as it would require a constitutional amendment and if just a small portion of those over 65 voted against it, it would go nowhere.  

[Dave Gray]

I see a lot of democratic pearl clutching around jokes about Feinstein's death.  Fuck that.  She should have retired 25 years ago.  It's a disgrace she was in politics, being wheeled around like Weekend At Bernie's.

The Daily Show made a joke "Democrats have still not asked her to step down" and everyone is so aghast at the bad taste.  Get the fuck out of here.  What's a selfish way to tarnish her legacy.  I'm embarrassed for the party at how they have handled this.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Keep in mind:  She didn't need to resign. She wasn't appointed in for life.  She was 85 years old when the voters in her district decided to send her back to the Senate. 

If more than half the people don't have a problem voting for someone 85 years old, is it really democratic to change the constitution to no allow someone over 65 to run? 

I get Biden, Trump and Reagan are all controversial figures, so I will skip them.  But anyone want to tell me why they think Eisenhower, Truman, or Jackson was too old to be an effective President.   

[Spider-Dan]

Dave, your issue is with democracy.
It's not like there's some sort of weird, arcane council in a smoke-filled room that's anointing octogenarians to high office; the voters have their choice, and they are picking ancient candidates.  The idea that we can fix the electorate by just telling them "You're not allowed to vote for this person anymore" misreads the problem.

The bizarre part about this is you don't seem to see a problem with it on the Supreme Court, where it's actually the worst issue!  Supreme Court justices have no accountability & can stay in office until they literally die, and no one can do anything about it.  If there's any institution where age limits should be enforced, it's SCOTUS.  I understand the desire to protect the justices from pandering to the politics of the day, but 1) they aren't elected in the first place and 2) a fixed length of service gives them just as much insulation.

[Dave Gray]

I think you guys are being naive and not accounting for the will of the party.

The party supports candidates and there is some level of choice or preference or pressure within the party.  She was 25 years too late.


It doesn't mean that no old person would be capable.  That's not the point.  I'm sure some 33 year old is capable, yet there are laws about that, too.

Ike first ran when he was 62.  Truman was 61.  At least they're in the ballpark.


And I said, I'm fully on board with SCOTUS restrictions...but I'm just not sure that it's age.  I'm more concerned about ethics and ability to be recalled.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I agree that incumbency is too powerful for reelection.

But you picked an issue/solution that:

(1) is unwinnable.

(2) won't actually solve the problem

(3) is fundamentally undemocratic. 

I will get behind things I don't view as particularly winnable, if they will make a difference, this one won't. 

[Spider-Dan]

I think you guys are being naive and not accounting for the will of the party.

The party supports candidates and there is some level of choice or preference or pressure within the party.

This is an excuse offered by losers.  If "the party" chose, Hillary would have beaten Obama in 2008 and Jeb would have beaten Trump in 2016.

Your problem is the voters, not "the party."

[Dave Gray]

This is an excuse offered by losers.  If "the party" chose, Hillary would have beaten Obama in 2008 and Jeb would have beaten Trump in 2016.

Your problem is the voters, not "the party."

I'm not being sour grapes and I'm not even talking about the President as that's high profile enough.

It's really for more of these local or state races where the same name-recognition dinosaurs are in power for 60 years.

[Spider-Dan]

Right, but "name recognition" isn't party bosses putting their thumb on the scale or whatever.  It's the voters pulling the lever for a familiar name.  That's just democracy.

In the particular case of Dianne Feinstein, the California Democratic Party declined to endorse her in 2018, when (due to CA's jungle primary system) her general election opponent was another Democrat, Kevin De Leon.  Declining to endorse a 4-term sitting US Senator is just about the strongest move they can take.  She won easily anyway.

The party doesn't decide.  The voters do.

[Dave Gray]

In the particular case of Dianne Feinstein, the California Democratic Party declined to endorse her in 2018, when (due to CA's jungle primary system) her general election opponent was another Democrat, Kevin De Leon.

I didn't know that.  Good for the CA Dems.  I feel better about that.  ...It's probably something that shouldn't have happened once and should've been going on for 25 years, but good on them.

[bsmooth]

I propose this:

For elected national political service (President, VP, Senate, House), you cannot accept a new term in office once you are past 65 years old.

If you want to be the mayor of some small town and be 90, knock yourself out.  I also don't care as much about appointed positions, especially in an advisement capacity.

We already have limits, it is called voting. We the people are the ones who keep reflecting these fools into office for decades...and suffer for it.