3 ms·
Most people would probably agree an age limit of some sort makes sense. Very few people would want a 10 year old elected president. Once you agree on the premi
by fardo 4y ago
Most people would probably agree an age limit of some sort makes sense. Very few people would want a 10 year old elected president.
Once you agree on the premise, it’s only a matter of asking what the limit ought to be, and while there may be some theoretical value to that discussion, it seems the average voter in practice is at most ambivalent about candidate age, and I definitely don’t think it’s a given that were the limit ever changed, that the number would be lowered, rather than increased.
By way of example, people in the last decade seem to currently have a preference towards significantly older candidates. Biden took office as this nation’s oldest president at 78 [1], and Trump was our nation’s second oldest president at 70. [1]. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s largest competitor for delegates in the 2016 primary, would have been 75 had he been nominated. [2]
America, for better or worse, seems to like old people.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age#Age_of_presidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Un...
[2] September 8, 1941 birthdate; +75 gets to 2016
- ceejayoz 4y ago> Most people would probably agree an age limit of some sort makes sense. Very few people would want a 10 year old elected president. Wouldn't they just... not elect them, then?
- pwinnski 4y agoMaybe? With current systems, a surprising number of people vote without any belief that their vote will make a big difference. And yet, if enough people do that, those votes do in fact make a big difference. Celebrities have been elected quite a few times, and presumably at least some of those votes came from people who assumed the celebrity in question wasn't going to win, and so there was no risk in their vote.