politics

The problem is people like, "their," geriatric. Ed Markey is my Senator, and he says he'll be seeking reelection in two years when he'll be 80. Even though I think he's been a pretty good Senator, I want him to retire at the end of term, but I'm probably in the minority, and it will be an uphill battle to primary him if he doesn't choose to step down.

Well, we cannot even stop them from insider training. Then there is the problem of all the legalized bribery....I would think age limits faces much more of an uphill battle, even without the moral quandary it poses.

The idea is that we choose every election.

They are our fucking employees.

Only in the same way your landlord or your bank is your employee. The positions have been monopolized by a handful of cartel brokers and the real job of administering is in the hands of corporate lackeys puffed up through billions of dollars in sales and marketing. Liberal democracy has been defanged by market forces.

We should have made a provision for National referendum For things like this.

There's no such thing as a "national referendum", legally speaking. We don't vote on legislation, just on bureaucrats. And the bureaucrats we get to vote on are selected first by the donors, then by the party, and only finally by the general electorate.

Nobody we elect has any incentive to cap the age or number of terms they hold office. Why would they vote against their collective best interests?

It would still be age discrimination. The way to go is term limits.

I'm still not entirely convinced that she's not a lich, tbh

If that means the Democratic Party starts to transform by bringing in younger, more left people while the Republicans stagnate, this could be good.

So?

It's a lot harder for their voters to excuse it when only one party does it. Which hurts them in elections.

And that's not even getting into how those geriatric politicians are a disadvantage. They have to be physically present to vote. And the majority leader could actually try to do something every day.

Eventually enough would be missing that things could be accomplished.

There's literally nothing stopping us from trying except the lack of effort from our politicians, so let's get better ones and let the Republicans keep their ineffectual ones.

What's the problem?

As long as they keep putting in replacements that's are younger, this is a good strategy. The problem would be if they lose their seats, but if it puts the GOP further out of touch with voters and pushes Democrats closer, I'm all for it.

It’s progress.

now the Democratic pols are going to step down to “set a good example”

Republicans used to do this as a party function. The idea of seats, particularly at the lower tiers of government, being term-limited and up-or-out helped create new opportunities for younger aspiring politicians to participate in the party and aspire towards higher office.

If your only way into the next rung of office is through a miserable primary against an entrenched incumbent or patiently waiting for a 70-year-old politician to die of old age, you've got very little reason to try and climb the ladder. But if you know each seat opens up every six to twelve years, and the line of aspiring politicians is forever moving forward, then there's a reason to be a mid-level party official competing with other mid-level party officials looking for the next opening in the rooster.

Same thing happens in business with C-level executives. You have a bunch of hungry VPs all gunning for the next President/CEO job. Then you have your CEOs/Presidents retire onto the corporate boards every few years to make room for the next crop of talent. People want to join your company at the junior level because they see a path to seniority, rather than a dead-end role doing middle management bullshit for the rest of your life.

Thankfully, her replacement is 38.