6 ms·

Yes, and she's not the only one who is (edit: was) serving without being functional[1]. We need to start talking about upper age limits for public office. I bel

Yes, and she's not the only one who is (edit: was) serving without being functional[1]. We need to start talking about upper age limits for public office. I believe it'd require a constitutional amendment, but I expect there's lots of support for it from all sides. I'd suggest 65 as a maximum age for being elected, which means one could serve to about age 71, for a six-year Senate term. [1] This article is from six years ago. https://www3.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2017/10/11/congressional-pharmacy-has-reportedly-delivered-alzheimer-drugs-members-congress/4K2HsLB7YqLXIFDFzyHQxM/story.html https://www3.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2017/10/11/congres...

bhouston 3y ago
Are age limits viable in our aging population? I think they may not work because it would exclude so many people and many voters will be aged as well? I think a low bar competency test would be more viable.
- coldpie 3y ago
  Tests for public participation have a real, real bad history, and for good reason. Age is a simple and objective measure.
  - bhouston 3y ago
    I agree. It is just that people's facilities fall off at different rates, but as others pointed out, it is hard to make an objective test that also can not be gamed.
    - runeofdoom 3y ago
      There's nothing to prevent an older politician from advising their colleagues, serving on committee staffs or even lobbying. They're not prevented from participantion, they'd be prevented from being elected.
    - archontes 3y ago
      It's just that that's not actually really important. The test of a good system is one that admits that its members will retire and adjusts accordingly. In the military, you're always training a replacement, and come 65 (or 68), you're retiring, regardless of your capacity.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- goda90 3y ago
  Politicians make up a tiny percentage of the population and babies haven't stopped being born at any point, so there will always be a population under 65 from which to elect people. If voters over 65 feel left out because they can't vote for someone their age bracket, I don't know what to tell them except "welcome to the party".
  - RhysU 3y ago
    Weird SciFi idea: The human race is dying after such an amendment passes. The US Constitution finally crumbles because there is no one under 65 left in the country, making it ungovernable due to amendment ratification requirements.
- the8472 3y ago
  Age limits work for keeping those noisy kids out, should also help with senile old farts.
- JWLong 3y ago
  I’m fairly certain that percentage will still be less than the number of minors, which no one has a problem with excluding in the same way.
  - User23 3y ago
    The Church, which is certainly something of a gerontocracy, excludes the elderly Cardinals from Papal elections too. It's not intrinsically unjust anymore than excluding the very young is.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      To be fair, that limit is 80 and likely has more to do with not forcing elderly Cardinals to travel (many would and even still do out of a feeling of duty; it's basically literally the only "job" a Cardinal has that's not just him being a bishop).
      - telotortium 3y ago
        Currently, bishops are generally expected to submit their resignation to the pope upon turning 75 years old, although the pope may elect to retain the bishop.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    And maybe elders should be excluded for the same reason! That is: Why do we exclude people under 18 from voting? Because we think they don't have the mental tools to understand policy well enough to make an informed decision. Well, if seniors don't have the mental tools anymore, should they be allowed to vote? And this is even stronger with holding office. You can vote at 18, but you can't be a representative until 25, or a senator until 35. Why? Because you need to be old enough to (hopefully) have some judgment. Well, what if you're too old to have judgment? So, yeah, excluding seniors from office would in fact be reasonable. Or at least requiring an annual mental competency test. Unfortunately, we'll never get it without a state-driven constitutional convention, because those with the most power in Congress are highly correlated with those with the highest age.
- checkyoursudo 3y ago
  If lower bounds are reasonable for certain reasons, then it seems reasonable to apply those certain reasons to upper bounds. Not every 15 year old would make an unsatisfactory legislator, and yet ...
JohnClark1337 3y ago
[dead]
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
Why exactly should the elderly be exempt from proper representation? There are plenty of things to criticize Nancy Pelosi about, for example, but still she's more intelligent and coherent than 99% of Congress.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bell-cot 3y ago
  Those in their first ~2 decades of life have long been exempted from proper representation, and I've never heard the elderly complain about that. Having both ends cut off sounds more fair and balanced to me.
  - alphabettsy 3y ago
    Comparing a child to someone in their 70s with a lifetime of experience is silly. Maybe there should be limits once in office at a certain age, but not everyone ages the same.
    - firebat45 3y ago
      Having a lifetime of experience does not necessarily make someone smart, rational, or even coherent. It especially does not make someone interested in voting for changes that will improve the lives of people younger than them.
      - alphabettsy 3y ago
        That’s why we have elections. Being youthful doesn’t imply any of those things either and guarantees limited experience. I’m not arguing that young people shouldn’t be in office. I’m just not sure an arbitrary age limit is appropriate either.
    - pierat 3y ago
      "Adolescence" was a made-up term to remove personal sovereignty over younger people who know full well, and would do, but aren't legally permitted to do so. They're also subject to our laws. They should have their say as well. And then we see under-18 routinely be charged as adults. And yes, if 15 year olds could vote and run for office, I do think we'd see more issues aimed at the younger generations ALONG WITH longer views of how our government is run. And we're seeing the judicial side of this with youngsters suing for climate devastation, like https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/17/montana-climate-lawsuit-impact/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/1...
rasz 3y ago
>not the only one who is (edit: was) is: "McConnell’s frozen moment renews questions about America’s aged leaders" https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/mitch-mcconnell-aging-us-leaders/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/mitch-mcconnell-...
wiredfool 3y ago
Reagan wasn’t all there for his second term.
- baggachipz 3y ago
  As far as I'm concerned, his entire term.
- mc32 3y ago
  Also see FDR...
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    And Woodrow Wilson and Strom Thurmond and Fetterman and...
    - heylook 3y ago
      wait, what exactly gives you the impression that Fetterman isn't all there? this is an interview he gave within the last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qldqgtCYMs0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qldqgtCYMs0

bhouston 3y ago

Are age limits viable in our aging population? I think they may not work because it would exclude so many people and many voters will be aged as well? I think a low bar competency test would be more viable.

coldpie 3y ago
Tests for public participation have a real, real bad history, and for good reason. Age is a simple and objective measure.
- bhouston 3y ago
  I agree. It is just that people's facilities fall off at different rates, but as others pointed out, it is hard to make an objective test that also can not be gamed.
  - runeofdoom 3y ago
    There's nothing to prevent an older politician from advising their colleagues, serving on committee staffs or even lobbying. They're not prevented from participantion, they'd be prevented from being elected.
  - archontes 3y ago
    It's just that that's not actually really important. The test of a good system is one that admits that its members will retire and adjusts accordingly. In the military, you're always training a replacement, and come 65 (or 68), you're retiring, regardless of your capacity.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
goda90 3y ago
Politicians make up a tiny percentage of the population and babies haven't stopped being born at any point, so there will always be a population under 65 from which to elect people. If voters over 65 feel left out because they can't vote for someone their age bracket, I don't know what to tell them except "welcome to the party".
- RhysU 3y ago
  Weird SciFi idea: The human race is dying after such an amendment passes. The US Constitution finally crumbles because there is no one under 65 left in the country, making it ungovernable due to amendment ratification requirements.
the8472 3y ago
Age limits work for keeping those noisy kids out, should also help with senile old farts.
JWLong 3y ago
I’m fairly certain that percentage will still be less than the number of minors, which no one has a problem with excluding in the same way.
- User23 3y ago
  The Church, which is certainly something of a gerontocracy, excludes the elderly Cardinals from Papal elections too. It's not intrinsically unjust anymore than excluding the very young is.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    To be fair, that limit is 80 and likely has more to do with not forcing elderly Cardinals to travel (many would and even still do out of a feeling of duty; it's basically literally the only "job" a Cardinal has that's not just him being a bishop).
    - telotortium 3y ago
      Currently, bishops are generally expected to submit their resignation to the pope upon turning 75 years old, although the pope may elect to retain the bishop.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  And maybe elders should be excluded for the same reason! That is: Why do we exclude people under 18 from voting? Because we think they don't have the mental tools to understand policy well enough to make an informed decision. Well, if seniors don't have the mental tools anymore, should they be allowed to vote? And this is even stronger with holding office. You can vote at 18, but you can't be a representative until 25, or a senator until 35. Why? Because you need to be old enough to (hopefully) have some judgment. Well, what if you're too old to have judgment? So, yeah, excluding seniors from office would in fact be reasonable. Or at least requiring an annual mental competency test. Unfortunately, we'll never get it without a state-driven constitutional convention, because those with the most power in Congress are highly correlated with those with the highest age.
checkyoursudo 3y ago
If lower bounds are reasonable for certain reasons, then it seems reasonable to apply those certain reasons to upper bounds. Not every 15 year old would make an unsatisfactory legislator, and yet ...

JohnClark1337 3y ago

[dead]

MisterBastahrd 3y ago

Why exactly should the elderly be exempt from proper representation? There are plenty of things to criticize Nancy Pelosi about, for example, but still she's more intelligent and coherent than 99% of Congress.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bell-cot 3y ago
Those in their first ~2 decades of life have long been exempted from proper representation, and I've never heard the elderly complain about that. Having both ends cut off sounds more fair and balanced to me.
- alphabettsy 3y ago
  Comparing a child to someone in their 70s with a lifetime of experience is silly. Maybe there should be limits once in office at a certain age, but not everyone ages the same.
  - firebat45 3y ago
    Having a lifetime of experience does not necessarily make someone smart, rational, or even coherent. It especially does not make someone interested in voting for changes that will improve the lives of people younger than them.
    - alphabettsy 3y ago
      That’s why we have elections. Being youthful doesn’t imply any of those things either and guarantees limited experience. I’m not arguing that young people shouldn’t be in office. I’m just not sure an arbitrary age limit is appropriate either.
  - pierat 3y ago
    "Adolescence" was a made-up term to remove personal sovereignty over younger people who know full well, and would do, but aren't legally permitted to do so. They're also subject to our laws. They should have their say as well. And then we see under-18 routinely be charged as adults. And yes, if 15 year olds could vote and run for office, I do think we'd see more issues aimed at the younger generations ALONG WITH longer views of how our government is run. And we're seeing the judicial side of this with youngsters suing for climate devastation, like https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/17/montana-climate-lawsuit-impact/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/1...

rasz 3y ago

>not the only one who is (edit: was) is: "McConnell’s frozen moment renews questions about America’s aged leaders" https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/mitch-mcconnell-aging-us-leaders/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/mitch-mcconnell-...

wiredfool 3y ago

Reagan wasn’t all there for his second term.

baggachipz 3y ago
As far as I'm concerned, his entire term.
mc32 3y ago
Also see FDR...
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  And Woodrow Wilson and Strom Thurmond and Fetterman and...
  - heylook 3y ago
    wait, what exactly gives you the impression that Fetterman isn't all there? this is an interview he gave within the last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qldqgtCYMs0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qldqgtCYMs0