this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
102 points (99.0% liked)
Politics
10852 readers
292 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't like hard limits. You can have people beyond that number who are capable for many more years, and you can have some that aren't close to the number yet and shouldn't be there. Ideally the voters see decline or inability to do the job and use votes to replace the problem, but since it's not a perfect world by far and the system isn't working, why not approach it just like we would our relatives. Use routine independent evaluations to determine if someone should step down. Maybe we should have a hierarchy for representatives just like we have for any other command structure so that there is an acting rep until the next election. If not, the state governor can appoint someone like is usually done.
I'm curious for those who think just putting an age limit up would solve things - what age, and why that number?
A big problem isn't that they're incapable, it's that they won't live to see the major effects of policies they're implementing. Another issue is that they're more likely to be out of touch with the issues the majority of their constituents are facing.
How many boomers have you heard say shit like, "When I was young I paid for college by working part time selling hotdogs over the summer."
We should move to a system where the value of a person’s vote is weighted by their life expectancy. The older you are, the less your vote should count.
I mean I would call the latter as incapable for governing the present and future of a society. The first isn't a problem if they still care about the well being of later generations. If they don't care about anything they won't live to see, then that falls under incapable too.
I think that a hard age limit is good, and has more to do with not having people in charge whose age separates them from the people whose lives their decisions are altering. Yes, there are other things separating politicians from the negative effects of their actions as well, but those can and should be dealt with as well, and aren't a reason not to solve the age issue.
I think the cutoff should be standard retirement age, so 65 in the US.
67 now for probably the majority. How do you deal with politicians who decline earlier than that? And why can't we use the techniques to handle that for everyone instead of a limit?
I am pretty certain there is already a process for removing people proven mentally unfit.
Because that's solving for a different problem.
Over the decades of seeing how elderly politicians barely function in their position but not only remain but get reelected, and good lord the situation right now... I don't think there is.
Because an arbitrary number is the best solution:
As to what number? I support 75.
if you have high chance to die in office just because of age you shouldnt be on the ballot
other health issues like cognitive decline are also bad when you are supposed to make impactful decisions (why seniors have to renew driving licenses more often)
I don't disagree with the reasoning. Should we have testing for candidates since relying only on voters doesn't seem to work?