How would you feel about an age limit for politicians?

[Sunstroke]

I'd be glad to put an age limit on politicians...as soon as voters decide that seniors have no rights.

This actually seems like a "never gonna happen in a gazillion years" kind of thing

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'd be glad to put an age limit on politicians...as soon as voters decide that seniors have no rights.

This actually seems like a "never gonna happen in a gazillion years" kind of thing

I am not interested in limiting the rights of older folks, but I would love to see the voting age lowered to 12.

[CF DolFan]

I think it's pretty obvious term limits and age restrictions should be applied. Voters of both parties continue to put officials back into office who everyone knows should have moved on years before. There is no way that is beneficial to anyone.

[Brian Fein]

I think the real gripe here is (a) voters not doing their required share to learn about who they're voting for and (b) it takes too long / too hard of a road for younger folks to make a name for themselves in politics.

People vote for name recognition.  I am guilty as well.  Most of the time, people don't even know the first thing about the person they are voting for, but they have a (D) or (R) next to their names.

[Dave Gray]

I am actually OK with people voting straight D/R.  It's not ideal, but you know what D and R stands for, as a collective, so you're voting for a group of ideas, in general.

Where we really can do better is in the primaries, where the various candidates will craft the parties.

[Dave Gray]

I'm starting to relitigate my own position after being enlightened by Spider on Feinstein's reelection, in the face of not being supported by the party and winning anyway.


I still do think we should have age-limits, full stop.

However, maybe that's just too difficult to achieve and would send the wrong message and be too damaging to democracy until it were adopted and accepted.

We need to stop normalizing fossils as political figures, as a whole, and not just at the highest levels of things.  We fixate on President (and on that I agree as well), but I'm actually more concerned with people actually crafting the laws.  In terms of branches of government, the legislative branch is the one that needs to be most in-tune with things like technology, social issues of the day, and youth culture.

A healthy mix of ages is good for that legislative body, but there's a point where you're just too damn old.

[Spider-Dan]

Fundamentally, you're talking about restricting the ability of the people to vote for whom they choose.  This is a pretty dangerous proposition.  In the case of the President, such a restriction - in the form of term limits - makes sense, given the amount of power invested in that singular office and the potential for a dictator to arise.  A similar argument can also be reasonably made for state Governors.

But in the case of Congress, I think you need to give pretty clear and substantive evidence that the risk of allowing these candidates to hold office outweighs the right of the people to vote for whom they choose in a democratic republic.  And I find that case lacking; the amount of power wielded by a single US Senator is not so great that it justifies obstructing the right of the voters to choose.

If you vote for someone that's too old, you get shitty representation in Congress... but the ability of the people to choose suboptimal representatives is just how voting works.

[masterfins]

There should be an Amendment to the Constitution to enact term limits, that would pretty much solve the age issue.  But that would require the egoticians to basically vote themselves out which they would never due.

And I think the same is now true for Supreme Court Justices, limit them to a 20 year term.  At one time it was good to have Supremes with a lifetime appointment because that way they wouldn't be swayed by politics, but in the past couple decades all the new Supremes have mostly come in with a strong political agenda.  Surprisingly I think Chief Justice John Roberts is the fairest, yes he's right leaning but not terrible.

[Spider-Dan]

Term limits just put lobbyists in control of the government.

[Fau Teixeira]

Term limits just put lobbyists in control of the government.

right .. special interest groups aren't currently in control of the government ?

[Spider-Dan]

To whatever extent you think they are in control now, term limits put them even more so.

[masterfins]

Term limits just put lobbyists in control of the government.

Huh?  Lobbyists already own politicians because they fund their re-elections.  If you take away politicians being able to be re-elected forever, then you take away some of the hold that lobbyists have over politicians.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Huh?  Lobbyists already own politicians because they fund their re-elections.  If you take away politicians being able to be re-elected forever, then you take away some of the hold that lobbyists have over politicians.

Just the opposite.  Most politicians primary goal is to get reelected, what happens when their only goal becomes landing a high paying job at a lobbying firm?

[Spider-Dan]

In addition to what Hoodie said, when elected politicians are forced to be rotated out every few years, the people with real connections (and therefore power) in the capital city are the lobbyists that remain there for decades.

Term limits could only "work" if we first eliminated the influence of money in politics, which isn't likely to happen.

[Fau Teixeira]

If we're pie in the sky-ing solutions. Here's my idea.

I'd like to see a system for the US house where the congressman for a district is selected for a 1 year term every year from the same pool of people juries are selected from. You're in for 1 year, you pass some laws, and you're out. For the rest of your life.