What are your thoughts on an upper age limit (60+ perhaps) to serve in the government?

What are your thoughts on an upper age limit (60+ perhaps) to serve in the government?

What do you think?

12 Points
Upvote Downvote


Leave a Reply
  1. I agree with this.

    Organisations like the military have a mandatory retirement age (60 where I live) and 65 is the age where you can collect retirement benefits. I agree they should live with the same strictures as us.

  2. Age limits and term limits are not the answer. They are possibly the answer to a different question. If the question is: Why is the government so disfunctional and fucked up? These are not answers. Voter apathy, money, general apathy of people, ethics laws, enforcement of ethics laws, reforms in the way Congress conducts business — these are all answers to make the government more functional and responsive to The People. Add in better education about government and disinformation, then that’s a good formula.

    Will these things ever happen? Probably not.

    Neither the age limit or term limits will help with people like MT Greene or Matt Gaetz or Ted Cruz or Joe Manchin. All the things I mentioned would help.

    The way the current system works is that seniority = power. Combine that with Representative and Senators doing JUST ENOUGH for their Districts or States to keep them re-elected (voter apathy), that’s the formula that needs to be disrupted.

    Would you like a world where Bernie Sanders is not allowed to be a Senator because of term limits or age limits? Age does not equal stupid or senile.

  3. People with no experience in anything are the first to fuck up everything and have the temerity to wrap that in righteousness as well as to disenfranchise people of their rights.

    Nobody is making people vote for people of any age. So, why would somebody vote for you or whatever age group you’re in and how engaged in politics as a voter are you?


  4. Coming from the USA, I think an upper age limit of, say, 75 or so might be a good idea, but we’d probably be better off with term limits (no career politicians who are around forever) and bans on lobbying (people who haven’t been bribed into voting a certain way tend to be more “in-touch”.)

  5. I’m ok with an upper age limit. Not sure 60 is the right number, I’d want some study / data to go off of. But yeah I think it’s a good idea. I also think term limits are a good idea. Once you get a house seat you have a 90% relection rate. And pairing that with congresses’ constsnt approval rating it doesn’t make sense that everyone’s rep is the good one.

  6. I get it, it’s good to have experience. But the older generation is out of touch with the future. They make decisions that will naturally affect the younger population more than themselves.

  7. I’d probably set the limit somewhere in the early-to-mid 60’s. Because it really just comes to a point where you know they’re not invested in the future, and they literally just serving themselves up there

  8. Term limits are the way to go.

    Age is not a factor. European politicians are rarely 60+ and they are as shitty as the US ones, they just have less power to play with.

  9. Personally, i think the elder generation (60+, as stated) shouldn’t work in politics at all, it should be the younger generation (30+), because the older generations (from what ive seen, anyway) are always stuck in their ways “oh, well, back when i was young, we did it this way” like, honestly just stfu, times have changed, your ways wont work any more, the world is different.
    For example, back in the 2000s-2010s, older people were like “oh, well, back in my day, it was illegal to be gay” well… its not any more, so get your homophobic ass out of my sight

    Also, i feel like, middle aged people, while not perfectly, would be able to relate/communicate better with the younger generation (15-25) who are the future leaders of the country.

  10. Definitely something like 75. I know people in their 60’s who are totally okay…people in their early 70’s too. Once you hit above 75ish no way you’re anywhere near as with it as you need to be. Like 5 percent of people in their late 70’s are physiologically okay to deal with the responsibility of a major public office. And like 1 percent of people in their 80’s might be able to handle a serious job. Biden is 78 years old now and he was a totally different guy even just 5 years ago. Just look at him in 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK8NuU2N_Rc compared to now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abVP2BZtHd0&t=359s

    And keep in mind, he was 73 in the first video – very near the cut-off I suggested.

  11. I get the idea of an upper age limit, but that would exclude people who actually give a damn about generations they won’t live to see (e.g., Bernie Sanders). Don’t want old people in office? Then vote for young ones!

  12. Politics should be about the future, not the past.

    Not saying that a 95 year old could not be an effective legislator, but their interests and understanding of the way the world is heading will likely be a material impediment in appropriate decision making.

  13. Yeah, I’ve met people in their sixties who were sharper than a whole lot of politicians in their forties and fifties. We need a merit-based system, not some garbage arbitrary numbers.

  14. Not really interested. Instead, let’s focus on fixing the obvious, known problems with voting. For one thing, our Electoral College systematically rewards voters who culturally isolate themselves, in homogeneous areas. However, in a democracy, it is everyone’s civic duty not to have such insular perspectives. I’m not saying others’ votes should count more (people have a right to live anywhere they want); I am only saying they should count equally. Moreover, the technology to tally votes individually has been available for generations—hence one of the Electoral College’s early justifications is gone now. Finally, entry barriers, due to unfair campaign finance practices and gerrymandering, further erode the quality of our democratic process.

Leave a Reply