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

  • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • TheLurker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      You mean like how most places don’t let you vote before you turn 18 because it is accepted that children have not developed the cognitive ability to make sound decisions in regards to electing officials?

      That kind of implication?

      Yeah old people don’t have to see the failures of their poor decision making skills. They lack the understanding that their ideas and ideals are based in a world that no longer exists.

      I think once you get over 80 it is time to step aside and let the world move forward.

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You mean like how most places don’t let you vote before you turn 18 because it is accepted that children have not developed the cognitive ability to make sound decisions in regards to electing officials?

        This is a strawman argument. OP was talking about an age limit for elected officials, whereas you are now talking about age restrictions on the voters. Yes, we are both talking about cognitive decline in decision making; however there is a substantial difference between putting an age limit on those who can be in power vs. putting an age limit on those who can decide who is in power.

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

        I think once you get over 80 it is time to step aside and let the world move forward.

        I don’t necessarily disagree, but how do we prevent this logic from being used to disenfranchise voters above the max age? If they’re not sharp enough to make decisions in the government, how are they sharp enough to vote?

        I see two options, if we’re going to have limits on serving in Congress. One, they maintain the right to vote for the same reason 18 year olds do – they’re legally considered adults, and they deserve a say in matters that affect them, like wars. Two, people above the age can’t vote, but no law which passes can affect their day to day. They wouldn’t need to pay taxes, social security and Medicare payments would be guaranteed to not go down for them, and they generally aren’t held as autonomous adults in legal matters.

        This is a can of worms, and needs to be carefully handled.

      • aidan@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are plenty of perfectly capable and intelligent people until the day they die. People are individuals not the average of their demography.

        • TheLurker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          And there are plenty of capable, smart and thoughtful children as well.

          That’s not how laws work. Laws are made for the 1% that fuck it up for the rest of us. Or they are made based on the average.

          You can’t have laws that are based on individuals, they have to be broad by definition or else they are unenforceable or they are oppressive towards certain groups.

          Also the average of a demographic is exactly that. The average. To suggest that no-one is the average is either nieve or disingenuous.

          Demographics, like most things are a bell curve and most of us are no more than one standard deviation from the mean.

          • aidan@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I agree, I oppose a minimum age on holding office as well.

            You can’t have laws that are based on individuals, they have to be broad by definition or else they are unenforceable or they are oppressive towards certain groups.

            Yes you can and do, thats why courts exist

            Demographics, like most things are a bell curve and most of us are no more than one standard deviation from the mean.

            Any bell curve across hundreds of millions of people has hundreds of thousands to millions of outliers.

            Also the average of a demographic is exactly that. The average. To suggest that no-one is the average is either nieve or disingenuous.

            Basically no one is average across a sufficiently large number of discriminators.

        • talkstothecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          For me, the main issue isn’t the increased risk of cognitive decline, it’s the fact that I share very few life experiences with people born before the invention of color tv, and someone who has another 5-15 years left will be less impacted by policy decisions than someone who’s going to be around for another 50-60 years. Octogenarians are not representative of the majority of the population and, in a representative democracy, I think that is important consideration.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

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

        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.

        • Rakonat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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).

    • Vespair@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      And yet we have minimum age requirements. Why does your bullshit argument about voter autonomy not apply there?

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

        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.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Vespair@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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 🤡

          • kava@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “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.

            • HerbalGamer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s kind of what they built the country on, didn’t they?

              That, and slavery of course. But that’s a different discussion.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

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

          Out of curiosity, what is your justification for removing a natural born citizen clause?

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

            I don’t believe that being a natural-born citizen adds any value to potential elected leaders in the modern era.

            • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I understand that you don’t think it is necessary, but I’m curious what your reasoning is, as to why?

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

    • Toadiwithaneye@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

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

        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.

    • UFO64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • kava@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • UFO64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • kava@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • UFO64@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

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

                You very much lose perspective with age

                I’d argue the opposite. Experience gives perspective. When I was 25 the world was tiny. I could only see what was in front of my nose. I thought I knew what I was doing - I didn’t.

                Sure, at a certain point you lose touch with the new generations. But the leaders of this country aren’t trying to make the best country for 25 year olds. They’re trying to make the best country for everyone. Also, average age is about 40 iirc

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

                  But the leaders of this country aren’t trying to make the best country for 25 year olds. They’re trying to make the best country for everyone.

                  And they’re failing, because they’re old, and too many of them don’t believe in climate change. It’s not hard. Get all the old people out immediately.

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • UFO64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

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

            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.

            • UFO64@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

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

                These people are there from institutional failure, not merit or meaningful support if their citizens.

                They are there because they were voted in.

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

                    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?

    • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah. What if one of the Dunedain came out from the shadows with the sword that was reforged and ran for President? What then?

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.