Political So now what

Political discussions within

Hickey

Burn-barrel enthusiast
Supporting Member
I wouldn’t even consider allowing anyone above 70 to run for office, if my opinion counts for anything. My parents are both mid 70’s. They are still mentally sharp, but their ability to understand modern societal issues is pretty weak. That’s not a diss on my parents, it’s a reasonable assessment of an elderly generation. I highly doubt Mr. McConnell could even log in to the Interwebs to participate in this discussion.
 

nnnnnate

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Location
WVC, UT
I was about to say that my grandpa who is 90 is sharp as a tack and then read the rest of Jeremys post. Yeah, my grandpa is sharp as a tack but I don't know how much he'd care to learn and or understand new things. Every time we see him he asks me if I've found Hillarys emails yet.

I'm all for term limits and cognitive tests. Baseline the person when they first win election and set a minimum standard. Whether that is a universal minimum or based on percentage of decline I don't care.
 

Pike2350

Registered User
Location
Salt Lake City
Is this something that really should be legislated? i.e. Why not let voters make that determination?
Unfortunately, the problem is that the voters ultimately have to plug their nose and vote. They have little say in who is really put up for either party's candidate. SO, when you are stuck picking between an 80yr old vs 80yr old, you don't really have many options.

We as a populace do need to start expressing our dissatisfaction with the age of most representatives in .gov. I think term limits should be set and legislated into office. In many cases, that alone may help solve some of the problems with age. 18-years in 1 position with a 26 years MAX as an elected public servant. That would allow 3 terms as a Senator and 2 terms as a President.
 

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville

What does everyone thing about age limits for politicians? I realize I'm on the young end of this conversation (40), hence the ask.

I personally think if you're over retirement age (let's say 66) you probably shouldn't be serving. While I've met some people in their early 70's that seem quite sharp they still fall asleep if they've been sitting too long. What a weird position we're in...


PS if you read the comments there's a guy in there that says "Biden seems very articulate, capable and most important, sane." I can't believe anyone could ever think that.
Part of me screams yes. And I agree that many older people, mentally sharp or not, are not in tune with current situations or have long term views in mind.

But there is also something to be said for experience. I woukd not want to turn the government over to a herd of 30 somethings (no offense to those in that category. )

I also think of some older leaders outside government. Regardless of how you view the Church or religion, Pres Nelson is amazingly sharp, fit and aware despite turning 99 next week.
Is this something that really should be legislated? i.e. Why not let voters make that determination?
Term limits for House and Senate plus reforms to make primary challenges more competitive would help in many ways.
 

N-Smooth

Smooth Gang Founding Member
Location
UT
Part of me screams yes. And I agree that many older people, mentally sharp or not, are not in tune with current situations or have long term views in mind.

But there is also something to be said for experience. I woukd not want to turn the government over to a herd of 30 somethings (no offense to those in that category. )

I also think of some older leaders outside government. Regardless of how you view the Church or religion, Pres Nelson is amazingly sharp, fit and aware despite turning 99 next week.

Term limits for House and Senate plus reforms to make primary challenges more competitive would help in many ways.
I wouldn’t imagine 30-something’s would be the ticket, agreed.

It’s impossible for me to view Pres Nelson in that comparison without some bias because I don’t believe his mental and physical health is all his own doing. There are obviously bigger things at play. Non-believers can say that’s stupid and it’s whatever… I don’t care. There are also plenty of people, even church members that would argue he’s out of touch. I don’t personally agree but it is what it is.
 

DAA

Well-Known Member
Well... They were all bastards when they were young, too. Maybe it's good they aren't sharp enough to chisel us anymore than they are. All we need, a new crew that really knows how to use the available levers. Legislating out the oldsters would probably only result in younger, sharper crooks.

- DAA
 

Herzog

somewhat damaged
Admin
Location
Wyoming
Well... They were all bastards when they were young, too. Maybe it's good they aren't sharp enough to chisel us anymore than they are. All we need, a new crew that really knows how to use the available levers. Legislating out the oldsters would probably only result in younger, sharper crooks.

- DAA
What’s the old saying? The best politicians are the people who don’t want to be one…?
 

UNSTUCK

But stuck more often.
It’s always surprised me that the founding fathers put a minimum age on the office of president but didn’t think a maximum age was also needed. Probably one of their few screw ups.
You guys are more lenient than I would be. They need to retire at 65, after passing years of cognitive tests. And I would take more inexperienced young public servants over older “experienced” ones. I would hope young ones haven’t figured out how to cheat/lie/steel yet or be uncomfortable doing so.
 

Stephen

Who Dares Wins
Moderator
It’s always surprised me that the founding fathers put a minimum age on the office of president but didn’t think a maximum age was also needed. Probably one of their few screw ups.
At the time the Constitution was written, the average life expectancy of a white male (the only people eligible to hold office at the time) was around 40. And "old age" was living into your 60's. With that in mind, it's not surprising at all that they didn't put a maximum age on the presidency or other offices, because everyone died so damn young!
 

Hickey

Burn-barrel enthusiast
Supporting Member
At the time the Constitution was written, the average life expectancy of a white male (the only people eligible to hold office at the time) was around 40. And "old age" was living into your 60's. With that in mind, it's not surprising at all that they didn't put a maximum age on the presidency or other offices, because everyone died so damn young!
Yep. Only the unicorns made it to 65 years old. I bet they figured that if a guy could make it that far in age, he must have SOME kind of wisdom worth sharing.
 

Spork

Tin Foil Hat Equipped
I don't know about the average life expectancy thing, kind of skews things when you have 3 kids die at childbirth.
Looking at my great whatever grandparents that were around about the time the constitution was written, I'm averaging 65.5 years old but high/low is 80/48. Start looking at children and one family out of 8 kids, 2 died within a year of birth and one died at age 9. My great x3 grandfather Ola was the only child out of 6 that didn't die at childbirth. Don't get me wrong, I think if you're 80 you ought to be retired and telling your grandkids stories not trying to run the free world but to say they all have lost it isn't quite true.
 

Gravy

Ant Anstead of Dirtbikes
Supporting Member
What’s the old saying? The best politicians are the people who don’t want to be one…?

The reluctant politician.

My poli-sci professor argued the downfall of the American politician was air conditioning. Prior to that no one wanted to stay in Washington DC. They went home to their constituents and didn't stay in DC year round. Then after a while they were too tired of being sweaty to stay.

Term limits.
 

Cody

Random Quote Generator
Supporting Member
Location
East Stabbington
First and foremost, take private money out of politics.

That should help dismantle the poisenous two party system and open the door for politicians that represent the middle majority to get a shot.

Remove the electoral college in favor of popular vote. That allows every person, rural and metro, to have their vote count.

Age limits. Duh. 65 at beginning of office and must pass cognitive tests annually after 60.

Term limits.

Allow foreign born citizens to run for major office. #teamschwarzennegger
 

SoopaHick

Certified Weld Judger
Moderator
First and foremost, take private money out of politics.

That should help dismantle the poisenous two party system and open the door for politicians that represent the middle majority to get a shot.

Remove the electoral college in favor of popular vote. That allows every person, rural and metro, to have their vote count.

Age limits. Duh. 65 at beginning of office and must pass cognitive tests annually after 60.

Term limits.

Allow foreign born citizens to run for major office. #teamschwarzennegger
I agree with everything here besides the Electoral College. The purpose of it's existence I whole heartedly believe in. Majority rules is a slippery slope and people are too easily manipulated and/or clueless to the world.

Is the EC too small? Absolutely. Those living in downtown Salt Lake are correct in feeling under represented in any federal election. Same as the farmers and rural areas in California. But going entirely to a popular vote takes all the power away from rural communities.
 

Herzog

somewhat damaged
Admin
Location
Wyoming
I agree with everything here besides the Electoral College. The purpose of it's existence I whole heartedly believe in. Majority rules is a slippery slope and people are too easily manipulated and/or clueless to the world.

Is the EC too small? Absolutely. Those living in downtown Salt Lake are correct in feeling under represented in any federal election. Same as the farmers and rural areas in California. But going entirely to a popular vote takes all the power away from rural communities.
Democracy = 3 wolfs and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner. It always turns into a totalitarian system, which is why certain people always repeat "Democracy!!!" every chance they can.

I much prefer a Constitutional Republic (It takes a little more time to turn totalitarian :rofl: )
 
Last edited:

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville
I don't know about the average life expectancy thing, kind of skews things when you have 3 kids die at childbirth.
Looking at my great whatever grandparents that were around about the time the constitution was written, I'm averaging 65.5 years old but high/low is 80/48. Start looking at children and one family out of 8 kids, 2 died within a year of birth and one died at age 9. My great x3 grandfather Ola was the only child out of 6 that didn't die at childbirth.
I do believe you are correct. Make it to adulthood and 70+ wasn't uncommon.

Allow foreign born citizens to run for major office. #teamschwarzennegger
I believe President and VP are the only positions they can't hold
 

Stephen

Who Dares Wins
Moderator
First and foremost, take private money out of politics.

That should help dismantle the poisenous two party system and open the door for politicians that represent the middle majority to get a shot.
Just playing the devils advocate here, but how would campaigns be funded? Public money? I don't think many people want tax money going towards running political campaigns. Additionally, who controls that money? A "non-partisan" committee that would invariably end up being controlled by the administrative state, which in most cases is staffed with partisans from the dominate political party in that locality. That in turn will lead to less money being available to the non-dominant political parties for various "reasons".
Private money is troublesome, but it reality its the most effective way to fund campaigns. Should there be more (read: complete) transparency about who is funding who and how much? Yes. But I'm not sure that I think doing away with private money in elections would really help usher in a new age of middle of the road candidates.
Remove the electoral college in favor of popular vote. That allows every person, rural and metro, to have their vote count.
Absolutely, categorically, emphatically, NO.
Instituting a popular vote for the Presidency would lead to near complete disenfranchisement of rural areas and less populated states and hand that office over completely to the densely populated costal areas. Much like how every state gets two Senators regardless of population, the Electoral College is designed to allow rural and less populated areas to have a say in the most important national election. Do away with it and you would basically silence the voice of people outside of the megacities.
Age limits. Duh. 65 at beginning of office and must pass cognitive tests annually after 60.

Term limits.
I go back and forth on age limits. As I mentioned before, there is no age limit for national office because when the Constitution was written, there really was no need for it. This also plays into the argument about term limits. The Presidency is the only national office with a term limit, and thats because one man, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ran and won four times. When the GOP retook Congress in '50, they passed the 22nd Amendment implementing the two term limit.
Was it FDR taking advantage of the system? Yes, but it was the electorate that voted him in; so the onus is on them really. Technically speaking, we the people have the opportunity to impose a term or age limits on elected officials every two, four, and six years. It's mostly our fault for just punching the button for the guy/gal with an R or D next to their name regardless of their time in office, age, or mental acuity. While term or age limits might solve part of the problem, the real problem is lack of education and awareness among the voting public.
Allow foreign born citizens to run for major office. #teamschwarzennegger
The only office's Arnie can't hold is the Presidency and Vice Presidency.
 
Top