• RaoulDook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It shouldn’t be allowed, by having term limits for all members of Congress and possibly an age cap. I would be OK with an age cap of 75 for anyone running for election, with exceptions for those who are already in office and surpass that age. After their term ends past age 75 they must retire. Term limits… maybe 2 or 3 terms, not sure

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Make it more scientifically oriented, peg it to the average age of noticeable mental decline caused by aging, at present that’s still mid to late 60s but it’ll feel less “arbitrary”

        • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately, anything that isn’t a hard number is just going to turn into a political cluster fuck.

          “What does ‘noticable’ mean? Let’s argue this for 30 years and never come to a decision.”

          The best way to “future” proof it would be to make the age get lower every decade until another constitutional amendment is passed.

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well with mental decline there’s actual diagnostic standards that can be applied to determine the statistical average.

            Like I said, we already have a general range, and a more precise number which can flex as statistics change wouldn’t be that much harder to achieve.

            I believe putting it under standards of medical and mental diagnosis protects it once it’s set in as a norm, a number is just a number, but a calculated number based on medical statistics exposes anyone challenging it to accusations of trying to weaken the government by opening the door for people in mental decline to cling on to power.

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well with mental decline there’s actual diagnostic standards that can be applied to determine the statistical average.

            Like I said, we already have a general range, and a more precise number which can flex as statistics change wouldn’t be that much harder to achieve.

            I believe putting it under standards of medical and mental diagnosis protects it once it’s set in as a norm, a number is just a number, but a calculated number based on medical statistics exposes anyone challenging it to accusations of trying to weaken the government by opening the door for people in mental decline to cling on to power.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well with mental decline there’s actual diagnostic standards that can be applied to determine the statistical average.

              Agree. There are actual cognitive tests that exists today and that’s used by medical personnel.

              They could be purpose to test those in office as they get older, the same way that pilots have to get tested medically to maintain their license.

    • bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      IMO we cap those running to where you cant run if your term would end if your age would be over 70. Ex: presidents can run at age 66, but not 67 because their age would put them at 71 at the end of their term