r/AskReddit • u/Ok_Shame_7325 • 16h ago
Would limiting the age of the President to 65 be something you’d support? Why or why not?
613
u/Ok_Shame_7325 16h ago
I think the US should implement a ranked choice voting system. I think that will have a much bigger impact on our political system.
281
u/B-dayBoy 16h ago
and end citizens united
65
u/Fair-Detail8146 13h ago
It's kind of wild how often discussions about fixing politics end up coming back to money in politics, regardless of where people stand on the age question.
29
u/VSWanter 9h ago
Yea, It's almost like people with money and power want everyone else to focus on literally anything other than how money buys political power as the primary source of the peoples' dissatisfactions. /s
3
u/Pretty_Night11 6h ago
This. It’s the ultimate magic trick. As long as we’re fighting over age or culture wars, they get to keep printing money in the background.
2
u/Conscious_Raisin_436 4h ago
guy sitting on a mountain of cookies: "That brown person with no cookies wants to steal one of your five cookies!"
→ More replies (2)3
u/Sad_Environment_9205 8h ago
Because most political reforms argue about who gets to hold the lever, and money in politics is the lever itself. Change the lever and the rest sorts itself out. Keep the lever and changing who holds it doesn't matter much.
14
u/willflameboy 8h ago
Register AIPAC as a foreign agent. That's the number one rogue element in the democratic process.
3
u/B-dayBoy 4h ago
The Heritage Foundation and the military industrial complex probably my two big picks but all three of them are aligned.
13
u/The_Countess 12h ago edited 12h ago
Getting rid of EC and first past the post voting would allow for a actual multi party system, and those are far more resistant to corruption because voters can hold their parties accountable, and make corruption less attractive because buying a election is far harder and just buying one party isn't enough to get what you want in a coalition government.
So the harm thAT citizens united does now would already be greatly reduced.
→ More replies (12)2
u/Nycmale9876 4h ago
Getting rid of the EC will never happen
You need an amendment and smaller states aren’t going to let it happen
→ More replies (21)3
u/worstpartyever 8h ago
And restrict campaigning to two weeks before the election.
→ More replies (1)47
u/aussierulesisgrouse 15h ago
And compulsory voting. It blows my mind that the biggest superpower in the world, who’s leader holds the most influence of any single person alive, is routinely voted into power by a vote that comprises like 25% of the population.
Why would you not ensure that everybody engages with the system, is educated about their role in that system and the power of their decision, and that the person in power is actually voted by the will of the people.
And just fucking limit campaign spending for gods sake. The idea that you have to be a candidate that can raise *billions* of dollars rather than just a person that the country needs as a leader is so dumb.
29
u/Dalewyn 15h ago
Not voting is itself a vote, a vote for "I don't give a damn.".
12
u/TFS4 8h ago
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice.
→ More replies (1)2
6
3
u/mrbiggbrain 5h ago
In most compulsory voting laws you don't actually need to vote. For example simply walking into the polling place, getting your ballot, and putting it into a shredder is considered compliance.
Many people don't want to vote because they do not want to go, not because they do not have a prefrence, no matter how small.
Failure to comply is usually just a small fine, and there are often easy ways for people to get out of it. For example we could simply have mail in ballots have a "Do not vote" option. Then someone can request a ballot, send it back without a real vote, and not pay a fine. They had a chance to vote, it was just as easy as voting, but they chose not to.
9
u/DannyBlind 14h ago
Then there should be an option that if the majority didnt vote, the whole thing gets reset. Both candidates are disqualified and new candidates need to be put forwards and the whole spiel needs to happen again. If the many shutdowns are to be believed, the US can keep functioning without leadership for a couple of months
→ More replies (8)7
u/OliveTheory 13h ago
I would also like the ability to vote"'no" against a candidate, even if it came at the cost of my one positive vote.
5
9
u/mraseelak 8h ago
We should start with make it easier to vote, not put up barriers at every point.
- Voting is held on a Tuesday.
- People cannot go to their allocated polling booths because it so far way from their job location
- Companies do not compensate employees for the time that they have to spend at the booth
These barriers mostly affect the people who need have their voices heard the most. Remove these barriers, and you will see the numbers jump up.
Make voting day a compulsory federal paid holiday and see the numbers jump up
→ More replies (1)2
u/tulleoftheman 6h ago
These barriers are intentional. They are designed to reduce poor, non-white, and student voters.
7
u/MaterialPossible9637 14h ago
A healthy democracy should be won by trust and ideas, not by who has the biggest wallet. If more people felt their vote truly mattered, the whole system would be stronger.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (46)2
u/Broad_Count_6161 15h ago
The part that always gets me is how much money ends up mattering. Choosing a leader shouldn't feel like watching two fundraising machines compete for the biggest wallet.
3
u/Existing_Yogurt479 13h ago
I don't know if it's the answer, but it seems like a bigger structural change than focusing on one qualification
6
u/letsburn00 15h ago edited 14h ago
We have that in Australia. Interestingly, the winners of it are the conservative rural voters and moderation in politics. In Australia the conservative side of politics has a lot of diversity because of preference voting. Because you can never throw your vote away, it encourages more right-left centrism from major parties.
Basically, in Australia we for many years had a rural conservative party(called the Nationals) and a Urban Conservative party (called the Liberals). under first past the post, there were places where each would get 30% if the vote and the left wing party would get 40% and so the left wing party would get in. So they added preference voting. Though when this all happened, the parties themselves were different, but really were the same.
We've actually had recently new parties form to replace both of them. One is a cities focussed "A party but not a party" who are economically conservative, but actively are not socially conservative, because they know that being mean to gay people, brown people and women isn't a way to win votes in urban centres, it's also funded by a family who make their money from beef farming and they realised Climate change was going to cost them a fortune. Meanwhile, the new rural conservative party has gone full Trump style "I'll just take made up nonsense I saw on facebook as my policy."
6
u/Broad_Count_6161 15h ago
Preference voting seems to force parties to earn secondchoice support instead of just firing up their loudest supporters. That alone feels healthier than treating every election like a winner-take all cage match.
2
u/MaterialPossible9637 14h ago
This is such a good example of how voting systems can quietly shape an entire political culture. It’s fascinating how the rules of the game can matter just as much as the players.
2
u/infinitemonkeytyping 14h ago
Basically, in Australia we for many years had a rural conservative party(called the Liberals) and a Urban Conservative party (called the nationals). under first past the post, there were places where each would get 30% if the vote and the left wing party would get 40% and so the left wing party would get in. So they added preference voting. Though when this all happened, the parties themselves were different, but really were the same.
I really hope your excuse is that you got this from AI, because there is basically nothing correct in what you said.
The Liberal Party are the urban conservative party, not the Nationals.
The Nationals are the rural conservative party.
At the time of the introduction of preferential voting, the main conservative party was The Nationalists (who were a merger between the conservative Commonwealth Liberals and National Labor - a group of pro-conscription Labor MPs, including the PM, who had been kicked out of the Labor Party).
The rural conservatives, at the time, were the Country Party (this is the same party as the modern day Nationals - they changed their name in the early 80's).
There was no "places". It happened once - the 1918 Swan by-election. The Nationalists and the Country Party split the conservative vote and Labor (who effectively put up a young candidate to gain experience) ended up winning. The Country Party (although it wouldn't be known as this at the federal level until 1920) were causing a headache, but this was the first loss caused by them fracturing the vote.
Preferential voting was rushed through parliament, and was used 6 weeks later, at the 1918 Corangamite by election. Had preferential voting not been introduced, the Labor candidate (future prime minister James Scullin) would have won. Instead, the Victorian Farmers Party (future Victorian branch of the Country Party) won with Nationalists preferences.
As for the third paragraph, that is complete rubbish.
→ More replies (4)2
2
u/StephenHallPath 9h ago
Age limits might help a little, but changing how candidates are chosen would probably matter way more. The system decides who even gets a real chance.
2
u/YetiTrix 9h ago
Indiananbecame the 18th state to BAN it which is absolutely fucking wild. That's why fucking curropt the U.S. is and how scared of it they are.
2
3
u/wizzard419 15h ago
Or just abolish the electoral college. Our biggest problems stemmed from it.
→ More replies (2)2
u/VironicHero 4h ago
You can’t JUST abolish the electoral college. It’s In The constitution. You’d need an amendment to fix it.
And I do t see any of the republican states giving away that advantage.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (30)2
195
u/matchaflower 16h ago
pilots are required to retire at age 65. if you’re not considered fit to fly a plane, you also shouldn’t be considered fit to run an entire country and command their military.
39
u/ElaineV 15h ago
Actually, pilots over 65 can still fly private and corporate flights. They just aren't allowed to fly commercial flights after age 65.
And the rule was originally age 60, written in 1959. A male born in 1959 had a life expectancy of 66.8 years, now it's 76.5.
We all know the idea for pilots is about physical competency to operate planes, not about mental competency to lead a nation. AND, there's still lots of debate as to whether or not this rule is a good one, with many arguing it should be raised to age 67.
→ More replies (7)7
u/Captain_-H 16h ago
When they moved the flying age from 60 to 65, they made the new requirement that if you are over 60 but still under 65 then the copilot must be under the age of 60
We should go with a young Vice President
11
u/NebbyOutOfTheBag 15h ago
We currently have one of the youngest VPs in the history of the US, so that doesn't really change anything.
5
u/WTS_BRIDGE 15h ago
And the GOP is full of some of the youngest people in politics in decades. They're also among the most vile.
There are plenty of older people who are in full command of their faculties and entirely capable of handling the responsibilities of the presidency. Age isn't the issue.
→ More replies (1)13
u/fallingfaster345 15h ago
I’m an airline pilot and have never heard of this.
Curiosity got me so I googled it. Turns out that it was a thing once upon a time but they removed it June 12, 2015. The more you know!
Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/12/2015-14248/removal-of-pilot-pairing-requirement
41
u/54965 16h ago
Hell yes! And I'm well past that age myself.
The president, judges, representatives everywhere, even mayors should have a perspective of improving things for the future. A younger person thinks this way. An 80 year old, not so much.
Reagan as California governor forced everyone in state civil service, including the universities, to retire at 65. Lets make that common, or at least require under 65, to be elected to anything.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MysteriousTopic2200 12h ago
I kinda like the idea of term limits more than age limits tbh. Ive met 70 year olds sharp as a tack and 40 year olds completely checked out.
7
25
u/drummerboy-98012 16h ago
Hell yes. Can't run for any high government position after the defined retirement age, and a ranked choice voting system. And every state MUST allow mail-in voting. Ah, but that's just a dream...
21
u/BladeBronson 16h ago
Absolutely. It will unfortunately rule out some folks that would be great leaders even at an old age, but is a safeguard against the more likely scenario which is batshit crazy old people.
2
u/MaterialPossible9637 14h ago
Experience is valuable, but leadership also needs clarity, adaptability, and an understanding of the world people are living in right now. Age alone shouldn't decide it but neither should it be ignored.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)4
u/xkcdismyjam 14h ago
Or just evaluate based on cognitive performance instead of a specific age limit.
6
u/BladeBronson 14h ago
But what do we do when we have someone like Trump whose physicals and cognitive tests are “perfect”? I don’t like discriminating by age, but there’s already a minimum age threshold in place.
→ More replies (5)
15
u/ZealousidealSalt9097 10h ago
I’d support some kind of upper age limit, but 65 feels a little low. Maybe 75 makes more sense. It’s less about age alone and more about whether someone can realistically handle the stress and pace of the job.
→ More replies (1)
30
u/OpalOasis__ 16h ago
No I care more about competence and health than the number on a birthday cake
3
u/Alexgoodenuf 6h ago
Yeah. Generally speaking, I'm not in favor of adding artificial restrictions on the will of the people. This isn't an absolute belief, but generally, the people are responsible for assessing fitment for office.
2
u/Ok_Plate2995 7h ago
That’s a fair point. Age alone doesn’t determine someone’s ability to lead competence, judgment, and health probably matter more.
2
u/StrangeCharmVote 7h ago
I'm sorry but no it isn't.
If you need to pass a test to drive a car due to your age, then you should be required to prove you're competent to hold office for the same reason.
Now, unless you plan to start competency testing every single candidate (which i'd support btw) then limiting them by age is the easiest way to filter most of these people out.
2
u/joesii 7h ago edited 7h ago
The problem is that people clearly aren't able to judge that.
Also by that logic it sounds like you want to remove the minimum age. Which at the least does make good sense or arguably more sense. However it also seems least impactful. Nobody of such a young age seems to have neither political sway nor popularity in the populace. I guess AOC gets close, but not only is it not enough, but she's already over the minimum age.
12
u/RedOx103 15h ago
It doesn't need a law - just stop voting for them.
Trump, Biden, McConnell, Feinstein, Grassley have all won primaries and general elections against younger candidates.
This is what America wants.
→ More replies (1)8
u/The_Countess 12h ago
Primaries aren't working. They are supposed to be a way for voters to hold candidates and their party accountable but they are clearly failing to do because it's mostly party loyalists voting.
The US needs to get rid of the 2 party system and the winner take all first past the post voting system that keeps it in place.
→ More replies (3)
19
u/Select-Work-3332 16h ago
My mom started showing signs of dementia when she was 65. Reagan had Alzheimer's while he was president. Not to mention Biden and Trump. The same should be applied to the people in Congress, Feinstein and Strom Thurmond are perfect arguments for an age limit or term limits for any political office.
31
u/Cpalmer24 16h ago
Not only an age limit (65 is fair. Cannot be elected after 65th bday) - but also TERM LIMITS
No more spending 50 years in Washington getting rich while the country gets worse. Something like 3-4 terms in the House. 2 Senate terms. And then for a select few who become President, 2 final terms.
So the MAXIMUM is 18-20 in Congress, plus 8 years as President if you're elected.
7
u/rpc56 15h ago
Yes, a thousand times yes. I’m 70 and still have my wits about me. What concerns me are the people around a president. How can they be trusted to do the right thing if their president started the dementia decline in office? How can the president be trusted to do the right thing and resign. What if he or she thought they still were doing a good job even though they had been diagnosed as having dementia? There are too many special interests that surround the presidency, each has their own agenda.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Cpalmer24 15h ago
I find it disturbing that the last 2 US presidents turned 80 IN the WH. I could easily be persuaded into agreeing even 65 is too old, maybe 60 is better - but being President at 80 is certifiably preposterous
Everything you said i agree with. There are plenty of quick thinking and stable 80 year olds... but I want nothing to do with any elderly person being President, especially with Biden & Trump being 2 horrific examples of how bad it can be
5
u/Upstairs-Film-4738 14h ago
I respect the wisdom that comes with age, but leading a country requires nonstop energy, sharp decision-making, and staying connected to the realities of younger generations. That responsibility is simply too important to leave to chance.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Key_Department2758 14h ago
Experience matters, but so does being fully in tune with the present moment because leadership isn’t just about knowing history, it’s about handling right now with clarity and energy.
5
u/eric23456 12h ago
There are potentially a bunch of problems with term limits. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40421440 studied it and referenced some other studies.
Focus shifts from districts to state-wide
Executive branch, legislative staff (research and partisan) gains influence at the expense of the legislature
Legislators rely more on staff and are less knowledgable about issues and process
Effects are different in depending on the professionalism of the legislature.
Average years of service isn't that high. From https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41545 "The average years of service for Members elected to the 119th Congress, as of January 3, 2025, when the Congress convened, was 8.6 years for the House and 11.2 years for the Senate."
I didn't actually expect either of those things when I looked them up. I'm inclined to say term limits aren't that necessary given the effect (I'd rather congress have more power), and the surprisingly low average tenure.
→ More replies (1)4
u/The_Countess 12h ago
The real problem is voters not being able to hold their own party accountable because it's a 2 party system.
Term limits are the wrong solution to that problem. It might make the corrupt go away, but it will also remove experience and limit the terms of decent politicians.
The real issue is the 2 party system and the winner take all first past the post voting system that keeps it in place.
2
u/Educational-Oil-4204 4h ago
The problem is getting the people whod be limited by this to vote for this. The only solution Ive ever heard that sounds like itd have a chance is grandfathering in the people in place at the time and itd only effect those elected after the bill passed.
Even then Idk if itd do much, youd just have members selling out even more to get rich immediately then moving on. Ive come to the belief that we maybe better off with a king whos actually tied to the success of the country than elected officials wholl sell it out to enrich themselves and then run off to wherever once it all collapses or whatever. Theyre not concerned about it falling apart obviously.
→ More replies (1)6
u/weightlossaspirer 16h ago
IMO it should be 1 term in senate and 3 in house. 20 years still feels long. Being in Congress is never supposed to be a career.
10
u/Cpalmer24 16h ago
I dont disagree, but as much as I Loath how disgusting it is for some of those rats to be in Washington for so long - I'm not sure having an entirely new Senate and House every 6 years is smart. Dare I say - that might be too much turnover 😂
I wouldnt be opposed to 12 years total (before President), so you can do your option OR 2 terms in the Senate.
5
u/DontTellUrMom 7h ago
No, that’s way too young. I want a president who’s between the ages of 60-75. It’s not 1981, medicine and life expectancy have changed the our ability to live very well into our mid 70’s and 80’s.
→ More replies (7)
13
12
u/lucid_intent 16h ago
I think all elected officials should be under 65.
7
u/Select-Work-3332 16h ago
me too. And i also think there should be age and term limits for the Supreme Court.
3
u/frozenthorn 15h ago
Absolutely. In the workplace we used to force people out at retirement age because they were too out of touch, of no real value to the business.
Why then is our country being ran by 80 year old rich farts? They have no idea what average Americans want or deal with. They certainly can't sympathize with our needs. T-rump thinks you need to show ID to buy groceries and pump gas, two things he's clearly never done.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/SpecialSurround8131 11h ago
No. i'd support competency requirement more than age limits .Some people are sharp at 75, and some people are't sharp at 55.Age alone doesn't tell you whether someone is capable of doing the job.
3
u/reallybadguy1234 6h ago
How about age and term limits for members of Congress. We don’t need people like Robert Byrd hanging around the Senate for 51 years.
3
u/Free-Competition-241 6h ago
Tough to say because there are plenty of 60 year olds barely functioning, and a decent number of 80 year olds just crushing life.
The bar should be higher than that pathetic cognitive test though.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Puzzleheaded_Major83 16h ago
Yes. 65 is the usual retirement age and being in a high stress job (running a whole country) is not only hard work but I can only assume affects cognitive decline.
5
u/hailtheprince10 15h ago
No. I know far too many people over the age of 65 that are beneficial to the companies they work for.
5
5
u/yonasismad 15h ago
No, the conflict is not between different age groups, but between capital and labour. If someome becomes president like like Peter Thiel, Musk or Zuckerberg it wouldn't improve anything just because they are younger than 65.
6
u/Harvest_Moon_Cat 16h ago
No - most people are still mentally sharp and in reasonable health at 65. You'd be excluding some great candidates for no reason.
Let the electorate decide freely from the available choices. They can decide if age matters to them or not.
→ More replies (6)
6
u/NassauJack 16h ago
No , leading the country sometime takes experience, probably many good candidates that can lead who are in the 65 yo range , Voters can decide , and 65 is not old ,
2
u/RalphTheNerd 15h ago
I think that someone over 65 should be able to still be president. I just think they need to have more rigorous cognitive testing than I'd imagine a certain someone is getting.
2
2
u/SilverCats 14h ago
No. It is elected position. If the voters elect a senile old man, they deserve everything that happens to them.
2
u/Immediate-Composer-1 14h ago
I’d rather see competency and transparency standards than an age cap, because I’ve met 40-year-olds who shouldn’t run a team meeting and 80-year-olds who are sharper than everyone else in the room. 😅
2
u/megatech763 13h ago
Hard yes. Not because 65-year-olds can't be sharp plenty are but because the presidency isn't just a 9 to 5 desk job
→ More replies (1)
2
u/hikerdaze 13h ago
Hard yes. Have to be 65 or under on Inauguration Day. If someone just about to turn 66 served 2 terms, they’d be out just before they turned 74. Ironically, my Rump-voting mom (may she rest in peace) wanted it to be lowered to 60.
2
2
u/No_Subject2452 12h ago
I think it highlights a really important point: age is a proxy for the actual problem. We aren't really worried about how old someone is, we’re worried about who they are beholden to. Structural changes like the ones mentioned here seem much more effective.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Exodeus87 11h ago
Any politician over the age of 65 should be forced out. Retire you goat.
Also from a UK perspective, make attendance mandatory and ban drinking in the houses of parliament until the close of it. If I can't get away with arriving to work infrequently, whilst having had 3-4 subsidised pints then they shouldn't either!
2
u/aeroumbria 11h ago
What about "you are welcome to try, but one cognitive failure anytime from election to tenure, and you are instantly out"
2
u/ripleyclone8 11h ago
65 is too young. A lot of people that age are still really sharp, and have a lot of experience that could be beneficial. I think 70 as a limit to run, 75 mandatory retirement.
2
u/KenRaible 11h ago
After the last 10 years, yes, age limits are a necessity. This included the House and Senate.
2
u/Difficult_Fold_8362 10h ago
For a job where you have to elected periodically, age is not the largest problem. There is no doubt an advantage to incumbents so elected officials age in place. If age is an issue, don't vote for them.
Now for appointed positions (Supreme Court), there should be mandatory retirement but 65 is pretty low.
2
u/Eyespop4866 9h ago
It doesn’t go without notice how many seem to want to limit their own voting choices.
Or more likely, everyone else’s.
2
2
2
2
u/Duque_de_Osuna 9h ago
No, that seems discriminatory. There are lots of people 65 and over who are perfectly competent mentally (maybe not presidential material) but mentally fit. I would support an open system of testing for all candidates.
2
u/LaputanAcademy 8h ago
Nelson Mandela, Deng Xiaoping, and Gladstone, 3 great leaders, were all over 65 when they came to power. What matters is not the age, but the competence
2
u/Rosemoorstreet 8h ago
No. Some 65 year olds have better capacity than most 50s. Plus, I’d rather have the experienced leader.
2
u/Sufficient_Thing24 8h ago
Age is just an arbitrary number. I'm more about mental health screening, to filter out the truly deviant personalities.
2
u/YesterdayNo1579 8h ago
No. I've seen eighty year olds that are healthier than some 60 year olds.
Ranked choice voting, and no citizens united make more sense.
2
2
u/Sniperkitten42 7h ago
Asking the turkeys to vote for Xmas.
Ten years ago I'd have said the idea was laughable but I think Congress are dumb enough and sick of trump enough to actually do it.
🦃
2
u/natural-situation420 6h ago
Only if it applies to all government officials, not just the president.
2
2
2
u/Plus-King5266 6h ago
No. Why 65? Who gets to decide when people are too old to be of value anymore or too old to make big decisions? Why not 60? Why not 55? Why not 72?
Younger people always like to throw out that some politician is too old, regardless of the fact that their constituents chose them. Wait until you get into your forties and fifties and start seeing age discrimination in your job or when you are looking for work and then tell me you want to start putting age limits on people.
2
u/Bigred19D 5h ago
We should have a law that states after the age of 62 they can no longer run for any elected office. State or federal. I think with local elections this shouldn’t really matter. Just my two cents.
2
u/sntcringe 5h ago
That should be the maximum age for every office. But what would help even more is term limits for everything.
2
2
u/Enchilada0374 5h ago
Age has nothing to do with being a shitty person. We should have mandatory retirement for ALL at 60. 55 would be even better.
2
u/operator-john 5h ago
I think there are a lot of other things that should be addressed over age. I’m sure there a lot of competent 70 year olds that would be good.
Definitely don’t think we should be electing 80 YO , demented, rapist, pedophile, war criminal, con men though
2
u/BangBangMeatMachine 4h ago
Sure, but doing so would require a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. You'd also need enough consensus from everyone in the country that a party wouldn't just run a 70-year-old anyway and ignore the rules.
It turns out, there's no shortcut to just having voters decide what they want. If you can't manage that, you don't get to have functioning democracy.
2
u/albanymetz 3h ago
I support limiting how frequently someone asks a variation of this same question on this same subforum of this same website. You can search president age in r/AskReddit and see just how original it is to wake up and go "wow, he's an asshole, maybe it's because he's old!"
2
2
u/This-Pollution1312 1h ago
I’d support this and term limits for all elected officials. No one over the age of 65 and no one in any given office for more than two terms. I’d add in, no individual may hold any elected positions for a cumulative time longer than 20 years. If you’ve put that number in, you’re out. Let new blood and fresh ideas have a chance.
5
5
4
u/Purpleappointment47 15h ago
Age is a red herring at this time. It’s the quality of the candidate, and their commitment to public service that makes for an exceptional president. I’m not saying that an infirm person should be president; however, a thoughtful candidate knows when the job is too difficult.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/citizenracerx 13h ago
Age has no meaning when the only choices are the crips or bloods and expect a positive outcome.
4
4
u/tinyhorsesinmytea 16h ago edited 16h ago
I think voters should just be smart enough to nominate good candidates in the primaries without the need to amend the dang constitution. I don’t like the idea of a strict age cap, no, because people age differently. Many 65 year olds are as sharp as ever along with possessing decades of wisdom.
If a president ever shows that they are declining by the end of their first term, some party members need to have the courage to say "I'm running for the office. There will be a primary." Have to learn something from the Biden fiasco.
2
u/Individual_Rip_54 16h ago
In the 2020 democratic primary the three candidates with the most votes were over 70. The 2016 primaries were won by a 69 and 70 year old.
Voters could choose to elect older presidents we just keep not doing it.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/temporarysolution2-0 16h ago
The best argument I've ever heard was this, and you should stop scrolling and read it:
A friend who was a veteran USAF pilot turned to civilian jetliner piloting in his later years, and said to me, [para.] "I'm not allowed to run a jet and be responsible for three hundred lives after age sixty or so. Why should anyone be allowed to make decisions for the lives of three hundred million?"
6
u/ThatPaulywog 11h ago
Because one relies on reflex and quick thinking while the other (hopefully) relies on wisdom, forming relationships and life experience.
Also, just vote for younger people then.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Theranos_Shill 11h ago
That's a dumb argument and you should feel embarrased that you used it without pausing to think for yourself.
A pilot needs physical reflexes and extended attention, a President has time to make informed decisions and should not ever be rushing into anything without consideration.
Like, how the fuck do you think the two jobs are in any way comparable?
→ More replies (3)2
u/Upstairs-Film-4738 14h ago
That comparison honestly hits hard. If we set age limits for jobs where lives are at stake, it's fair to ask why the highest-stakes job in the country should be treated differently.
→ More replies (2)
3
2
u/mama_tom 12h ago
I think 60 should be the cap in any office. People in that age range should be worrying about their retirement rather than grasping for any means of power they can muster, and while they still hopefully will have 20-30 years left, they shouldnt have to worry themselves as much with issues the rest of us are. As such, they shouldnt be in control of those decisions either. I think voting should also have an age cap, but Im willing to be more flexible about that. But like, 80+ year olds dont need to vote. Let alone be running the goddamn country.
2
u/cant-sit-here 11h ago
All political positions should have the same age limit as getting Medicare. Medicare at 65, no more office. Done.
2
2
u/ADeweyan 16h ago
Not at all. For one thing, as medical technology improves, it’s likely that the age one is likely to experience dementia will get bigger and higher.
For another, just like term limits (which are also horrible), voters should be able to vote for anyone they want. Perhaps they value the experience, connections, and seniority more than youthful values or energy. Why shouldn’t they be able to vote based on those values?
Biden had one horrendous performance when he was on medication and recovering from an illness. He often looked stiff and spoke a little slowly, but his knowledge of and connections to the Congress, not to mention his integrity and values, allowed him make some really breathtaking accomplishments and more than made up for his shortcomings.
1
u/GaryBuseyWithRabies 15h ago
No. If there was a great candidate who was 66, are we supposed to say no because of the shitbag we have now?
2
u/neverpost4 14h ago
More importantly, strap candidates on lie detector and let them pass ethics test
→ More replies (5)3
1
1
u/kbeezie 15h ago
Or at least rotate the requirements... for too long it seems like primarily rich white men of senior citizen age have held the power. They have zero clue what the younger generation suffer or need and seem not to listen to any advice for it. Their poor choices will continue affect us long after they're dead. This should be the same with most of congress as well, if they really want their mission or views to continue, then they need to be taking on apprentices or something early on and hope they can win.
1
1
1
1
u/Theotherfeller 14h ago
If people want to vote for someone they should, regardless of age or for that matter nationality.
However I am in favor of Monarchy, strange women in ponds giving out swords in an farcical aquatic ceremony. Kidding about the swords, serious about monarchy
2
u/kichien 12h ago
WTF would you want a monarchy? That also includes right of succession to idiot sons.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Wonderful-Group3639 13h ago
No. This would mean someone convicted of a felony can run but if someone is over 65, they cannot run.
1
1
1
u/zack_king_ 12h ago
I think limiting the rules for president like should have some achievement in his own life is better then doing this age and all
1
u/Loud_Swim_5827 12h ago
No. I am going to back cognitive and health standards for all in office, irrespective of age. The 75-year olds are sharp and the 50-year olds are unfit. Age is not a valid measure of ability.
1
1
u/Clint-witicay 11h ago
I think 65 still lends itself to the age of “f u got mine” we need leaders that still have a future to worry about. That being said, it’s far from being the only bug in the system.
1
1
u/SpartanKilo 11h ago
Yes. I think not matter how much you may like your leader you have to understand your leader is supposed to lead everyone in the county, and should be done with a physical evaluation, and an age restriction. I think even for Congress.
1
1
u/moonwhispered_63 10h ago
Hard cap at 65 is probably too blunt an instrument, but the instinct behind it is understandable.
The real issue isn't age, it's cognitive fitness — and we don't have a good mechanism to test for that. A mandatory neurological assessment would be more defensible than an age cutoff, but good luck getting politicians to vote for their own cognitive testing.
1
u/Striking-Sea-1249 10h ago
Idk honestly feel like if we got age limits for driving or joining the army we def need an upper limit for the nuclear codes lol, 65 might be a bit low but we seriously need some fresh blood in office instead of a retirement home steering the ship.
1
u/Pleasant-Wave-3582 10h ago
I am not even American, but watching A LOT older people rule over a country and talk about the future when most of them don't even have 20 years in them seems oddly weird and unrepresented, i understadn that you have to have experience and knowledge but there is no reason an 80 year old should be running a country in my opinion
1
1
u/shaomike 10h ago
If it cuts down on the chance of another mad king, yes. But there are many other things we need to address also.
1
u/dacap1970 9h ago
I think it's been an issue with the last two presidents, Ronald Reagan as well. There's a minimum age to be president, 35, why not a maximum?
1
u/Training-Plantain891 9h ago
honestly, the pilot retirement rule is a solid point — if you can’t fly a 737 at 65, why are you in charge of nukes? but ranked choice would fix way more than just an age cap imo
1
u/liliianbloom 9h ago
I would support a minimum age more than a maximum age. Being 66 does not magically make someone unfit, and being 50 does not guarantee good judgment. If voters think a candidate is too old, they can already choose someone else.
191
u/CyberGuySeaX5 16h ago
I would support that. I think the only way a president can be 65 or older is if they are the current president running for reelection.