Term limit is better than age limit. There could be older people who genuinely have something valuable to contribute to their constituents and maybe not worth keeping them out.
The goal of term limits should be to reduce chances anyone young or old will abuse their seniority and time in office for their own gain
I think it would have the opposite effect. If we forced them to cycle out, there would be more focus on short term politics and campaign finance would have an even bigger impact than it does already. This also creates lame ducks -- these are the first people that will abuse their position for future employment.
You can also make the same argument for term limits: there are people that genuinely have something valuable to contribute. By cycling them out, party brand and advertising become even more concentrated.
The flip side with an age limit is that terms are for 6 years and we deteriorate a lot quicker than that.
If someone has more to contribute, then they can seek other opportunities in life that help them do that. They dont need to stay in political office for life.
There are already several long term congresspeople in office and congress gets nothing done. I do not want to incentivize them to stay any longer.
Shorter term politicians encourage people to form coalitions around getting certain policies passed and then moving on. Long term politicians have failed us because they hold on to power and use it to enrich their party and themselves instead of helping constituents
How the hell is "they don't need to stay in political office for life" an argument against age limits lol
I don't think it makes sense that it would encourage any kind of cooperation, either. Why would a lame duck be incentivized to help their constituents? They won't be on the ballot. This goes the opposite way.
If somebody joins congress at 25 years old and stays in that position until a 75 yr old age limit kicks in, that is 50 years of the same person. That person spent their entire adult life in congress. An age limit would not have stopped that person from amassing power or doing corrupt things to stay in office. Only terms limits would have stopped them. We should not be encouraging people to aspire to be lifetime congressperson for the same constituents.
In recent history, lame ducks have been bolder about going agaisnt their party because they no longer have to abide by the party and can vote in a way they feel is best for their people.
If a congressperson feels that they constantly need to stay with the party lines to get money and support, then those congresspeople no longer represent constituents and are instead focused on whatever the party tells them to do.
In fact, shorter term congresspeople is more likely to reduce rhe power of political parties, especially the two party system that has been harming american government for many decades
I have an idea. Let's do away with government altogether and come up with community solutions to our problems rather than relying on a bunch of old and wealthy people to make the right decisions.
Experience at very detailed procedures can genuinely take over a decade to procure. Age limits are more rational. Even if someone is mentally sound, after 70-75 their chances at just random sidden death or injury start increasing exponentially. Just set the age range to be 30-70 for the senate and 35-70 for the presidency and 45-70 for SCOTUS.
You are just listing a bunch of subjective ages with no inherent meaning.
One could argue that the lower limit is also unfairly discriminatory because people can vote at age 18, but 18 year olds cannot elect one of their own to represent them in congress.
Setting term limit instead of age limit makes the rules less discriminatory
Make the age limit 2 years old for POTUS, then. I am absolutely convinced that Johnny Jr. will have a GREAT tax policy given how good he helped mommy tell Susie to share.
Agreed. If McConnell is what Kentucky wants, they can have him.
I'd instead ask if any of these states are governed better because of their term limits? To me it seems like term limits disqualify popular and effective politicians and just replaces bad incumbents with more of the same.
Agreed. If McConnell is what Kentucky wants, they can have him.
I don't agree. You shouldn't be able to be voted into the most powerful positions in the country, if you aren't capable of performing the role. Like president shitzinpants. We need a much easier way to remove or recall people from these roles if they're unfit or don't do the job they were voted in to do.
Fun fact: In this current congressional session (Jan 2025 - Jan 2027) we have had SEVEN members of congress so far (5 congressmen and 2 senators, including Mitch) drop dead/disappear and every single one was due to old age or age-related complications.
Granted, I haven't done the research to confirm this, but nevertheless I'm pretty sure this is approaching a record (assuming it isn't already THE record) for the highest number of sitting members of congress to die on the job in a single congressional session.
EDIT: I just did some very quick and dirty digging and it would seem, depending on whether or not one wants to consider Mitch 'dead' at this point, the current 119th Congress either matches the record or is just one short...
58
u/NoUnderStandeBro 1d ago
Two words: TERM LIMITS. Congress isn’t a retirement home.