19 ms·

Putting politics aside … Why don’t they have an age limit on the president (or any elected office)? E.g., you must be younger than the average life expectancy

Putting politics aside … Why don’t they have an age limit on the president (or any elected office)? E.g., you must be younger than the average life expectancy (currently men: 73yo / female: 79) - while in office. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

mistermann 2y ago
I see little reason to believe "democracy" is in any way designed to be optimal (for citizens anyways), and lots to believe it is not (and it would seem intentionally not).
catothedev 2y ago
Bear in mind that your life expectancy is higher as you get older. E.g. the life expectancy for a 72 yr old is not 73, its higher. But I agree with the general point about an age cap.
eviks 2y ago
Because that's politics (that you can't put aside) Life expectancy is also an irrelevant measurement for this
valval 2y ago
Why would they? If people want an old president, then they shall get one. That’s just democracy.
michael1999 2y ago
They do. At least 35.
amai 2y ago
Maybe then there should also be an age limit for voters.
makach 2y ago
There is a lower limit but not an upper limit. Who knows how old we can be in the future, there are coherent smart people over 80 today. But hey, it’s a democracy and if you want to change it you can try…!
- mywacaday 2y ago
  Agree that there are plenty of coherent smart people but you also have to think about the workload, my dad is in his 80s and is perfectly sharp on any issues you care to discuss but he also stays in bed until after 9 and enjoys a few naps during the day.
  - mcswell 2y ago
    As I said in a post above, I resemble that remark--at least sleeping in, once in a while a nap. But I tend to stay awake until close to midnight. (I'm also not in my 80s, at least not yet--just hoping to get there.)
- Tao3300 2y ago
  > Who knows how old we can be in the future Read as "who knows how much more entrenched future politicians will be able to be? who knows how many more favors they will owe, how many more donors will have their ear?"
  - lanstin 2y ago
    Civilization progresses one funeral at a time, but maybe if we knew we would live to four hundred we would take up longer term thinking and work for projects that took 100 years. Nod to Kim Stanley Robinson.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
BurningFrog 2y ago
It's considered to be up to the voters to pick the best candidate.
- Dailiessfie 2y ago
  In the US you're way too willing to accept family dinasties for this to be true. Max age should be retirement age - max duration of the term. In my opinion career politicians should be ended altogether but that's another matter.
- inopinatus 2y ago
  Sadly, this has never happened, anywhere, ever. The distinguishing and necessary result of democracy, practically unique when compared to any other form of government, is that it provides a nonviolent means to remove aggressively incompetent people from office.
  - avar 2y ago
    > Sadly, this has never > happened, anywhere, ever. Didn't this literally just happen? If Biden hadn't suffered in the polls after the nature of his debate performance, I don't see how we'd be here today. However indirect the mechanism by which he was ousted, it ultimately comes down to an assessment of what candidate voters would have been willing to back.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >Didn't this literally just happen? >If Biden hadn't suffered in the polls after the nature of his debate performance, I don't see how we'd be here today. No, this didn't happen at all. There has been no election yet, and polls are not elections, they're just random-ish samplings. The polls showed voters weren't very enthusiastic about Biden, but back in 2015, the polls showed that Trump was absolutely certain to lose in a landslide to Hillary, and that didn't happen. I do agree with the poll results this time around, but that's just my opinion and not at all backed up by an actual election, which we now won't have (since the election will have a different candidate). We'll see how well the new candidate fares. >However indirect the mechanism by which he was ousted This "mechanism" was not part of the government at all, and not really part of "democracy". It was just a bunch of opinion polls organized by mostly the press, and they influenced Biden to stop his campaign, but again this is not some central feature of democratic systems at all. The only way of truly assessing what candidate voters choose is to have an election. Everything else is just guesswork.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
I'm all for it. But when the average senator is over 60 and rising, and the majority voter base themselves are generally 60+, it'll be a hard law to pass from both fronts. And as others mentioned, this is a bipartisan stance, so it's not a matter of political leanings. Old people represent most of our voter-base and thus most of our represenatives.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  > But when the average senator is over 60 and rising, and the majority voter base themselves are generally 60+, it'll be a hard law to pass from both fronts. I have less problems with boomers in general than a lot of people do, but honestly this is one of those things that's going to improve as time goes on and boomers die off.
jimt1234 2y ago
Because old people vote.
- mcswell 2y ago
  Hey, I resemble that remark! (Even if I am younger than Biden or Trump.) But all seriousness aside, what makes you think that matters? I'm not going to vote for someone because they're old, in fact to some extent the opposite--I'd rather have a 50 or so year old as president. Are there polls that say old people vote for old people just because they're old?
- B1FF_PSUVM 2y ago
  They even remember the time when western media mocked the "Kremlin gerontocracy".
kernal 2y ago
Age shouldn’t be a limitation. Mental competency should be regardless of age.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  One is measurable though
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    "Innocent until proven". (No really, you cannot conclude anything from circumstantial states that only increase chances of some conclusion, but not determine it as true, strictly. It is also one of the basic principles evident past consideration of prejudice and racism...)
  - lanstin 2y ago
    Also you are much more likely to decline in the next four years at eighty than at fifty.
mdp2021 2y ago
Like IQ tests will not measure mental sanity and lucidity, age does not measure mental proficiency.
- flappyeagle 2y ago
  Then why a minimum age of 35? It’s a reasonable suggestion
  - kfrzcode 2y ago
    The minimum age requirement was intended to provide a safeguard against the election of individuals who might lack the maturity and experience needed for such a significant role. The maximum age is a different consideration.
    - flappyeagle 2y ago
      It’s not that different
      - mdp2021 2y ago
        Specifically, it is evaluated as almost impossible that someone could have accrued required experience before the age of 35, while it is very much possible that an aged individual is mentally proficient.
        Retric 2y ago
        Age related declines are absolutely guaranteed and presidents serve for 4 years and senators for 6. That doesn’t mean no 80 year old is more mentally proficient than the average 60 year old, but we want more than average here.
        mdp2021 2y ago
        And in fact people who have greatly declined and are still leagues above most of the rest - because the rest was what it was -, are very real. So, no, decline is fully independent from state, just like a derivative, a trend, does not determine a value. There exist GDP growth of 15%/yr: they do not indicate a big GDP.
adamhartenz 2y ago
Putting politics aside? Ironic that the link you gave is a .gov site. So that would turn "life expectancy" into something political, and lobbyist would all over it.
- Rhapso 2y ago
  Seems like an alignment of incentives, if you want to stay in power you have to make your population live longer.
PopePompus 2y ago
Politicians who refuse to retire is a huge, bipartisan problem in the US affecting both genders. Putting an age limit on the president or members of congress would probably have to be done via a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that states cannot add eligibility requirements that are not in the constitution. One reform that would help in Congress would be to modify the seniority system. Right now, members of Congress gain seniority as long as they keep being re-elected, so you end up with a situation where all the most powerful committees are headed by ancient legislators teetering at death's door. Since those committee chairs are very powerful, they get lots of campaign donations which help keep them in office until God calls them home. I think modulo arithmetic should be used to calculate seniority. A member of the House should have their seniority set to their time in office modulo 10 - after five terms they are reset to seniority zero. For senators, maybe modulo 18 could be used.
- jszymborski 2y ago
  Maybe not even modulo but something like seniority increases monotonically for five terms but decreases monotonically for each subsequent term after the fifth term.
  - OldSchool 2y ago
    as lobbyists, you guys are going to lose most of them at modulo and the rest at monotonically
    - jjk166 2y ago
      Hey congress people, do you want your time in office to be much more fun and exciting? Vote yes on the Congressional Rollercoaster Act!
- RajBhai 2y ago
  Parties should be able to place age restrictions on the candidates. That can't stop an elderly candidate from running third party to spite the eligibility rules, but that's already the case.
kernal 2y ago
[flagged]
- kanbara 2y ago
  i’ve been seeing this comment float around today, and assuming you aren’t a russian troll or bot account, here’s why it’s flawed: there’s no _coup_ (not coop) because primary processes are not part of the constitution. candidates can step down (as biden did for the good of the country, and LBJ had done before him). there was no real choice to not pick biden, either, as the incumbent. the party will now have an open nomination process where delegates will pledge based on how people of their state best want, and keep in mind that most americans did not want biden OR trump, so they really are doing what is best in the interest of american democracy compare this to the RNC and GOP which has done nothing but embrace one criminal authoritarian crook for the last decade, and you’ll see why your comment doesn’t really make sense.
  - kernal 2y ago
    Your response sounds like it was written by KJP. But seriously, here's why your reply is flawed according to Politico. >“Nancy made clear that they could do this the easy way or the hard way,” said one Democrat familiar with private conversations who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “She gave them three weeks of the easy way. It was about to be the hard way.” [1] This was not Joe Biden's decision to drop out. He was forced out by the people that pull the strings in the democrat party. [1]https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/why-biden-dropped-out-00170106 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/why-biden-dropped-o...
  - jokellum 2y ago
    Agreed. Hasn't the number one thing anti-biden people have been saying is that he isn't fit for office due to his mental state? Its bizarre seeing them flip to calling this a coup as if biden stepping down is suddenly an illegal/unconstitutional thing. I consider this "concern trolling". They said for 4 years how he's barely mentally there / can barely speak / not fit for office, and then when the Democratic party pressures him to step down, they go all surprised_pikachu_face.png.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
karmajunkie 2y ago
the glib answer is that every election is a decision on that politician’s age or term limit, which is almost certainly the position SCOTUS would take here. in reality, the advantages of the incumbent in an era of safe districts, where the real election is a primary with poor turnout composed mostly of older voters, are almost insurmountable. and we are currently witnessing what happens when someone hits an age limit the national electorate is unwilling to accept.
avar 2y ago
> you must be younger than > the average life expectancy > (currently 73yo) - while in > office. As an aside, it's a common error to think that overall life expectancy is relevant to this sort of thing, it's not. That number includes those who die in infancy, etc. If you wanted to limit it by "life expectancy" you'd want to limit it by the statistical expected remaining years of life at the candidate's current age. For example, while the overall life expectancy in the US is around 73, for an individual at age 50 it's around 80[1]. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62591/ Edit: Even if you pick the "right" life expectancy it's still pretty weird. You want the candidate to "only" have a hypothetical 50% chance of dying due to old age before their last day in office? Then imagine something like COVID-19 happens again. Now a candidate on the cusp of being ineligible is suddenly ineligible because the latest life expectancy statistics shifted? There's a reason political systems tend to prefer boring and predictable arbitrary limits.
- dangus 2y ago
  Joe Biden is older than 80 lol I would want to limit it by social security retirement age. I don’t really know any 70 year olds who are “all there.”
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
    I work with someone in her 80s that’s incredibly, incredibly sharp. This is just tech people being tech people, as always.
    - dangus 2y ago
      No, I’m not a “tech person,” I’m just a person. Being incredibly sharp isn’t enough for the most demanding job in the US government. We are talking international diplomatic trips with jet lag, situation room in the middle of the night military operations, basically being on-call 24/7 for any major event. Joe Biden would have been 86 upon his last year in office if he won the election this year. That’s barely 4 years before my grandmother decided she couldn’t clean her own house and cook for herself anymore and moved to an independent living facility. That’s someone who had no other job besides cooking and cleaning for herself. And she’s a member of the gender that lives longer. And she’s one of the older people in the independent living community! She’s lucky to not have transitioned to assisted living. The odds of dying as an 81 year old in any given year are 1 in 15. If you’re older than 85 your odds are 1 in 7. An 81 year old president is someone who has basically a coin flip probability of dying before the end of their term.
roenxi 2y ago
Because it doesn't solve a real problem. If you try to articulate why it is that a particular old person is president and then dig in a little bit, it quickly becomes apparent that the real problem is something else. For example, in this case, the problem isn't the Biden is old. The problem is probably somewhere in how the Democrat party of the US is picking candidates. > Putting politics aside … I admire your optimism in saying that then putting a political question to the room.
lisper 2y ago
Airline pilots have a legally mandated retirement age of 65. Running the country seems like it's at least as mission-critical as flying a plane.
- foldingmoney 2y ago
  iirc the pilot retirement age is at least in part due to radiation exposure.
  - lisper 2y ago
    Citation needed. (I'm a (private) pilot and I've never heard this.)
- curt15 2y ago
  The president has a large support staff to keep the lights on most of the time. Unless the nation is physically under attack, the president's day-to-day job is probably physically less demanding than that of pilots. They have plenty of time for golf.
  - wcunning 2y ago
    None of that support staff is constitutionally allowed to make the call to respond to an imminent or ongoing attack. We need a commander in chief and we need to know who that person is -- which was the whole point of the Presidential Succession Act and the 25th amendment. This isn't even a Biden thing -- we had similar issues with Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and Reagan, and I'm sure that some administrations had similar issues that were never reported or written about afterwards.
  - nothercastle 2y ago
    Airplane can fly and land themselves for the most part it’s only in case of a emergency does a pilot really need to have quick judgment
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    Economic attacks are a thing.
Jerrrry 2y ago
Because it's in the constitution.
Gibbon1 2y ago
I've made that argument. Someone that agrees with it is Jimmy Carter. My opinion is if the voters are happy to send a geriatric congressman to Washington to sleep through meetings that's fine. But he shouldn't be chairing committees and other offices. That said Reagan was suffering the beginnings of dementia during the last year or two of his presidency and the world didn't end.
- achievingApathy 2y ago
  That's not to say it couldn't have. The Constitution and its new SCOTUS interpretation places such a heavy emphasis on the executive branch that even with safeguards and a 25th amendment, maybe protecting the electorate from itself is warranted.
29athrowaway 2y ago
Because in a catastrophic situation, like traversing the chain of succession during a crisis, can play against the survival of the country.
Rhapso 2y ago
FTR: This IS politics. This sort of conversation about public policy is what politics should be. I always recommend folks read George Washington's farewell address and it's discussion of political parties.
mortify 2y ago
The same reason we don't have a race or sex limit on the Presidency. We should only have competency limits regardless of any other factors. My grandfather died at 101. He was extremely sharp until he was 98 and on no medication. I'd vote for that 95 year-old over either of our current choices without hesitation.
- everforward 2y ago
  “Competency” is hard to evaluate, especially objectively, and that raises a whole host of other issues because it can’t be resolved expediently. Who raises a competency question? Who decides on it? When can the question be raised? What happens if we don’t have an answer by the time of the election, because it’s tied up in appeals? Objective qualifications are much simpler. We could argue for months about whether a president is competent, but it takes like 7 seconds to decide whether they’re older than some arbitrary bar.
- newzisforsukas 2y ago
  And at 98 did your Grandfather lead a country? How about a company? Manage a store? A team of employees? All these anecdotal superhuman tales fail the smell test. There is this hyped longitudinal study, but it doesn't say what roles these "superagers" were in, only that they had slightly better cognitive outcomes than their peers. No one has cognitive capacity or neuronal volume of a 35 year old at 65, not to speak of 95. It is delusional to think anyone can escape the effects of aging at this point in time. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/44/25/e2059232024 https://www.jneurosci.org/content/44/25/e2059232024
shirro 2y ago
There is an argument that in a well functioning democracy voters should be able to decide who is qualified to lead them. It shouldn't matter if the person is 20 or 80 if they are able to fulfill their obligations and win the support of voters. With a well informed population and an electoral system that fairly represents voter preferences there should be no need for arbitrary rules.
- groby_b 2y ago
  Setting aside the argument if any electorate is really capable of making that decision - the world has elected many questionable leaders - the big question is "what if the conditions change halfway through". That likelihood increases with age, and even the most well-informed population does not have the ability to withdraw their consent if it does.
  - webninja 2y ago
    Was there a primary election this year in your state? This question is open to anyone to answer.
    - groby_b 2y ago
      How does a primary help with the "conditions changed" part? As for electing questionable leaders, no, primaries don't necessarily address that either. If you look back through US presidents, you can find a good sampling of really bad choices. (Season according to party preference). I don't think that second part is completely fixable in democracies. I do think some systems are more vulnerable to it than others, and primaries in a first-past-the-post world are one of the worse systems.
- zerocrates 2y ago
  Of course we already have the undemocratic age limit, just only on the low side.
bg24 2y ago
People who make the rules are the people in power, not citizens. People win power will always have the bias to do themselves a favor.
tempestn 2y ago
Because the Founders didn't think of it, and though it would obviously be a good idea now, it's no longer possible to get enough consensus on literally anything to amend the constitution.
xp84 2y ago
Like a lot of things never codified into law or the constitution — 250 years ago it seemed obvious that the voters wouldn’t do things that seem utterly insane, and that surely nobody who’s very openly, shamelessly corrupt would be elected and still maintain that support even when exposed. So here we are. So the Framers figured nobody on the cusp of senility would run, and if he did, he wouldn’t get the votes. Because both would be ridiculous. Especially considering that the only democracy they envisioned was the House, since everybody else was to be picked by nondemocratic means (essentially then, by an aristocracy, who would surely be wise enough to make a good decision).
- defrost 2y ago
  > it seemed obvious that the voters wouldn’t do things that seem utterly insane, and that surely nobody who’s very openly, shamelessly corrupt would be elected Credit where credit is due, it actually seemed obvious to Benjamin Franklin that such a thing was inevitable .. hence the need for close attention to the machinery of government and regularly updating the constitution. See: I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well-administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, "and can only end in despotism". Hmmm.
  - fwip 2y ago
    It seems similar to the construction in the phrase, "When two people love each other, there can be no happy end to it." I'm also reminded of Jefferson's quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." I think I agree with you/them - eventually, the stochastic processes of politics will yield despotism, that natural attractor from which we may break away only with difficulty.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    Or it means that despotism is a threat. I don’t see the inevitability.
gnicholas 2y ago
Put simply: it would require a constitutional amendment, and those are hard to come by. The Constitution only sets a minimum age for offices — no maximum ages.
pygar 2y ago
This mess has shown that you don't need an age limit for the presidency? He was going to lose the election exactly because of his perceived cognitive decline related to his age. The DNC is at fault for selected him as the candidate.
MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
If there's to be an age limit, I think it should be tied to the average retirement age plus 7 years. This accounts for changes in life expectancy while also allowing representation for retirees.
- newzisforsukas 2y ago
  It should be based in science. IMO, on evidence for when the brain starts to age in a significant way, and supplemented individually based on a robust battery of tests that represent cognitive fitness (something more demanding than n-back and stroop tests). Unfortunately, I think fantasies about living forever and politics around ageism will prevent this from ever being implemented in our lifetimes.
dbsmith83 2y ago
Because you get to vote, so explain why it needs to be a rule
guenthert 2y ago
> Why don’t they have an age limit on the president (or any elected office)? Because age is no indication of fitness for any kind of activity or role. It sure would be nice, if persons with high responsibilities would periodically undergo a fitness test. I'd think the founding fathers saw the election process as such fitness test and the electoral college as the judge of fitness of the presidential candidate.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  > age is no indication of fitness for any kind of activity or role. This is a generalization that overlooks the nuanced reality of human aging. Physical and cognitive functions become more pronounced in advanced age, such as above 70 or 80. Sure, age alone does not universally determine fitness for activities or roles, but it is a very important factor to consider. I am fine with fitness tests.
- bitcharmer 2y ago
  > Because age is no indication of fitness for any kind of activity or role Do we live on different planets. Most young people are able, most people over 80 will have mobility and/or cognition issues.
  - dbsmith83 2y ago
    It still says nothing about an individual. That's why you get to vote.
siva7 2y ago
> Why don’t they have an age limit on the president (or any elected office)? In a democracy we let the pleb decide if they want a 81 year old as president (or a 18 year old). It works as intended. Putting age limits on fixed-term elected officials would go against the spirit of free elections.
- nwsm 2y ago
  Are you implying there isn't a minimum age for president of the United States?
- defrost 2y ago
  There's a minimum age > 30 to be POTUS. The "pleb" had no say whatsoever in having only Trump or Biden as a choice. Party elitists chose the horses in the race. Further, there are many more democracies than just the USofA, rules vary and you don't see the same lack of choice in some of these other democracies.
lr1970 2y ago
> Why don’t they have an age limit on the president In fact there is an age limit for an American president. They should be >= 35 y.o. We need to augment it with an upper limit. My choice would be <= 75 y.o.
evgeniysharapov 2y ago
Because it's ultimately a distrust of people. You do not trust people to realize that the candidate is old ? Where would you draw the line on limits? Age, IQ, gender, weight, height ? Of course, we should find the balance between all these limits and "intellect of the crowd".
troyvit 2y ago
There's a constitutional requirement that the candidate must be at least 35[1], which seems arbitrary to me. That was decided in 1787. I wonder what age they would have picked as a maximum age back then. I say that because (at least these days) it seems almost impossible to change, and people live a lot longer. Like we might be stuck with "Any age between 35 and 57" because people died young in 1787 relative to now. [1] https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-candidate-need-to-be-35-years-old-anyway https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-...
- jjk166 2y ago
  It's worth noting that the age requirements selected then were less about wisdom and experience, and more about residency in the US. The chief fear at the time was a European power manipulating the country to put a puppet in charge, so to avoid this they wanted to limit power to those who had resided in the US for a long time, but they also didn't want to preclude themselves from holding offices in the future. These numbers (35 for president, 30 for senator, and 25 for house representative) represent a compromise - note that the constitution's primary authors were 36 and 31 at the time it was signed, and the youngest signer was 26.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  I wonder if you can reliably adjust ages for 'inflation' like you can for other things. 35 back in 1787 has be to close to 50 or so today.
Suppafly 2y ago
>E.g., you must be younger than the average life expectancy (currently men: 73yo / female: 79) - while in office. That'd be a good way to force the government into caring about improving health and extending life expectancy.
- jjk166 2y ago
  Or to inaccurately collect life expectancy data.

mistermann 2y ago

I see little reason to believe "democracy" is in any way designed to be optimal (for citizens anyways), and lots to believe it is not (and it would seem intentionally not).

catothedev 2y ago

Bear in mind that your life expectancy is higher as you get older. E.g. the life expectancy for a 72 yr old is not 73, its higher. But I agree with the general point about an age cap.

eviks 2y ago

Because that's politics (that you can't put aside) Life expectancy is also an irrelevant measurement for this

valval 2y ago

Why would they? If people want an old president, then they shall get one. That’s just democracy.

michael1999 2y ago

They do. At least 35.

amai 2y ago

Maybe then there should also be an age limit for voters.

makach 2y ago

There is a lower limit but not an upper limit. Who knows how old we can be in the future, there are coherent smart people over 80 today. But hey, it’s a democracy and if you want to change it you can try…!

mywacaday 2y ago
Agree that there are plenty of coherent smart people but you also have to think about the workload, my dad is in his 80s and is perfectly sharp on any issues you care to discuss but he also stays in bed until after 9 and enjoys a few naps during the day.
- mcswell 2y ago
  As I said in a post above, I resemble that remark--at least sleeping in, once in a while a nap. But I tend to stay awake until close to midnight. (I'm also not in my 80s, at least not yet--just hoping to get there.)
Tao3300 2y ago
> Who knows how old we can be in the future Read as "who knows how much more entrenched future politicians will be able to be? who knows how many more favors they will owe, how many more donors will have their ear?"
- lanstin 2y ago
  Civilization progresses one funeral at a time, but maybe if we knew we would live to four hundred we would take up longer term thinking and work for projects that took 100 years. Nod to Kim Stanley Robinson.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

BurningFrog 2y ago

It's considered to be up to the voters to pick the best candidate.

Dailiessfie 2y ago
In the US you're way too willing to accept family dinasties for this to be true. Max age should be retirement age - max duration of the term. In my opinion career politicians should be ended altogether but that's another matter.
inopinatus 2y ago
Sadly, this has never happened, anywhere, ever. The distinguishing and necessary result of democracy, practically unique when compared to any other form of government, is that it provides a nonviolent means to remove aggressively incompetent people from office.
- avar 2y ago
  > Sadly, this has never > happened, anywhere, ever. Didn't this literally just happen? If Biden hadn't suffered in the polls after the nature of his debate performance, I don't see how we'd be here today. However indirect the mechanism by which he was ousted, it ultimately comes down to an assessment of what candidate voters would have been willing to back.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Didn't this literally just happen? >If Biden hadn't suffered in the polls after the nature of his debate performance, I don't see how we'd be here today. No, this didn't happen at all. There has been no election yet, and polls are not elections, they're just random-ish samplings. The polls showed voters weren't very enthusiastic about Biden, but back in 2015, the polls showed that Trump was absolutely certain to lose in a landslide to Hillary, and that didn't happen. I do agree with the poll results this time around, but that's just my opinion and not at all backed up by an actual election, which we now won't have (since the election will have a different candidate). We'll see how well the new candidate fares. >However indirect the mechanism by which he was ousted This "mechanism" was not part of the government at all, and not really part of "democracy". It was just a bunch of opinion polls organized by mostly the press, and they influenced Biden to stop his campaign, but again this is not some central feature of democratic systems at all. The only way of truly assessing what candidate voters choose is to have an election. Everything else is just guesswork.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

I'm all for it. But when the average senator is over 60 and rising, and the majority voter base themselves are generally 60+, it'll be a hard law to pass from both fronts. And as others mentioned, this is a bipartisan stance, so it's not a matter of political leanings. Old people represent most of our voter-base and thus most of our represenatives.

Suppafly 2y ago
> But when the average senator is over 60 and rising, and the majority voter base themselves are generally 60+, it'll be a hard law to pass from both fronts. I have less problems with boomers in general than a lot of people do, but honestly this is one of those things that's going to improve as time goes on and boomers die off.

jimt1234 2y ago

Because old people vote.

mcswell 2y ago
Hey, I resemble that remark! (Even if I am younger than Biden or Trump.) But all seriousness aside, what makes you think that matters? I'm not going to vote for someone because they're old, in fact to some extent the opposite--I'd rather have a 50 or so year old as president. Are there polls that say old people vote for old people just because they're old?
B1FF_PSUVM 2y ago
They even remember the time when western media mocked the "Kremlin gerontocracy".

kernal 2y ago

Age shouldn’t be a limitation. Mental competency should be regardless of age.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
One is measurable though
- mdp2021 2y ago
  "Innocent until proven". (No really, you cannot conclude anything from circumstantial states that only increase chances of some conclusion, but not determine it as true, strictly. It is also one of the basic principles evident past consideration of prejudice and racism...)
- lanstin 2y ago
  Also you are much more likely to decline in the next four years at eighty than at fifty.

mdp2021 2y ago

Like IQ tests will not measure mental sanity and lucidity, age does not measure mental proficiency.

flappyeagle 2y ago
Then why a minimum age of 35? It’s a reasonable suggestion
- kfrzcode 2y ago
  The minimum age requirement was intended to provide a safeguard against the election of individuals who might lack the maturity and experience needed for such a significant role. The maximum age is a different consideration.
  - flappyeagle 2y ago
    It’s not that different
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      Specifically, it is evaluated as almost impossible that someone could have accrued required experience before the age of 35, while it is very much possible that an aged individual is mentally proficient.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Age related declines are absolutely guaranteed and presidents serve for 4 years and senators for 6. That doesn’t mean no 80 year old is more mentally proficient than the average 60 year old, but we want more than average here.
        mdp2021 2y ago
        And in fact people who have greatly declined and are still leagues above most of the rest - because the rest was what it was -, are very real. So, no, decline is fully independent from state, just like a derivative, a trend, does not determine a value. There exist GDP growth of 15%/yr: they do not indicate a big GDP.

adamhartenz 2y ago

Putting politics aside? Ironic that the link you gave is a .gov site. So that would turn "life expectancy" into something political, and lobbyist would all over it.

Rhapso 2y ago
Seems like an alignment of incentives, if you want to stay in power you have to make your population live longer.

PopePompus 2y ago

Politicians who refuse to retire is a huge, bipartisan problem in the US affecting both genders. Putting an age limit on the president or members of congress would probably have to be done via a constitutional amendment, because the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that states cannot add eligibility requirements that are not in the constitution. One reform that would help in Congress would be to modify the seniority system. Right now, members of Congress gain seniority as long as they keep being re-elected, so you end up with a situation where all the most powerful committees are headed by ancient legislators teetering at death's door. Since those committee chairs are very powerful, they get lots of campaign donations which help keep them in office until God calls them home. I think modulo arithmetic should be used to calculate seniority. A member of the House should have their seniority set to their time in office modulo 10 - after five terms they are reset to seniority zero. For senators, maybe modulo 18 could be used.

jszymborski 2y ago
Maybe not even modulo but something like seniority increases monotonically for five terms but decreases monotonically for each subsequent term after the fifth term.
- OldSchool 2y ago
  as lobbyists, you guys are going to lose most of them at modulo and the rest at monotonically
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Hey congress people, do you want your time in office to be much more fun and exciting? Vote yes on the Congressional Rollercoaster Act!
RajBhai 2y ago
Parties should be able to place age restrictions on the candidates. That can't stop an elderly candidate from running third party to spite the eligibility rules, but that's already the case.

kernal 2y ago

[flagged]

kanbara 2y ago
i’ve been seeing this comment float around today, and assuming you aren’t a russian troll or bot account, here’s why it’s flawed: there’s no _coup_ (not coop) because primary processes are not part of the constitution. candidates can step down (as biden did for the good of the country, and LBJ had done before him). there was no real choice to not pick biden, either, as the incumbent. the party will now have an open nomination process where delegates will pledge based on how people of their state best want, and keep in mind that most americans did not want biden OR trump, so they really are doing what is best in the interest of american democracy compare this to the RNC and GOP which has done nothing but embrace one criminal authoritarian crook for the last decade, and you’ll see why your comment doesn’t really make sense.
- kernal 2y ago
  Your response sounds like it was written by KJP. But seriously, here's why your reply is flawed according to Politico. >“Nancy made clear that they could do this the easy way or the hard way,” said one Democrat familiar with private conversations who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “She gave them three weeks of the easy way. It was about to be the hard way.” [1] This was not Joe Biden's decision to drop out. He was forced out by the people that pull the strings in the democrat party. [1]https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/why-biden-dropped-out-00170106 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/why-biden-dropped-o...
- jokellum 2y ago
  Agreed. Hasn't the number one thing anti-biden people have been saying is that he isn't fit for office due to his mental state? Its bizarre seeing them flip to calling this a coup as if biden stepping down is suddenly an illegal/unconstitutional thing. I consider this "concern trolling". They said for 4 years how he's barely mentally there / can barely speak / not fit for office, and then when the Democratic party pressures him to step down, they go all surprised_pikachu_face.png.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

karmajunkie 2y ago

the glib answer is that every election is a decision on that politician’s age or term limit, which is almost certainly the position SCOTUS would take here. in reality, the advantages of the incumbent in an era of safe districts, where the real election is a primary with poor turnout composed mostly of older voters, are almost insurmountable. and we are currently witnessing what happens when someone hits an age limit the national electorate is unwilling to accept.

avar 2y ago

> you must be younger than > the average life expectancy > (currently 73yo) - while in > office. As an aside, it's a common error to think that overall life expectancy is relevant to this sort of thing, it's not. That number includes those who die in infancy, etc. If you wanted to limit it by "life expectancy" you'd want to limit it by the statistical expected remaining years of life at the candidate's current age. For example, while the overall life expectancy in the US is around 73, for an individual at age 50 it's around 80[1]. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62591/ Edit: Even if you pick the "right" life expectancy it's still pretty weird. You want the candidate to "only" have a hypothetical 50% chance of dying due to old age before their last day in office? Then imagine something like COVID-19 happens again. Now a candidate on the cusp of being ineligible is suddenly ineligible because the latest life expectancy statistics shifted? There's a reason political systems tend to prefer boring and predictable arbitrary limits.

dangus 2y ago
Joe Biden is older than 80 lol I would want to limit it by social security retirement age. I don’t really know any 70 year olds who are “all there.”
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  I work with someone in her 80s that’s incredibly, incredibly sharp. This is just tech people being tech people, as always.
  - dangus 2y ago
    No, I’m not a “tech person,” I’m just a person. Being incredibly sharp isn’t enough for the most demanding job in the US government. We are talking international diplomatic trips with jet lag, situation room in the middle of the night military operations, basically being on-call 24/7 for any major event. Joe Biden would have been 86 upon his last year in office if he won the election this year. That’s barely 4 years before my grandmother decided she couldn’t clean her own house and cook for herself anymore and moved to an independent living facility. That’s someone who had no other job besides cooking and cleaning for herself. And she’s a member of the gender that lives longer. And she’s one of the older people in the independent living community! She’s lucky to not have transitioned to assisted living. The odds of dying as an 81 year old in any given year are 1 in 15. If you’re older than 85 your odds are 1 in 7. An 81 year old president is someone who has basically a coin flip probability of dying before the end of their term.

roenxi 2y ago

Because it doesn't solve a real problem. If you try to articulate why it is that a particular old person is president and then dig in a little bit, it quickly becomes apparent that the real problem is something else. For example, in this case, the problem isn't the Biden is old. The problem is probably somewhere in how the Democrat party of the US is picking candidates. > Putting politics aside … I admire your optimism in saying that then putting a political question to the room.

lisper 2y ago

Airline pilots have a legally mandated retirement age of 65. Running the country seems like it's at least as mission-critical as flying a plane.

foldingmoney 2y ago
iirc the pilot retirement age is at least in part due to radiation exposure.
- lisper 2y ago
  Citation needed. (I'm a (private) pilot and I've never heard this.)
curt15 2y ago
The president has a large support staff to keep the lights on most of the time. Unless the nation is physically under attack, the president's day-to-day job is probably physically less demanding than that of pilots. They have plenty of time for golf.
- wcunning 2y ago
  None of that support staff is constitutionally allowed to make the call to respond to an imminent or ongoing attack. We need a commander in chief and we need to know who that person is -- which was the whole point of the Presidential Succession Act and the 25th amendment. This isn't even a Biden thing -- we had similar issues with Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and Reagan, and I'm sure that some administrations had similar issues that were never reported or written about afterwards.
- nothercastle 2y ago
  Airplane can fly and land themselves for the most part it’s only in case of a emergency does a pilot really need to have quick judgment
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  Economic attacks are a thing.

Jerrrry 2y ago

Because it's in the constitution.

Gibbon1 2y ago

I've made that argument. Someone that agrees with it is Jimmy Carter. My opinion is if the voters are happy to send a geriatric congressman to Washington to sleep through meetings that's fine. But he shouldn't be chairing committees and other offices. That said Reagan was suffering the beginnings of dementia during the last year or two of his presidency and the world didn't end.

achievingApathy 2y ago
That's not to say it couldn't have. The Constitution and its new SCOTUS interpretation places such a heavy emphasis on the executive branch that even with safeguards and a 25th amendment, maybe protecting the electorate from itself is warranted.

29athrowaway 2y ago

Because in a catastrophic situation, like traversing the chain of succession during a crisis, can play against the survival of the country.

Rhapso 2y ago

FTR: This IS politics. This sort of conversation about public policy is what politics should be. I always recommend folks read George Washington's farewell address and it's discussion of political parties.

mortify 2y ago

The same reason we don't have a race or sex limit on the Presidency. We should only have competency limits regardless of any other factors. My grandfather died at 101. He was extremely sharp until he was 98 and on no medication. I'd vote for that 95 year-old over either of our current choices without hesitation.

everforward 2y ago
“Competency” is hard to evaluate, especially objectively, and that raises a whole host of other issues because it can’t be resolved expediently. Who raises a competency question? Who decides on it? When can the question be raised? What happens if we don’t have an answer by the time of the election, because it’s tied up in appeals? Objective qualifications are much simpler. We could argue for months about whether a president is competent, but it takes like 7 seconds to decide whether they’re older than some arbitrary bar.
newzisforsukas 2y ago
And at 98 did your Grandfather lead a country? How about a company? Manage a store? A team of employees? All these anecdotal superhuman tales fail the smell test. There is this hyped longitudinal study, but it doesn't say what roles these "superagers" were in, only that they had slightly better cognitive outcomes than their peers. No one has cognitive capacity or neuronal volume of a 35 year old at 65, not to speak of 95. It is delusional to think anyone can escape the effects of aging at this point in time. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/44/25/e2059232024 https://www.jneurosci.org/content/44/25/e2059232024

shirro 2y ago

There is an argument that in a well functioning democracy voters should be able to decide who is qualified to lead them. It shouldn't matter if the person is 20 or 80 if they are able to fulfill their obligations and win the support of voters. With a well informed population and an electoral system that fairly represents voter preferences there should be no need for arbitrary rules.

groby_b 2y ago
Setting aside the argument if any electorate is really capable of making that decision - the world has elected many questionable leaders - the big question is "what if the conditions change halfway through". That likelihood increases with age, and even the most well-informed population does not have the ability to withdraw their consent if it does.
- webninja 2y ago
  Was there a primary election this year in your state? This question is open to anyone to answer.
  - groby_b 2y ago
    How does a primary help with the "conditions changed" part? As for electing questionable leaders, no, primaries don't necessarily address that either. If you look back through US presidents, you can find a good sampling of really bad choices. (Season according to party preference). I don't think that second part is completely fixable in democracies. I do think some systems are more vulnerable to it than others, and primaries in a first-past-the-post world are one of the worse systems.
zerocrates 2y ago
Of course we already have the undemocratic age limit, just only on the low side.

bg24 2y ago

People who make the rules are the people in power, not citizens. People win power will always have the bias to do themselves a favor.

tempestn 2y ago

Because the Founders didn't think of it, and though it would obviously be a good idea now, it's no longer possible to get enough consensus on literally anything to amend the constitution.

xp84 2y ago

Like a lot of things never codified into law or the constitution — 250 years ago it seemed obvious that the voters wouldn’t do things that seem utterly insane, and that surely nobody who’s very openly, shamelessly corrupt would be elected and still maintain that support even when exposed. So here we are. So the Framers figured nobody on the cusp of senility would run, and if he did, he wouldn’t get the votes. Because both would be ridiculous. Especially considering that the only democracy they envisioned was the House, since everybody else was to be picked by nondemocratic means (essentially then, by an aristocracy, who would surely be wise enough to make a good decision).

defrost 2y ago
> it seemed obvious that the voters wouldn’t do things that seem utterly insane, and that surely nobody who’s very openly, shamelessly corrupt would be elected Credit where credit is due, it actually seemed obvious to Benjamin Franklin that such a thing was inevitable .. hence the need for close attention to the machinery of government and regularly updating the constitution. See: I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well-administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, "and can only end in despotism". Hmmm.
- fwip 2y ago
  It seems similar to the construction in the phrase, "When two people love each other, there can be no happy end to it." I'm also reminded of Jefferson's quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." I think I agree with you/them - eventually, the stochastic processes of politics will yield despotism, that natural attractor from which we may break away only with difficulty.
- mulmen 2y ago
  Or it means that despotism is a threat. I don’t see the inevitability.

gnicholas 2y ago

Put simply: it would require a constitutional amendment, and those are hard to come by. The Constitution only sets a minimum age for offices — no maximum ages.

pygar 2y ago

This mess has shown that you don't need an age limit for the presidency? He was going to lose the election exactly because of his perceived cognitive decline related to his age. The DNC is at fault for selected him as the candidate.

MrDrMcCoy 2y ago

If there's to be an age limit, I think it should be tied to the average retirement age plus 7 years. This accounts for changes in life expectancy while also allowing representation for retirees.

newzisforsukas 2y ago
It should be based in science. IMO, on evidence for when the brain starts to age in a significant way, and supplemented individually based on a robust battery of tests that represent cognitive fitness (something more demanding than n-back and stroop tests). Unfortunately, I think fantasies about living forever and politics around ageism will prevent this from ever being implemented in our lifetimes.

dbsmith83 2y ago

Because you get to vote, so explain why it needs to be a rule

guenthert 2y ago

> Why don’t they have an age limit on the president (or any elected office)? Because age is no indication of fitness for any kind of activity or role. It sure would be nice, if persons with high responsibilities would periodically undergo a fitness test. I'd think the founding fathers saw the election process as such fitness test and the electoral college as the judge of fitness of the presidential candidate.

johnisgood 2y ago
> age is no indication of fitness for any kind of activity or role. This is a generalization that overlooks the nuanced reality of human aging. Physical and cognitive functions become more pronounced in advanced age, such as above 70 or 80. Sure, age alone does not universally determine fitness for activities or roles, but it is a very important factor to consider. I am fine with fitness tests.
bitcharmer 2y ago
> Because age is no indication of fitness for any kind of activity or role Do we live on different planets. Most young people are able, most people over 80 will have mobility and/or cognition issues.
- dbsmith83 2y ago
  It still says nothing about an individual. That's why you get to vote.

siva7 2y ago

> Why don’t they have an age limit on the president (or any elected office)? In a democracy we let the pleb decide if they want a 81 year old as president (or a 18 year old). It works as intended. Putting age limits on fixed-term elected officials would go against the spirit of free elections.

nwsm 2y ago
Are you implying there isn't a minimum age for president of the United States?
defrost 2y ago
There's a minimum age > 30 to be POTUS. The "pleb" had no say whatsoever in having only Trump or Biden as a choice. Party elitists chose the horses in the race. Further, there are many more democracies than just the USofA, rules vary and you don't see the same lack of choice in some of these other democracies.

lr1970 2y ago

> Why don’t they have an age limit on the president In fact there is an age limit for an American president. They should be >= 35 y.o. We need to augment it with an upper limit. My choice would be <= 75 y.o.

evgeniysharapov 2y ago

Because it's ultimately a distrust of people. You do not trust people to realize that the candidate is old ? Where would you draw the line on limits? Age, IQ, gender, weight, height ? Of course, we should find the balance between all these limits and "intellect of the crowd".

troyvit 2y ago

There's a constitutional requirement that the candidate must be at least 35[1], which seems arbitrary to me. That was decided in 1787. I wonder what age they would have picked as a maximum age back then. I say that because (at least these days) it seems almost impossible to change, and people live a lot longer. Like we might be stuck with "Any age between 35 and 57" because people died young in 1787 relative to now. [1] https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-candidate-need-to-be-35-years-old-anyway https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-...

jjk166 2y ago
It's worth noting that the age requirements selected then were less about wisdom and experience, and more about residency in the US. The chief fear at the time was a European power manipulating the country to put a puppet in charge, so to avoid this they wanted to limit power to those who had resided in the US for a long time, but they also didn't want to preclude themselves from holding offices in the future. These numbers (35 for president, 30 for senator, and 25 for house representative) represent a compromise - note that the constitution's primary authors were 36 and 31 at the time it was signed, and the youngest signer was 26.
Suppafly 2y ago
I wonder if you can reliably adjust ages for 'inflation' like you can for other things. 35 back in 1787 has be to close to 50 or so today.

Suppafly 2y ago

>E.g., you must be younger than the average life expectancy (currently men: 73yo / female: 79) - while in office. That'd be a good way to force the government into caring about improving health and extending life expectancy.

jjk166 2y ago
Or to inaccurately collect life expectancy data.