We already have age limits at the lower end. Why are people so against age limits at the upper end?

  • megopie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Eh, frankly, I’m not a big fan of age limits or term limits, I think they’re fundamentally undemocratic. If people in a state keep electing someone then it is their right to do so.

    Banning people over a certain age or who have served a certain amount of terms doesn’t solve the core issue in such circumstances, that being gerrymandering, voter suppression, and wide spread misinformation and disinformation spread by bad actors. There are plenty of old representatives and senators who I have endless respect and trust for, and it would really be a shame if they were forced to leave office just because they hit some arbitrary number of years or terms.

    • sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.oneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Constitution says that a person can’t be under 30 to serve in the Senate. Is that saying that there aren’t any sub-30 year olds who would be great Senators? Why is one arbitrary limit OK, but one on the other end of the range suddenly undemocratic? That just makes no sense to me.

      • Pigeon@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think they agree with that lower limit either. They didn’t say anything to make me think it’s not included in the age limits they’re talking about.

    • BlueNine@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Legislative work is a career. One gets better at their career the longer they do it. I don’t hire rookie electricians, and I hate that my state forces to vote for useless green legislators. They don’t know what they are doing and they kowtow to lobbyists and interests who write all the bills that pass here. Term limits are step one in legislative capture.

      Thanks for making room for an opinion that is often unpopular in left dominated online spaces.

      • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eventually one might come to the conclusion that there is no way to have people in power and it not be abused.

        • BlueNine@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          And yet, communities have collective needs, and require that some of us administer those needs. What are we to do? Embrace anarchy or libertarianism? Not for me I don’t think. Just push for systems that create positive, pro-social incentive structures. It is the best I think we can do.

          • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re using “anarchy” as analogous to “chaos”. Embrace each other rather than a group that claims power using violence.

        • megopie@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can have people in power and have them not abuse it assuming that the public in turn has the power and information to remove or reprimand them them when they do so.

          Obviously that can be difficult to implement well but it is far from impossible.

      • megopie@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The funny thing is, the “term limits for legislators” and “age limits for legislators” did not come out of left wing theorists or even social liberal theorist, they came from Koch funded think tanks like the heritage foundation! It’s another example of how effective astroturfing and targeted political “advertising” can be at manipulating both side of the political spectrum.

        • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, of course literally the one and only. I trust him too. He is the only one. Literally the only senator that I would actually trust to do the right thing, in both the Senate and the House.

          1 person against 99 can’t do almost anything though. OP said plural senators

          • Pigeon@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And just look at all the young, horrible GOP house reps. Or the young neo-lib reps. They’re certainly no better than the old ones.

            An age limit would just result in the same exact situation as now, but with everyone younger.

            The house and senate are old and terrible, but they’re not terrible because they’re old. The system just happens to promote both things.