3 ms·

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

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 ...

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 ...