How would you feel about an age limit for politicians?

[Dave Gray]

^ Like...randos?

[Fau Teixeira]

yes, randos .. like a jury randos .. could be you .. could be your wife .. could be your mother in law .. they get sent to DC for a year, pass some laws and GTFO

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

yes, randos .. like a jury randos .. could be you .. could be your wife .. could be your mother in law .. they get sent to DC for a year, pass some laws and GTFO

1. that is not a democracy.

2. it will create a system where the unelected entrenched lobbyists have even more power. 

3. the lack of predictability in future policy will cause economic chaos. 

4. the leaders will have no accountability

Is this thread some sort of joke to come up with ideas to invent a worse system?
 

[Dave Gray]

Yeah, I tend to think that would result in poor lawmaking and unqualified people.

(I realize the retort is that "we have that now.")

[Fau Teixeira]

(I realize the retort is that "we have that now.")

yep

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

yep

Having tried an amateur for president....

[Spider-Dan]

I don't think the solution to our current political problems is to seek out everyday people with even less political knowledge & experience, and draft them into running our government.

[masterfins]

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?

That's half of what I said, Politicians primary goal is to get re-elected; which is made possible with the help of lobbyists.  BUT if the politicians aren't worried about getting re-elected, THEN they don't have to rely upon (or fear the backlash) of lobbyists to get re-elected.  It takes away the power of the lobbyists which is mainly the ability to help get the politician re-elected.

[Spider-Dan]

BUT if the politicians aren't worried about getting re-elected, THEN they don't have to rely upon (or fear the backlash) of lobbyists to get re-elected.  It takes away the power of the lobbyists which is mainly the ability to help get the politician re-elected.

That's not true, for two reasons:

1) Unless the term limit is exactly one, there will be a perpetual rotating roster of first-term politicians looking to get funding for their (limited) re-election
2) As Hoodie stated, politicians leaving office and taking cushy jobs with lobbying firms, or even directly with the corporations they were tasked with regulating, is already a problem today... but in a world with term limits, the moment these guys arrive in office, they are working towards their post-government career.  The power of the lobbyists switches from "helps me get re-elected" to "helps me get a good job after I'm termed out," which is a much worse motivating factor.

[Pappy13]

There's a minimum age requirement for the President. Don't see any issues with a max age requirement although gonna be hard to get that passed before the next election. That really would look like election tampering.

[Dave Gray]

...before next election isn't reasonable.  Candidates are already in place and that would be a bad look for democracy.   Even if you had to make exceptions and set it to take effect 10 years down the road, that would be something.

[Downunder Dolphan]

Age in itself may not be a good measure of fitness. However, at least some sort of senility test would be a good measure for those over, say, 70 years? Which should be both Presidential candidates by my calculation. Plus some of the Senate. The last thing you want is someone with any kind of Dementia dictating how you live... which brings me to the question of....

Are you really happy with the probable candidates you have for the highest office? Experience and wisdom is one thing, but it seems like you guys seem to be picking from a surprisingly shallow pool.