Over three-fourths of Americans think there should be a maximum age limit for elected officials, according to a CBS News/YouGov survey.

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand why there aren’t term limits across the board either. Some Congress wo/men have been there for decades ffs!

  • FReddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m 62, which is embarrassingly old to be effing around on the fediverse.

    But I just want to say these octogenarians can’t possibly represent me.

    It’s partly their age.

    But to me wealth is the more corrupting factor. Some of these people have never had a real job, or at least in decades.

    I’m both hoping to work until I’m 70 or die sooner.

    These rich assholes can’t represent anyone except other rich assholes.

      • joklhops@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I’m realizing the fediverse feels so homey because it seems dominated by people old enough to remember the internet of the 90s, the ones that knew AOL was not the entire internet or even ‘web’ proper. We’re already acclimated to an internet where ‘discoverability’ took a little more elbow grease.

    • Md1501@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am in my thirties and see the decisions these people are making will ensure that I never get to “retire”. It partly their age but mostly their wealth, does Glitchy Mitch have to worry about money, fuck no. You be be sure that he is going to horde all the wealth he can and do his best to look like the Pale man from Pans Labyrinth

  • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The issue with enacting a mandatory age limit in a democratically elected government is essentially conceding to the idea that the voters are unable to determine for themselves whether an elected official is competent, or not. This has substantial, and serious implications.

    • Toadiwithaneye@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Obviously people are picking incompetent election officials since we have quite a few, when you are given choices the selection of choices is important too. People are being given limited bad choices and choosing the lesser of evils. We have too many of these old timers who spend their days sleeping through important decisions or/and just being led by others.

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        People are being given limited bad choices and choosing the lesser of evils.

        What’s interesting about this statement is that I interperet it as saying that the candidates that the voters are considering are pre-chosen by some independent third party that the voters have no control over. I would argue that, as it currently stands, in the U.S.A, for example, there is no such gatekeeper – the DNC or, GOP are not gatekeepers as the voters could choose to simply ignore them, and vote for an independent; however, from what I can tell, the issue certainly seems to be that the general public thinks that they only have two choices so they vote accordingly. This is quite possibly a symptom of the FPTP voting system, but I am not knowledgeable enough on the matter to say conclusively.

    • Vespair@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      And yet we have minimum age requirements. Why does your bullshit argument about voter autonomy not apply there?

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        My argument is based on principle; therefore, it would be in opposition to any such restriction whose purpose is to “ensure” the competency of the candidate.

  • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think term limits for Congress, Senate and supreme court would be a better solution. You can be Bernie and be old and lucid and not totally stuck the past but if you’ve been in office for 50 years GTFO and let someone else try.

  • bender223@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Instead of and age limit, I think there should be a maximum sexual assault limit. Like if someone was found either civilly liable or criminally convicted of sexual assault 1 or more times, then they should be disqualified for any office.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t want age limits because that’s ableist. I want term limits. That’s an entirely different thing and this poll is intended to receive/manufacture consent.

  • Just make the retirement age enforced for elected officials too. If the average American is expected to retire at 67, shouldn’t our representatives be younger than that?

    • spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’ve quoted the age for full Social Security benefits, not something that’s enforced or even expected. Retirement’s just an option for anyone who can afford to do so.

  • DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think term limits would be 90% effective. That and fixing gerrymandered districts. How many of those old folks in the House have been cruising to easy reelection due to rigged voting districts? Limit the House to 5 terms and the Senate to 2 terms. That’s a maximum of 22 years someone could be a federal elected politician excluding the presidency. That’s more than enough time to leave their mark on the country.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Term limits, no gerrymandering, ranked choice voting, and more than two political parties.

        We already have more than two parties, its just almost nobody votes for them. With rank choice voting they’ll be more visible than they are today.

        • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Certainly, but they’re not given the same slice as D and R. Laws should help balance the scales.

      • isthingoneventhis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think no gerrymandering would absolutely nuke the red presence. Honestly looking at how bad the district maps are it’s insane it’s even gotten that far.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only way to eliminate gerrymandering is to eliminate geographically-defined congressional districts.

          I think we should empanel our congressional delegation in statewide elections. I also think we shouldn’t have 435 votes in the house. I think we should have one vote for each person in the country. I think each representative should cast one vote for each actual person they represent.

  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d think, because the Constitution only defines minimum ages, we would need an amendment identifying maximum ages.

    65? 70?

    Let’s set it up with term limits as well.

    President is already capped at 2 terms of 4 each, what seems fair for everyone else?

    2 six-year terms for Senator? 12 years?

    6 two year terms for Congress? Also 12 years?

    18 years for Supreme Court?

    • Veraxus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure age is the problem. It’s greed and corruption.

      I would also require anyone RUNNING for an elected office to divest themselves completely of all investments and business ties. Everyone running would get the same campaign funding and that is all they are allowed to use. For anyone elected, base pay would be significantly increased. This would naturally allow more younger candidates to both run and be elected, since you don’t have to be a corrupt, wealthy, ancient subhuman to fund a campaign.

      I’m with you on the term limits, too.

      • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Term limits and an inability to invest would just make it a completely unwanted job for anyone without some significant fallback plan.