I think it should be younger. Maybe 65.
Members of Congress and SCOTUS should also have term limits
I’m onboard with 65 as the maximum age anyone can run for Congress but I don’t have a problem with people 65+ finishing their terms provided they’re actually competent. I’d like to see mandatory cognitive decline testing for anyone running for Congress, appointed to the SC or appointed to any high position in the executive branch.
It’s absolutely ridiculous that we’re allowing people with 5-7y remaining life expectancy to plan our future 20, 40 or 100y out - they just don’t have the skin in the game that someone in their 20s or 30s does.
On top of all of that I’d like to see vigorous corruption testing, SC justices and congresscreatures shouldn’t be bought and paid for the way they are now.
Yeah that sounds reasonable. You can at most finish your current term once you’re past 65. And term-limit everything, Justices, whatever.
“After many decades of civil service, it is time for the state to give back to our hard working representatives. Therefore they will be retired in januray of the year following their 65th birthday”
“January 6th has for the last few years been a reminder of an embarrassing moment in our history, well no longer! January 6th shall henceforth be known as a day of celebration, celebrating not only long and faithfull service but also new talents, skills and hope for the furue! Join us, as we once again rejuvinate our government to keep our nation strong and dependable!”
I agree on the legislature, but not the court. The legislature has to plan for the future. Their age should be below the average life expectancy. They need to have a foreseeable future for us to allow them to plan ours.
I would resolve the instability of the court by eliminating its fixed size. One new justice shall be appointed every other year. In the odd-numbered years, between election cycles.
This will tend to increase the size of the court over time. The average term length is currently about 16 years, but that is with strategic retirements. I would expect the average term to increase to 24 to 36 years, leaving us with a court of 12 to 18 justices.
Honest question, what do we do that we are now living longer, and have better quality of life and medical advancements? With AI progressing exponentially, this will likely increase average lifespans in developed countries. You might be arguing against your own comments here when you hit 65 and realize you still maintain mental acuity and are thriving.
Personally, I feel like we should be spending our time and focus on fixing a number of other issues. Namely lobbying, special interest groups tied to anti-consumer companies, ‘slap on the wrist’ fines for billion dollar companies, predatory lending, student loans. I mean the list goes on. These things aren’t an age problem, it’s a corruption problem.
You might be arguing against your own comments here when you hit 65 and realize you still maintain mental acuity and are thriving.
I’m not running for office nor scotus. But if I were, I’d hope reason would dictate sensible policy, not magical thinking about whatever far-off technological theoretical you might imagine.
Then you are not apprised of history.
In 1900, the average life expectancy of a newborn was 32 years. By 2021 this had more than doubled to 71 years.
But life expectancy has increased at all ages. Infants, children, adults, and the elderly are all less likely to die than in the past, and death is being delayed.
This remarkable shift results from advances in medicine, public health, and living standards. Along with it, many predictions of the ‘limit’ of life expectancy have been broken.
I’m not saying we’ll be doubling lifespans, but if you looked at the big picture, we’ve made HUGE strides and advances in a very short period of time. Especially if you consider how long humans have been around. Now we have CRISPR gene editing for example, and very obviously artifical intelligence/machine learning will grow exponentially fast.
This is not “magical thinking” about “far-off technological” theory. This is modern day and recent history, and already we expect global life expectancy to increase by nearly 5 years by 2050 despite geopolitical, metabolic, and environmental threats.
I also didn’t say anything about ignoring policy in lieu of science, and pointed out several areas I personally feel could use attention. However that is my own opinion… Just like you on running/not for office.
It is also clear that some aged people are ‘sharp’ to the end, just as some can be debilitated earlier to disease and age. Sensible policy is also welcome. I just don’t think we should lump everyone together using an arbitrary metric.
I’m glad you have a hobby tracking the historical progress of life-extending technology, but I find your entire premise to be a straw man.
I have no concern about them not living long enough. So your magical “maybes” and “it could happens” are completely irrelevant.
Yes, aside from their senility, our politicians are simply way too out of touch to comprehend the average American’s issues. Spent most of their life in politics with the easiest 6 figure salary (plus bribes) you can have.
Granted politicians will probably remain out of touch but I’d like to imagine it’d be better
Yeah. Hard for them to relate when they all grew into wealth, lived sheltered lives, spend all day doing office work/politics.
Let them live off of 40k a year and see how their demeanor changes.
No, because I would lower even further to 65.
Shit I’d go even lower. Gotta be young enough to have some skin in the game when it comes to the consequences of legislation, etc.
Fair enough, you’re less likely to vote for shit policies if you know that you’re going to be living with them. And even if you do vote for shit policies and end up living with them, it was entirely your damn fault. And you just brought it on yourself.
+1
Let’s do it slightly differently, let’s make the mandatory retirement age for political office the median life expectancy age for the entire country. If the politicians, etc can manage to make everyone live longer, they can hold office longer.
Similarly, take away their separate and different medical coverage and put them on the same Medicare system everyone else in the country has to use.
Make it 75% the median life expectancy and it’s a deal.
I love the idea but if anyone knows how to fudge numbers it’s them.
It will only be a matter of time before you hear that the median life expectancy for Americans is 125.
I think they should also be paid using their state’s disability/unemployment system and get food through their state’s EBT system.
And have to live in section 8 housing while in DC
Wonderful idea.
Yes I’d like to vote for your policies
Oh hell yeah.
Force them to use the public option. Make a law to specifically disallow all congresspersons from enrolling in private insurance for as long as they hold office. Violation of that restriction is immediate ejection from the relevant legislative chamber.
We would have single payer by next Tuesday.
I agree with this take, especially since us younger people are going to be the anti-aging-drug guinea pigs.
First I would support campaign finance reform and watch 90% of the problems be solved.
Then I would tackle the other 10% by making voting more accessible - especially in primaries. Make it so accessible that even young voters bother to do it. That way people will choose younger reps more often.
So no, I wouldn’t support putting a bandaid on one issue and ignoring the root causes.
Should make voting a week long thing so people have more time to go. The last day should be a national holiday.
75?
Fuck that. Social security retirement age.
Maybe don’t bring social security retirement age until it. They already want to raise that. This would just be another excuse to do it.
Let’s compromise and make it 69.
65 is what it should be. They have no fucking clue what most people need.
My parents are close to 65 and completely out of touch. If you turn 65 during your next term you should be ineligible.
If having no clue what most people need is the metric, were eliminating pretty much everyone from consideration.
No, I would support it being locked to the national retirement age though, which would be 67 at the moment.
Wouldn’t that give an extra incentive to raise the retirement age?
That would give politicians another reason to raise the retirement age, in order to stay in power.
Not just no, hell no.
People like to think that the seventies is when you automatically lose your ability to think and do anything useful. That’s bullshit; it’s individual, genetics combined with access to good nutrition, healthcare, etc.
I used to work as a nurse’s assistant, specifically in home health where the patients were often at home with spouses, and other age peers. I had patients as old as their 90s that could still function mentally just fine, but had physical issues. I had patients older than that too, several just past 100, but they really wouldn’t have been able to be a walmart greeter.
But even with the patients that did suffer cognitive difficulties, there were plenty of family members and friends that didn’t. Most people suffer only minor cognitive decline in their seventies. Given otherwise good health, there’s no necessity for someone without a diagnosis that would prevent them from doing their job to be forced to retire.
What we need are term limits, not ageist bullshit. The problem isn’t age, or even a given political bent, it’s the accumulation of power and influence that then becomes a commodity open for purchase, leading to corruption.
Now, I wouldn’t object to mandatory fitness evaluations, but that’s going to be as corruptible as anything else political. I certainly think some specific diagnoses should exclude someone from making decisions for the entire nation, that affect the entire world, but that’s a tough thing to make happen, much less make work.
But age? Age is absolutely not a factor in fitness for any public office. Hell, I’m of the mind that none of the elected offices should have minimum ages, beyond a national age of adulthood so that the people in the position aren’t immediately beholden to someone like a parent. Pick whatever arbitrary age you want for that, and we’re good to go as long as it passes muster legally.
I agree with the Idea that being in a position for too long increases the possibility of corruption. But, I’ll counter with two thoughts:
1.) Shouldn’t people have the ability to vote for who they want to represent them? If the people of Vermont want to keep on rejecting Bernie Sanders, why should they not be able to? (Valid counterpoint- Dianne Feinstein)
2.) This is the less trivial one - I fear that term limits would invite more corruption, as the representatives understand they only have a limited amount of time to grease as many palms and make as many connections as possible in their limited amount of time in office. We already have issues with the lame duck period, and those are currently measured in weeks. I can only imagine what I’d be like if a large portion of reps had full lame duck sessions.
There are plenty of other things we could do to limit corruption before we rule out term limits for that reason. We could also think about politicians who feel more free to “do the right thing” even when unpopular because they won’t be afraid about winning the next election.
Term limits have been shown to create ‘brain drain’, and ultimately what winds up happening is that that legislators must focus on career growth - either spending their time in office campaigning for the next elected position, or looking to opportunities beyond politics. It takes time and experience to become skilled in crafting bills that don’t have adverse effects and cannot be overturned or lawyered to do things they aren’t intended to do.
The net result is that it creates a slew of amateur legislators, and professional lobbyists, as legislators are forced to retire just as they become skilled at the job.An alternative to a retirement age is mental/physical fitness reviews, but that’s also tricky. If there isn’t a defined process then unscrupulous people will just use a doctor of choice to get the results they want, but if there is a process, politicizing that process to serve one party or the other could mean using mandatory retirement to force key vacancies.
I do think that at some point we need to pry the hands of people off the levers of power, and I can’t think of a way that is as ‘non-corruptible’ as a set age limit. It would not always be personally fair, but it would probably be for the greater good.
I’m honestly saddened by how far down I had to scroll to see a post that called this out as blatant agism.
No; it should be 60.
Lifetime appointments to the supreme court are obviously a mistake; the idea there is to make them secure in their jobs so they don’t have to politik from the bench. It doesn’t account for actually evil people digging in like parasites in the heart of our government. They should serve a single 10 year term, at which point no matter their age they must retire and then serve no further roles ever again. Like, you’re not allowed to go be a senator, or a congressman, or a governor, or a Walmart greeter. You can volunteer to speak to law students, you can retire, or you can die. Minimum punishment for a sitting or former supreme court justice for any crime: jay walking, copyright infringement, speeding, embezzling, mass murder: instant death. The guilty/not guilty verdict is read to your firing squad. The members of our highest court should be nothing less than absolute exemplars of citizenship.
The house and senate should have maximum terms of not ten years each; the senate currently has 6 year terms, that would have to be shortened, possibly to four. Wouldn’t hurt my feelings if we eliminated those mid-election years so we could have some time away from being screamed at by our so-called government. You want a full career in politics? You start at the local or state level, then you run for federal office.
I would make prior office a requirement for President. As far as I’m concerned, you have no business serving as president if you have not already been a senator, congressman, governor, state senator or general assemblyman. I do not believe town council or city mayor should count here because of the low barrier to entry for buying 10 acres of rural land and incorporating it as a town with one resident and electing yourself mayor.
Minimum punishment for a sitting or former supreme court justice for any crime:
instant death.
I like you.
Yeah, but probably I’d make it lower (like 67) and allow exceptions with large majority (like a four year exception with a two thirds or three quarters vote of the senate).
I also think Supreme Court justices should have terms and term limits, and shouldn’t be allowed to receive gifts over a certain value (like $2,000).
I really do think term limits are a better solution than a hard age cap. Term limits would help address the age issue, and it would also make “career politician” a less viable career. That’s a bigger problem imo - politicians doing politics for profit, as a career, rather than as a civic duty. That’s a big part of why we have younger Republicans like MTG, Lauren Boebert, JD Vance, etc. whom a hard age cap would not effect for another couple decades at least.
Not an original idea by far, but I was chatting it up with a few friends recently about this and we thought a civic duty term made far more sense (think jury duty). So much needs to be fixed in the process, like the bill riders addons (a horrible scourge to our political system) and lobbyist (scum). But imagine you were picked (randomly) to serve for 3 year stints, with those getting picked for a 2nd and maybe even 3rd term, serving as some Senior politician. Clearly it needs much more thought, but far better potential because you have to participate and accountable.
Before you knock it down, think about the intelligence required here. Boebert is an absolute moron. Bills before the system need to be something the average person can understand (legal verbiage is such a pointless waste and almost unnecessary). You would need to participate in collaboration with others, understand how to be honest and forthcoming with your goals.
We can’t hold Politicians accountable (not the system today) and this could be an answer.
Ah, the Athenian model.
I think having some kind of required civics course for the random sounds appointees would do well. Legal language exists for reasons that go beyond being deliberately obtuse, so it could still be used to try and reduce ambiguity
legal verbiage is such a pointless waste and almost unnecessary
Wow. I like the rest of your position, but being precise in language, and understanding what things mean legally is extremely important.
Yeah, I think I’m talking about the purposeful legal jargon used to deceive or be arguable vague and 20 pages long for no reason but to hide that fact. I’m all about precision, but it needs to be something an average person would comprehend if we were to adopt this method.
Nah, I don’t think my issue is with age; it’s with lifelong politicians. Introduce term limits.
deleted by creator
No I’m for term limits. Each presidential election the popular vote should go to decide the party that gets to nominate the next justice. The first one in has to retire at that same time.
I also think we should increase the size of the court and cycle in/out two every four years - somewhere around where we’d have 20 year term limits. Side bonus, I think it’d be a benefit for all of us that the court has a larger variety of voices and be more difficult to hack the way the GOP has this court.
It’s not the age, the length, or how many times you’ve been reelected, but getting elected in the first place has such a high barrier, massive gerrymandering, and more.
I think we need staggered term limits. Make it so you can only serve up to two terms in a row and then you are forced to take a term off. No lifetime appointments.
That and approval voting from federal to local elections.
Term limits for representatives and Senators are actually very toxic. It’s a great way to make the parties monolithic and entrench party patronage systems even more.
Why is that?
Okay this isn’t a topic that you can do a tiny take on. You’ve had the Tl;Dr already above so before I tell you why Term Limits are a bad idea let me tell you some good ideas. I’ll do my best not to write a whole paper though. :)
- The House of Representatives can be enlarged to the point that lobbying loses it effectiveness versus the power of constituents. According to the original ratio of Representatives to people we should have ~10,000 Representatives now. Now I get that some people see that as extreme. That’s 1 Representative per 30,000 people. But the current ratios are around 1 Representative per 750,000 people. There’s a lot of room for negotiation in there and the number of Representatives is set by law, not the Constitution. Even halving that ratio would make it easier for people to run for office, and easier for people to engage with their Representative. Plus, with modern technology, there’s no reason we need to feel beholden to a building. Representatives can spend more time in their district, working in committees and voting remotely.
- Many people are more concerned with senility or operating under outdated knowledge than they are with politics as a career. For this we can institute an Age Cap instead of Term Limits. Like the military we can designate being an elected official as a sensitive job and require retirement after a certain age. (The military requires it at 62) This largely avoids the problems with Term Limits while making sure we aren’t choosing a single generation to be the bulk of our Representatives and Senators.
- Lastly, we can take steps to get dark money back out of politics and enforce bribery laws that are already on the books. Sadly though this has turned into an issue for SCOTUS reform and abuse of congressional oversight for the FBI.
So Term Limits. They create three massive problems. The Party becomes the brand instead of the politician. Cycling legislators too often creates an experience issue that can be exploited by lobbyists and party officials. Finally, rich donors and think tanks have more money than the current system has excess legislators. There’s more than this but these are the big three poison pills.
When we go to vote we vote based on a politician’s brand. It’s an American thing among western democracies. Other countries have recognizable party leaders but we’re fairly unique in voting by individual name. This makes name recognition the number one hurdle any aspiring politician must get over. And the reason ads use the name they support 10 times in 30 seconds, while almost never mentioning the opponent. And when they do it’s in audio/visual scare quotes. It’s why incumbents have such an advantage. They’ve been on your news feed for years building their brand.
Term Limits turns that on its head. As we cycle through politicians there will be very little incumbent advantage. There will be far more people vying for your attention. Which means money. It’s very expensive to get your name out there. So whose going to pay that bill? If the candidate isn’t wealthy enough then it has to be PACs or the Party. (99% of us are not wealthy enough) Yes candidates can ask for donations, but unless they’ve got an independent source of name recognition, like being a renowned football coach, people aren’t going to be very forthcoming. So we discover the method by which the Party becomes the brand. People need a familiar face to give money to. It’s the same reason corporations use well known actors in their ads. Now this means another thing though. If the Party controls the branding, because it’s how the money comes in, then the Party controls the money. And this also means they control who the money goes to. They get to pick the party candidate without ever interfering in the vote. This actually already happens to an extent. But Term Limits would pour gas on the fire, making this effect much worse.
So now we have Party chosen legislators we need to move on to the next problem, experience. Career politicians know who to call for technical advice, or at the very least they know when they should seek it. Those connections don’t exist with freshmen and junior representatives. They’re completely at the mercy of experienced staff, lobbyists, and the party that likely provided their staff. (You want our money, you use our people) For example, with Term Limits, they’d be getting forced out right around the time they figured out which military officer they could rely on for a no bullshit assessment of a weapons program. Then there’s experience in crafting legislation.
Just recently SCOTUS had a case about releasing inmates with drug convictions and the eligibility terms. The case hung on the proper English grammar of a list. Only it’s SCOTUS so it’s actually an exercise in making the grammar twist their way politically. And that’s with experienced legislators. We already know how the parties would solve this problem though. Pre-written legislation is a thing in most of our state legislatures. The lobbyists actually write the bill, complete with [insert state name here] type entries. One such example, the HOPE act made it harder for people to get food stamps. The exact same wording, in nine states. This kind of rubber stamp legislature will only get worse with Term Limits. Because politicians need to get re-elected, or at least until they reach their lame duck period. And anyone who doesn’t toe the line doesn’t get their campaign funded.
Which brings us to point three. Why would a lame duck Representative or Senator keep toeing the line? Because they’re human, they probably have a family, and they’d like to get paid to stay in the game doing what they know. It’s a lot better then the uncertainty of a career switch, and the Party is always hiring. In fact maxing your term with good behavior could become a pre-requisite for higher party positions. Don’t worry there’s always an exception for the inordinately wealthy. It’s that wealth that’s going to pay for the cushy landing of ex legislators in board rooms, think tanks, and party positions across America. The only difference is it might become a time limited deal instead of an actual sinecure like it is now. But it would still be life changing money and networking for most people. The important part here though is you must remain loyal to the party, you must vote the way they tell you to vote, and you must stump for your pre-selected replacement.
The two major parties already have way too much influence in our system. And the natural competitor stops being independent candidates or third parties. It becomes the lobbyists themselves. After all if campaigns become even more aligned with money, then who has more money than private multi national corporations?
Love me some approval voting. Let’s make that shit happen.
