McConnell may have just had a stroke in the middle of talking to the press.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I didn't look it up but there are already certain requirements that need to be met if I recall to be a candidate. I think if we're ending up in situations like Feinstein and McConnell then age limits (or something akin to it) could help to avoid these situations. I'm not saying the age limit should be 55 or something crazy, but these people are in their 80's. It's just not tenable. 

Yes, there are requirements for being political candidates. Being “too old” is not a legitimate limit. There is nothing about reaching a certain age that makes you unfit for the role of a legislator. So any restriction that is solely based on age makes no sense.

[CitizenVectron]

24 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Yes, there are requirements for being political candidates. Being “too old” is not a legitimate limit. There is nothing about reaching a certain age that makes you unfit for the role of a legislator. So any restriction that is solely based on age makes no sense.

 

Should that also not be an argument for eliminating the lower end for Presidency/Senate?

[Xbob42]

29 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Yes, there are requirements for being political candidates. Being “too old” is not a legitimate limit. There is nothing about reaching a certain age that makes you unfit for the role of a legislator. So any restriction that is solely based on age makes no sense.

No, but there should be mandatory twice-a-year tests for any politicians above a certain age to make sure their faculties are in good working order and they're able to competently do their jobs.

 

I believe the same thing should be true for holding a driver's license (regardless of age, but only once a year), but people love their freedom to endanger everyone! I bet over 75% of people on the road right now would completely fail a surprise retest of their driving knowledge and skills.

[Greatoneshere]

46 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

A functional McConnell helped overturn Roe v Wade and gave us the most out of touch Court in our lifetime.

 

Maybe it’s not a bad thing he’s having trouble functioning.

 

Of course I agree, but that's not the point being made here. The entire point is for both sides to be held to the same standards of age limits, regardless of political gains or losses. But since age limits are never happening anyway, yeah, I'll take this win for sure.

 

40 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Yes, there are requirements for being political candidates. Being “too old” is not a legitimate limit. There is nothing about reaching a certain age that makes you unfit for the role of a legislator. So any restriction that is solely based on age makes no sense.

 

I think mental cognizance and acuity are always a concern with older age that absolutely can make you unfit. Just because old politicians have shown they can do it doesn't mean it's not a general concern. Also the below. I'm not going to go bat hard for age limits since we'll never get them anyway, but I absolutely see the utility of them.

 

15 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Should that also not be an argument for eliminating the lower end for Presidency/Senate?

 

11 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

No, but there should be mandatory twice-a-year tests for any politicians above a certain age to make sure their faculties are in good working order and they're able to competently do their jobs.

 

I believe the same thing should be true for holding a driver's license (regardless of age, but only once a year), but people love their freedom to endanger everyone! I bet over 75% of people on the road right now would completely fail a surprise retest of their driving knowledge and skills.

 

These. If not age limits then something.

[Spork3245]

You have to be 25 to serve in the house, 30 for the senate, 35 for president. Age limits exist, but just as arbitrary minimums. Maximum age is currently Strom Thurmond apparently.
That being said, I’m not in favor of ageism and as such am not in favor of age limits. I am, however, in favor of cognitive tests being given at the start of each term or some other regular interval.

[stepee]

Just set a cut off so that if your age falls within the average life expectancy of the time period you are running then you are disqualified. I think an argument could be made that it may affect your ability to govern if you are expected to be dead at some point during your term. And yes, I know that Feinstein is technically dead and still operating in her role, but I don’t think it counts if your limbs are attached to strings.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

I think mental cognizance and acuity are always a concern with older age that absolutely can make you unfit. Just because old politicians have shown they can do it doesn't mean it's not a general concern. Also the below. I'm not going to go bat hard for age limits since we'll never get them anyway, but I absolutely see the utility of them.

“Can” is doing a lot of work here! Mental cognizance and acuity are a concern at any age, for Pete’s sake look at the most recent Georgia senate race! Voters can judge whether they believe a person is mentally fit or not, and they certainly have a history of doing so.

 

I think the truth is most people who want age limits really want them for strategic reasons, to achieve more progressive goals as younger people of all political persuasions tend to be more relatively progressive than the generations that come before them. Not because old politicians are definitely less capable mentally of the job of a legislator.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, stepee said:

Just set a cut off so that if your age falls within the average life expectancy of the time period you are running then you are disqualified. I think an argument could be made that it may affect your ability to govern if you are expected to be dead at some point during your term. And yes, I know that Feinstein is technically dead and still operating in her role, but I don’t think it counts if your limbs are attached to strings.

We have a process to to deal with dead politicians though

[Greatoneshere]

17 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

“Can” is doing a lot of work here! Mental cognizance and acuity are a concern at any age, for Pete’s sake look at the most recent Georgia senate race! Voters can judge whether they believe a person is mentally fit or not, and they certainly have a history of doing so.

 

I think the truth is most people who want age limits really want them for strategic reasons, to achieve more progressive goals as younger people of all political persuasions tend to be more relatively progressive than the generations that come before them. Not because old politicians are definitely less capable mentally of the job of a legislator.

 

I think the difference here between you and me is that I'm saying it's of particular concern after a certain age. It's true others want age limits for strategic reasons, but not me. I truly believe that politicians hang on to their position for too long and end up hurting things than helping. I'm not really gonna rely on voters to be savvy enough to care or worry about that but I believe it'd help broadly. I do not believe voters can judge whether someone is mentally fit or not. If I did we wouldn't be having this conversation, I'd rely on voters. Old age is an issue whether we like it or not, it's just is it bad enough to impose age limits? I think in the past it wasn't as obvious but now to me it seems that yes, it's bad enough this needs to be legislated on.

 

If I said the age limit should be 70 or 75 based on medical recommendations for cognitive brain decline on average or something, I'm really not courting more progressives with that sort of age limit. For me this is just to limit worse case scenarios and people at an age where suddenly anything can happen sort of stuff.

[stepee]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

We have a process to to deal with dead politicians though

 

I just think it’s better if we elect people where it’s not likely we have to use a back up plan. And depending on the role and state that can not turn out well. Or, worse, they get to the point where they are about to die and can no longer function in their role and a bunch of random handlers are functioning for them as with these senators. 

 

I mostly blame the voters for this, by the way. I’ve been trying to primary Feinstein out for years myself, but the rest of my state kept voting for her or didn’t show up for the primaries at all. I do think there should be some sort of cognitive capacity test as others have said. I’m all for age limits personally but I’m not hard set on having them either, I’m fine with a less ageist solution.

[Guest]

Yeah, we’ve never had ANY issues with tests for voting or holding public office, guys 😜

The people, as a general rule, deserve the representation they vote for. Especially when they repeatedly vote for the same bad candidate!

[legend]

3 hours ago, sblfilms said:

People should be allowed to choose the representative they want, and there needs to be a really good reason to disallow them from choosing.

 

I think this sounds good in the abstract, but to make sense requires assumptions that don't pan out. For this to make sense, people have to be actively considering and voting for people based on their individual merits. But they don't. People are largely uninformed and very many (most?) people just tick boxes for incumbents of their party.  I'm not even saying that's entirely wrong: parties exist for this reason because not everyone has time to investigate all the candidates, but it is the reality and its probably the main reason people aren't voting out old people: because they're just on autopilot voting most of the time.

 

And given that reality, I don't think appealing to people's actual wants is a reason against age restrictions.

 

 

I'm not sure I'm completely sold on age limits, but it doesn't seem out of hand bad to me. Restrictions that happen to correlate to filter out certain kinds of people are bad restrictions. Age isn't one of those things. It's something we universally must face eventually and all the people who get filtered had a chance to be in government already. It's not like they were denied from ever serving.

 

So what's the actual cost here? Suppose we implement it; how do things fall apart? Are you thinking that some politicians are so rare and uniquely good that sometimes you really need to stick to someone aging who is at risk of health complications? That there are not good younger alternatives to elderly people? Maybe if we were a very small country that might be true on an occasion, but we're not. There will always be equally good younger people for every old member who has been serving a long time.

[Ghost_MH]

41 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Yeah, we’ve never had ANY issues with tests for voting or holding public office, guys 😜

The people, as a general rule, deserve the representation they vote for. Especially when they repeatedly vote for the same bad candidate!

 

That's not always a voters problem, though. What can voters do about leadership in a different district/state that disallows others to primary these corpses? Many voters in this country have a binary choice of voting for a corpse, voting for a candidate with antithetical values, or abstaining from voting so the candidate with antithetical values wins by default.

 

It's not always as simple as don't vote for corpses.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

That's not always a voters problem, though. What can voters do about leadership in a different district/state that disallows others to primary these corpses? Many voters in this country have a binary choice of voting for a corpse, voting for a candidate with antithetical values, or abstaining from voting so the candidate with antithetical values wins by default.

 

It's not always as simple as don't vote for corpses.

Give an example. I don’t think there are many places where incumbents don’t have to win a primary to get re-elected.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I think this sounds good in the abstract, but to make sense requires assumptions that don't pan out. For this to make sense, people have to be actively considering and voting for people based on their individual merits. But they don't. People are largely uninformed and very many (most?) people just tick boxes for incumbents of their party.  I'm not even saying that's entirely wrong: parties exist for this reason because not everyone has time to investigate all the candidates, but it is the reality and its probably the main reason people aren't voting out old people: because they're just on autopilot voting most of the time.

 

And given that reality, I don't think appealing to people's actual wants is a reason against age restrictions.

 

 

I'm not sure I'm completely sold on age limits, but it doesn't seem out of hand bad to me. Restrictions that happen to correlate to filter out certain kinds of people are bad restrictions. Age isn't one of those things. It's something from which we all universally must face eventually and all the people who get filtered had a chance to be in government already. It's not like they were denied from ever serving.

 

So what's the actual cost here? Suppose we implement it; how do things fall apart? Are you thinking that people are so rare and uniquely good that sometime you really need to stick to someone aging who is at risk of health complications? That there are not good younger alternatives to elderly people? Maybe if we were a very small country that might be true, but we're not. There will always be equally good younger people to every old members who have been serving a long time.

Choice in a democracy also includes just voting for your team no matter what, not voting at all, and any number of actions you or I may not like. If voters make a poor decision, that is on them and they will suffer the consequences of choosing poorly.

 

But again, not a single person is making an actual argument for why capping the age of elected representatives is a good idea due to the mental capacity issue. Feel free to attempt it in a way that stands up to the barest of logical challenge  

[legend]

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Choice in a democracy also includes just voting for your team no matter what, not voting at all, and any number of actions you or I may not like. If voters make a poor decision, that is on them and they will suffer the consequences of choosing poorly.

 

But governments are almost never pure democracies precisely because pure democracy doesn't work in large modern societies.

 

You seem to be appealing to some kind of right of people, but that's not really a useful argument because anyone can dismiss a so called right as easily as someone can assert it. So what are the actual negative consequences you're imagining? What are the negatives facts you believe would be true if the policy was enacted?

 

 

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

But again, not a single person is making an actual argument for why capping the age of elected representatives is a good idea due to the mental capacity issue. Feel free to attempt it in a way that stands up to the barest of logical challenge  

 

You mean because younger people can have cognitive or other debilitating health problems too? Who said I'd be wholly opposed to other restrictions?   (I also didn't say I'm completely for age restrictions -- I haven't thought about it nearly long or rigorously enough to say that confidently -- but I'm not seeing why it's bad either)  Age is a very simple policy that doesn't discriminate between people though and simple policies to enforce that are not easy to abuse have a massive advantage in practice. If similar restrictions that are not susceptible to abuse can be made, I might be in favor of those too!

 

[Bacon]

I think I should be the president.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Yeah, we’ve never had ANY issues with tests for voting or holding public office, guys 😜

The people, as a general rule, deserve the representation they vote for. Especially when they repeatedly vote for the same bad candidate!

 

Right, yet we still have other, different restrictions and requirements to be able to hold office regardless of voters, so why are those ones okay and not an age limit? You say because mental health isn't a serious consideration, but you don't explain why it isn't, yet we've had Ginsburg, Feinstein and McConnell as recent examples of age hurting representation (that's me providing examples). And what do you mean we've never had any issues with tests? To suss out a politician's mental health? I'm confused there genuinely. Is this a Trump man, woman, person, camera, TV thing? I'm saying the system abuses the issue, that we can't rely on the current mechanisms to resolve the matter as it keeps coming up. I'm not sure why you think it's illogical that mental decay accelerates as you get older after a certain age, whether you can continue to maintain cognitive acuity or not. What am I not understanding? Feeling like I missed something there since from my understanding that's pretty much agreed upon by all. Old people get confused and feeble, etc.

 

You can't say "voters get what they deserve, that's the point of a true democracy" but then be okay with the rules already in place for public office requirements that limits eligibility but then also go: "but no more requirements!" at the same time. This is clearly a case where perhaps an additional requirement should be added. Either you think there should be no requirements or you think there should be requirements. If you think the latter, then it's an argument about which requirements you're okay with and which aren't. You're clearly okay with the ones already in place with the government, since you aren't arguing for repealing those, but instead arguing against adding a new one. And you feel age limits are unfair, whereas previous requirements are fair, and I'm not seeing how that tracks.

[Guest]

Just now, legend said:

But governments are almost never pure democracies precisely because pure democracy doesn't work in large modern societies.

We aren’t talking about government, we are talking about who is allowed to be elected as a representative of the people.

 

1 minute ago, legend said:

You seem to be appealing to some kind of right of people, but that's not really a useful argument because anyone can dismiss a so called right as easily as someone can assert it. So what are the actual negative consequences you're imagining?

Anti-democratic policies need to have really good reasons to exist. I’ve said this many times already! It is fine if you don’t hold the same principle, but that is why it matters in and of itself. No further consequences are needed to say anti-democratic policies should be avoided.

 

5 minutes ago, legend said:

You mean because younger people can have cognitive or other debilitating health problems too? Who said I'd be wholly opposed to other restrictions?   (I also didn't say I'm completely for age restrictions -- I haven't thought about it nearly long or rigorously enough to say that confidently -- but I'm not seeing why it's bad either)  Age is a very simple policy that doesn't discriminate between people though and simple policies to enforce that are not easy to abuse have a massive advantage in practice. If similar restrictions that are not susceptible to abuse can be made, I might be in favor of those too!

What does an age cap achieve other than to deprive the represented of their preference for representation? Why shouldn’t people be able to choose an 80 year old if that is what they want? What does being 80 necessarily indicate, or even more likely than not indicate, about a persons ability to carry out the role of a legislator.

[Bacon]

An age cap is good. Old people are icky.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Right, yet we still have other, different restrictions and requirements to be able to hold office regardless of voters, so why are those ones okay and not an age limit?

Maybe be a bit more specific with the restrictions you are talking about. Personally, I’m opposed to nearly any restriction besides those who have been enemies of the state or aided those who are. I would also be in favor of dropping age floors to legal adulthood.

 

8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

You say because mental health isn't a serious consideration, but you don't explain why it isn't, yet we've had Ginsburg, Feinstein and McConnell as recent examples of age hurting representation (that's me providing examples).

What I have said is that you can’t use age as a standard for mental fitness. You just gave 3 examples, only 1 of which there is any actual evidence that their mental decline has hampered their ability to cary out their duties.

 

12 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

And what do you mean we've never had any issues with tests? To suss out a politician's mental health? I'm confused there genuinely. Is this a Trump ma, person, woman, camera, TV thing? I'm saying the system abuses the issue, that we can't rely on the current mechanisms to resolve the matter as it keeps coming up. I'm not sure why you think it's illogical that mental decay accelerates as you get older after a certain age, whether you can continue to maintain cognitive acuity or not. What am I not understanding? Feeling like I missed something there since from my understanding that's pretty much agreed upon by all. Old people get confused and feeble, etc.

I am inferring that we have indeed had such tests and they have been used to keep minorities from serving in office.

 

And no, I don’t think it is agreed upon that being old caused confusion and feebleness that necessarily makes all old people incapable of holding public office, which is what you must believe to create discriminatory and anti-democratic policy of this sort.

[Greatoneshere]

15 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Maybe be a bit more specific with the restrictions you are talking about. Personally, I’m opposed to nearly any restriction besides those who have been enemies of the state or aided those who are. I would also be in favor of dropping age floors to legal adulthood.

 

What I have said is that you can’t use age as a standard for mental fitness. You just gave 3 examples, only 1 of which there is any actual evidence that their mental decline has hampered their ability to cary out their duties.

 

I am inferring that we have indeed had such tests and they have been used to keep minorities from serving in office.

 

And no, I don’t think it is agreed upon that being old caused confusion and feebleness that necessarily makes all old people incapable of holding public office, which is what you must believe to create discriminatory and anti-democratic policy of this sort.

 

I'll try to hit on each of your points in turn, as I said this isn't a hill I care about dying on per se so I'm just trying to understand more than anything:

 

1. I'm referring to any restrictions, including as you mentioned age floors to running for office, birth citizenship to be able to run for President, etc. If you are opposed to those kinds of restrictions or limitations as well, are you advocating those get repealed then? If so, I think I understand your position better at least.

 

2. Why can't we use age as a standard for mental fitness? My understanding is that there is general cognitive decline over time and doctors can certainly mark when things begin to slowly decline on average and then sharply decline on average. An age limit could be deduced from that information and data. Are you saying there isn't a general causal relationship between age and cognitive/mental decline or are you saying it's just not bad enough for those who hold public office to carry out their duties? Either way, I'm saying I'm not rolling the dice on that chance. You seem to think there's nothing being gambled here, is that correct?

 

3. I do understand now what you mean and that's probably why I'm more for age limits than cognitive testing but just because something can be abused doesn't mean we should ignore potential solutions and try to find ways to curb abuse. I should be clear I'm not saying old politicians can't be advisors for other politicians or whatever, just that after a certain age they not be the one in the chair itself holding the actual public office so it's not like I'm saying they can't continue to work in government in other more limited or more private capacities.

 

4. I never said "makes all old people" incapable of holding public office, just that on average as a person gets past 70 and upward cognitive decline increases sharply - on average. And yes, I believe that because on average after a certain age there's a high chance of cognitive decline that it is better to institute age-ist "discriminatory" policies than allowing voters to constantly vote for easy incumbents over and over again that then get up into the 70's and 80's and remain representing their constituency. It's not really discriminatory if there's a real concern you can't do your job. A funny example of this is how there are so many old politicians in the government that when they bring in tech companies to testify in hearings they ask the dumbest questions. So yes, I'd rather not have old people who can't seem to understand modern technology or retire or even be able to show up to vote than not have an age limit and letting a supremely biased majority of old politicians do everything. You can blame the voters, but the politicians take advantage of this fact as well to keep and maintain their position of power. Age limits would curb this. I'm open to other solutions as well.

[Ghost_MH]

54 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Give an example. I don’t think there are many places where incumbents don’t have to win a primary to get re-elected.

 

I didn't say they weren't going through the primary process. I said party leadership will "disallow" folks from primary-ing some of these old folks either by pulling support or pushing for them to step back behind closed doors. It's why Feinstein should have been in a nursing home a decade or two ago, but hasn't had any real attempts to replace her until her handlers decided not to roll her out for reelection. We really going to argue that folks like Schiff or even Lee and Porter held back because they really thought Feinstein was the most qualified for the job?

[Jason]

itt people argue with trollblfilms

[unogueen]

We've got the Rolling Stones passing legislature. If not cognitive decline, it's those damned kids. Maybe some jobs should demand more.

[unogueen]

The founding fathers? who gives a shit, they're dead. They don't care what you do and neither should you.

People still talking shit about Obama I don't even remember who the prime minister was back when.e

[legend]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

We aren’t talking about government, we are talking about who is allowed to be elected as a representative of the people.

 

We are. The very notion that we elect people to represent is a choice of government and we're discussing what the structure of that should be. But I'm not sure this matters all that much. We can argue semantics, but I don't think the distinction you're making here changes the point I'm making.

 

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Anti-democratic policies need to have really good reasons to exist. I’ve said this many times already! It is fine if you don’t hold the same principle, but that is why it matters in and of itself. No further consequences are needed to say anti-democratic policies should be avoided.

 

Consequences of policy are necessary to make a persuasive argument. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary position that can be ignored as easily as it can be made. There are plenty of legally established rights that can be argued for because of the consequences holding them (or not holding them) entails.

 

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

What does an age cap achieve other than to deprive the represented of their preference for representation? Why shouldn’t people be able to choose an 80 year old if that is what they want? What does being 80 necessarily indicate, or even more likely than not indicate, about a persons ability to carry out the role of a legislator.

 

Reduce the chance of people incapable of serving office due to mental degradation or other health issues that prevent them from doing so holding office by default and preventing people who can serve from doing so. This isn't hypothetical. This is happening right now.

[Fizzzzle]

Here's the problem as I see it: the two -party system doesn't ALLOW for true challenges to these entrenched fossils from within their own party. The democrats are not going to back a challenger to Feinstein as long as she continues to run. Same with Republicans and people like McConnell.

 

So, to say "if people have a problem, maybe they shouldn't keep voting for them" ignores the fact that most of these old, entrenched congressmen all but run unopposed most of the time, at least from within their own party. They run against a hodgepodge of nobodies with no funding within their own party, then in the general election everyone in their party just falls in line because the alternative is worse.

 

It's a failure of the system that doesn't allow new blood to be injected into the system. That's why it needs regulation

[Greatoneshere]

2 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

Here's the problem as I see it: the two -party system doesn't ALLOW for true challenges to these entrenched fossils from within their own party. The democrats are not going to back a challenger to Feinstein as long as she continues to run. Same with Republicans and people like McConnell.

 

So, to say "if people have a problem, maybe they shouldn't keep voting for them" ignores the fact that most of these old, entrenched congressmen all but run unopposed most of the time, at least from within their own party. They run against a hodgepodge of nobodies with no funding within their own party, then in the general election everyone in their party just falls in line because the alternative is worse.

 

It's a failure of the system that doesn't allow new blood to be injected into the system. That's why it needs regulation

 

Exactly - hell, centrist, corporate Democrats do their damndest to, for example, prevent progressives who get groundswells of support in their districts (that's the voters voting part) to winning the primary through a number of underhanded means to make it difficult to get a win in a primary, including riding the coattails of old, entrenched Democratic incumbents. It's why AOC's win against the 3rd (or 4th, can't remember) top Democratic congressmen "in the line" Joseph Crowley was such a big deal. There is a "line" to these things is the traditional thinking. This is all definitely a thing, which is what I mean when I say systemic and institutional problems require new solutions (like, perhaps, age limits).

[TUFKAK]

2 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

Here's the problem as I see it: the two -party system doesn't ALLOW for true challenges to these entrenched fossils from within their own party. The democrats are not going to back a challenger to Feinstein as long as she continues to run. Same with Republicans and people like McConnell.

 

So, to say "if people have a problem, maybe they shouldn't keep voting for them" ignores the fact that most of these old, entrenched congressmen all but run unopposed most of the time, at least from within their own party. They run against a hodgepodge of nobodies with no funding within their own party, then in the general election everyone in their party just falls in line because the alternative is worse.

 

It's a failure of the system that doesn't allow new blood to be injected into the system. That's why it needs regulation

Yep cause after Feinstein sails through the primary I damn sure am not voting for whatever GOP ghoul is running against her.

[Keyser_Soze]

41 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Yep cause after Feinstein sails through the primary I damn sure am not voting for whatever GOP ghoul is running against her.

 

I've said this before but some years ago when she was up for re-election I tried to convince someone else to vote her out and he said he couldn't because she was, "a pioneer" or something like that.

[Chadatog]

7 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

I've said this before but some years ago when she was up for re-election I tried to convince someone else to vote her out and he said he couldn't because she was, "a pioneer" or something like that.

They could of meant that literally.

[Spork3245]

F

[BloodyHell]

On 8/31/2023 at 10:12 PM, sblfilms said:

We aren’t talking about government, we are talking about who is allowed to be elected as a representative of the people.

 

Anti-democratic policies need to have really good reasons to exist. I’ve said this many times already! It is fine if you don’t hold the same principle, but that is why it matters in and of itself. No further consequences are needed to say anti-democratic policies should be avoided.

 

What does an age cap achieve other than to deprive the represented of their preference for representation? Why shouldn’t people be able to choose an 80 year old if that is what they want? What does being 80 necessarily indicate, or even more likely than not indicate, about a persons ability to carry out the role of a legislator.

So what does an age minimum achieve? Why can an 85 year old be president, but not a 25 year old? A cap makes far more sense than a minimum.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Minimums and maximums make sense in the abstract, but we’ve been continually lowering the voting age for a reason