Over three-fourths of Americans think there should be a maximum age limit for elected officials, according to a CBS News/YouGov survey.

  • hogunner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes! Term limits are the answer, not age limits. It’s effectively the same thing but protects us in two ways (instead of just one: ie age) and does so without the slippery slope that an age limit would entail.

    • Alto@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If a pilot is forced to retire at 65 due to fear of killing a couple hundred, there is absolutely zero reason someone in charge near 400 million shouldn’t have a maximum age cap

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        He means that people have different rates of cognitive decline than others, so if you like this 70 year old politician and he’s great, why not?

        I think that’s ridiculous. Term AND age limits would make much brighter futures. We should be electing officials that will have to live under the shade of the trees they planted, which is not the case for most US politicians today.

        • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah the slippery slope makes no sense. I get that there isn’t a precise date to determine the start of cognitive decline, but why not just put an avery one as a limit in the law then? We do it for expiration dates as well.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If there were age limits it should be well below the point of any cognitive decline, because it’s also about having younger people in power who can think and plan on a scale of several decades, because that’s how long they have left to live.

          I’m thinking like 50.

          • TechyDad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The problem with setting the age limit too low is that people of that age range might not feel represented.

            To give an example, I’m 48. One of my upcoming concerns is retirement. Will it be able to afford to retire? Will I need to work part time after “retiring” just to survive?

            If every politician in a position of power was too young, retirement might not seem to them to be an important issue. After all, when you’re 30, retirement seems forever away. They could enact policies that are great for people under 40 but devastating to people approaching retirement.

            That’s why, while I definitely think politicians like McConnell and Feinstein should have retired long ago, I’m leery about setting too low of a forced retirement age.

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m 31 and I’m pretty fuckin concerned with retirement. Because if I’m not now, I’ll probably never be able to.

            • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Also, you do want people with experience there. Having a rotating door of only young people doesn’t really help anything.

              • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The door wouldn’t be rotating anymore than it is now.

                And what’s your source on young people not helping anything? All the times in US history that we made the most progress were under young Democrat presidents.

                • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I didn’t say young people don’t help anything. I said having only new young people all the time doesn’t help. Having people with experience is a good thing.

                  • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Do you think JFK had no experience? He became president at 47. Did he “not help”, as you put it?

                    Your claim is not only vague but has also been presented without any reasoning.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If we made this change, it would serve as a lever to help increase the age at which we can vote. Which is what these fuckers really want.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Considering a lower age limit would have to be put in place by existing politicians, that particular slope is not slippery at all. And slippery-slope arguments are categorically invalid except when you can point to a specific reason why doing something will make it likely to be done in excess.