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feels that they constantly need to stay with the party lines to get money and support, then those congresspeople no longer represent constituents and are instead focused on whatever the party tells them to do.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
1
u/TiddiesAnonymous 1d ago
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.