Asklemmy

I think it should be younger. Maybe 65.

Members of Congress and SCOTUS should also have term limits

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

No, because I would lower even further to 65.

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.

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.

75?

Fuck that. Social security retirement age.

65 is what it should be. They have no fucking clue what most people need.

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.

No, I would support it being locked to the national retirement age though, which would be 67 at the moment.

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).

No; it should be 60.

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.

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.

Nah, I don't think my issue is with age; it's with lifelong politicians. Introduce term limits.

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.

65 to match Social Security.

I'd support a four-term limit for the Senate, six-term limit for the House, and one term in the Supreme Court for a period of time not to exceed 20 years.

Yes, but agree with most of the other comments here. It should be lowered to 65-67 instead.

Not a retirement age but to run for public office, I think the candidate should have at least 20 years of median actuarial life expectancy remaining. They need to make long-term decisions so they better be around to see how it goes. Right now this is age 60 for men and age 64 for women. In the future it may go as high as 70. If you really wanted to push it I think 18 years would be symmetrical with childhood. First 18 and “last 18” you can’t be in office.

no. bernie is a great example of why age is no restriction to being a good politician. you people have to stop trying to use goose and gander legislation to stop conservatives. you stop conservatives by STOPPING CONSERVATIVES.

No.

1. I think that 75 is already too old, especially because they won’t let go of their positions until their terms end even after the “mandated” age of retirement (unless the law specifically forbids taking a position you won’t be able to complete)
2. Politicians will argue that this age is either too young or too old and will either never update this law, or update it so often it becomes meaningless.

An alternative could be to set the limit to a percentage of average life expectancy, or some other variable, so the law isn’t as easy to ignore or mess with, the law can remain unchanged for decades and remain relevant without adverse effects (hopefully), and politicians are encouraged to improve the quality of life.

Not just retirement, put them in a machine that extrudes protein paste and use that to feed the next crop of legislators.

If you retire early, you don't get put in the machine.

No. I think age plays a factor into power dynamics (more time to accrue wealth and all), but not enough in our current life spans to be an issue.

Term limits though I support because the ability to manipulate the voting system for decades is far to enticing and creates perverse incentives.

Absolutely. Maybe younger. Politicians shouldn't be able to vote on issues that will have major effects that they won't have to live through. I also think we should disenfranchise people minus 18 years. Give politicians a reason to support policies that increase public health to increase the voting age.

People who bought a house and went to college for the same price of college nowadays do not know what the world is like today

Absolutely. Being senile is a big liability.

I support this Pipe Dream.

Unfortunately, this isn't a Congress that will vote to limit its own power.

Yes, because of the risk of elder abuse. And just being absolutely out of touch with the general population.