Over 75% of voters want maximum age limit for elected officials, poll shows
Over 75% of voters want maximum age limit for elected officials, poll shows
Over three-fourths of Americans think there should be a maximum age limit for elected officials, according to a CBS News/YouGov survey.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
We already have restrictions on other government jobs about how old you can be. And we also have term limits on the office of the President.
It's not breaking new ground or saying anything new that Congress and other elected officials should not be able to serve in excess of 10 years.
We already have restrictions on other government jobs about how old you can be.
For the sake of clarity, are you referring to the minimum age limits of U.S. government officials?
It’s not breaking new ground or saying anything new that Congress and other elected officials should not be able to serve in excess of 10 years.
My argument isn't that it should be avoided because of it's novelty, I'm saying that, in order to justify such rules, one must be of the belief that the voters are unable to determine the competency of who they elect. Given that a democracy is founded upon the idea of a government ruled by, of, and for the people, it is of paramount importance that the people be able to make such decisions for themselves.
The same logic that a person can't serve in an office until they are a specific age is just a valid reason they can't serve over a certain age. If constituents are supposed to be trusted in determining the competency of who they want to elect there should be no age limits at all.
President has a 2 term limit, so there is no reason Congress or Justices should not also be subject to predefined limits to how often they can hold an office, to say nothing of other elected officials down the line.
If constituents are supposed to be trusted in determining the competency of who they want to elect there should be no age limits at all.
This is the opinion that currently I hold.
President has a 2 term limit, so there is no reason Congress or Justices should not also be subject to predefined limits to how often they can hold an office, to say nothing of other elected officials down the line.
My argument isn't that of whether it's possible to make such rules, it is instead, from a point of principle, whether we should make such rules.
There's already a lower age limit though, so they can determine that anyone under the age of 35 is definitely not competent, but when it gets to people of older age is when it turns into an issue?
Both limits are stupid.
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; however, it should be noted that there is a difference between such a restriction based on competency, and another based on, for lack of a better term, trustworthiness, e.g. a natural born citizen clause (this is not an argument for, or against the natural born citizen clause, I'm simply outlining the scope of my previous statement).
And yet we have minimum age requirements. Why does your bullshit argument about voter autonomy not apply there?
Why do you assume people like minimum age requirements either?
The Constitution is difficult to change. I'd get rid of the "natural born citizen" bit too.
You're right, America would totally be better if we let preteens and foreign assets hold major legislative seats, totally wise outlook you've got on the topic here 🤡
"Foreign assets"
So if somebody came at 5 years old, grew up their whole life in the US, was a citizen, and millions of Americans wanted to pick them as their president..
They shouldn't be accepted because they're a foreign agent?
In my opinion you're either a citizen or you're not. There should be no difference.
It's kind of what they built the country on, didn't they?
That, and slavery of course. But that's a different discussion.
I don't think many people would vote for preteens or foreign assets.
Running a campaign does not mean you win, and if you're unlikely to win, you're unlikely to get enough support to run.
Also foreign-born Americans can be elected to the legislative branch. Ted Cruz is a notable example.
Might wanna know what you're talking about before calling someone a clown.
Somebody said my name?
In my opinion, you're too naive to participate in this conversation constructively.
Well, your opinion doesn't matter that much, so that's fine.
I can't hear your opinion over the upvotes I'm getting for my main comment
Might wanna recheck those upvotes big chief.
+3 wooo lmao
here, have an upvote. that means you're doing a good job.
Out of curiosity, what is your justification for removing a natural born citizen clause?
I don't believe that being a natural-born citizen adds any value to potential elected leaders in the modern era.
I understand that you don't think it is necessary, but I'm curious what your reasoning is, as to why?
Because it's not the 18th century any more, and people have access to various cultures across the planet.
The idea that only someone born in your country knows it well enough to lead it is, frankly, stupid.
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.
Yeah. What if one of the Dunedain came out from the shadows with the sword that was reforged and ran for President? What then?
He wouldn't be a natural born American citizen and thus couldn't run.
Given we have elected officials that are literally freezing while talking to reporters and yet would probably still win election after election? I don't think the public cares if they are competent. They just care that their party symbol is next to their name so they vote for them.
Will that really change if we added age limits? They'll just pick a successor and people will mindlessly vote for the new candidate instead.
We all know the Bidens, McConnells, Pelosi's, etc aren't really a single person. They have a whole team of people behind them who are making the decisions, doing the research, etc. You're not really voting for the person as much as the administration that comes with that person.
For example a lot of people that were part of the Obama administration are part of the Biden. The person changed but the power structure more or less remains the same.
It would be a step in the right direction.
Something doesn't need to be perfect to be better than we have today.
If we have a minimum age, we can have a maximum.
Or it's a step in no direction and doesn't actually do anything. Realistically a step in no direction is a step in the wrong direction because of opportunity cost - time spent that could have been spent doing something useful.
The idea behind a minimum age is that there is a certain experience that you get as you age. 25 year olds simply don't have it. A max limit doesn't make sense using that reasoning - you don't lose experience as you age.
However, I agree that it's inconsistent to have one and not the other. I say remove both - let the people decide who they want to vote for.
Just because you don’t like to doesn’t make it a step in the wrong direction stranger.
You very much lose perspective with age. You nearest you to ask any of the people you listed what concerns a 25 year old they represent. I promise you they haven’t a clue.
Reasonable limits are reasonable for elected officials. I fly and we age out pilots for this very reason.
It would have prevented the Trump disaster and that's really all I care about.
The question does still remain whether the public not caring about the competency level of a specific elected official is grounds to restrict their voter autonomy. An argument could certainly be made that voting in a less competent candidate could be a strategic move.
Reasonable restrictions can and should be made. You cannot elect a baby, you cannot elect a rock, you shouldn't be electing someone who clearly isn't medically capable of doing their job anymore.
I'm not overly convinced that such restrictions are truly necessary at scale. When we are dealing with "large" populations, these sorts of edge-cases begin to become extremely improbable. While they would indeed remain possible, I would argue that if they were to actually end up occurring, that would be as a symptom of a much more serious societal breakdown which would most likely indicate an imminent collapse. That being said, if there was to be some explicit restriction, I believe that it is sufficient to state that individual must be, at least, a naturalized citizen. There could also be some other clause added for the sake of ensuring that the individuals interests are in that of the nation's -- like the natural-born citizen clause in the U.S.A; however, I personally haven't come to a decision on whether I agree with that, or not.
Plenty of things are edge cases and yet we still have laws for them.
These people are there from institutional failure, not merit or meaningful support if their citizens.
These people are there from institutional failure, not merit or meaningful support if their citizens.
They are there because they were voted in.
Aye, you hue the problem that needs fixing.
Did you mistype something? That comment doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding how it is written. Would you mind rewording, or explaining what you mean?
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.
First past the post at work
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.
That makes sense until you remember Biden won the presidential election
To be fair, the election was between a 74 and 78 year old.
From what I can gather, Biden's victory was due to a more of a strategic vote, than a vote truly for Biden.
Not like there was much of a choice
Agreed. This is my fundamental issue with the constant call for term limits.
This mindset is not conducive to a properly functioning democracy.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/De4_ZqMwuOg?si=nDGmxBwiIWjbdB2i
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I'm willing to concede to that accurate idea
You're overthinking it. Babies can't run for office and that's a good thing.
I would argue, with a rather high degree of confidence, that this would never occur. If it did, it would certainly indicate a complete degredation in the core functions of the government, as well as the trust that the public has in its operation -- I suspect that a revolution would be imminent. Furthermore, due its unstable nature, I would wager that it would be rather fleeting.
solid troll