Term limits mean the only people left in washing that understand the system are lobbyists and consultants. As for age, there should be twice annual fitness tests after the age of 65. There are some geezers that are still very capable mentally.
California has term limits for state officials. It has worked out exactly as @demizerone@lemmy.world has said. It’s just another stupid quick fix that actually makes things worse. You get a revolving door where elected officials are always looking for the next place to jump, and it disproportionately empowers the party officials who can offer those steps up the ladder. You love the DNC? That’s how you get even more of a dead hand in control of elected officials.
But as for fitness tests, those can be too easily gamed, and whoever administers the tests will now have extreme political power with no responsibility. So that’s as bad an idea as the literacy tests for voting in the US south used to be, and for the same reasons: selective enforcement and corrupt application of the rules.
Any system based on medical or intellectual tests is doomed to fail. There’s a reason we had to end literacy tests. Any test has to have people that design, administer, and grade the test. Age limits are a crude and blunt instrument, but there is a reason we use them for other matters of politics in the early stages of life. We have a voting age, not a voting competency test. And we have minimum ages for House, Senate, and Presidency eligibility. Yes, you could try to write qualifying exams for these positions, but the history of literary tests shows how that would go. Age is a crude instrument, but it is objective. You were born on certain day, and assuming accurate public records, that is a fact that isn’t open to interpretation. It is clear and unambiguous.
An age limit for high offices makes perfect sense. If we can have minimum ages, we can have maximum ages. And any argument for why maximum ages won’t work would also apply to minimum ages, yet our constitution is based on minimum ages, not fuzzy ability tests.
Probably a fair trade to remove half the mummies in congress and get younger more progressive people in there. Bernie is getting on in years, we should be supporting potential replacements regardless.
That’s not really true, Elon’s “position” already doesn’t have a term limit. Even if he supports it doesn’t automatically make it bad for us or good for him, you need to support your argument.
Term limits don’t stop the seat from voting, it just makes the seat more likely to promote change and new ideas and perspectives. It actively helps remove the oldest members of congress. There will always be a senate or congress seat, the term limit is for the person sitting in it.
Term limits mean the only people left in washing that understand the system are lobbyists and consultants. As for age, there should be twice annual fitness tests after the age of 65. There are some geezers that are still very capable mentally.
California has term limits for state officials. It has worked out exactly as @demizerone@lemmy.world has said. It’s just another stupid quick fix that actually makes things worse. You get a revolving door where elected officials are always looking for the next place to jump, and it disproportionately empowers the party officials who can offer those steps up the ladder. You love the DNC? That’s how you get even more of a dead hand in control of elected officials.
But as for fitness tests, those can be too easily gamed, and whoever administers the tests will now have extreme political power with no responsibility. So that’s as bad an idea as the literacy tests for voting in the US south used to be, and for the same reasons: selective enforcement and corrupt application of the rules.
Any system based on medical or intellectual tests is doomed to fail. There’s a reason we had to end literacy tests. Any test has to have people that design, administer, and grade the test. Age limits are a crude and blunt instrument, but there is a reason we use them for other matters of politics in the early stages of life. We have a voting age, not a voting competency test. And we have minimum ages for House, Senate, and Presidency eligibility. Yes, you could try to write qualifying exams for these positions, but the history of literary tests shows how that would go. Age is a crude instrument, but it is objective. You were born on certain day, and assuming accurate public records, that is a fact that isn’t open to interpretation. It is clear and unambiguous.
An age limit for high offices makes perfect sense. If we can have minimum ages, we can have maximum ages. And any argument for why maximum ages won’t work would also apply to minimum ages, yet our constitution is based on minimum ages, not fuzzy ability tests.
You have a moronic take. I understand the federal government’s inner workings better than Trump and I’ve served 0 terms as president.
So Bernie shouldn’t be a politician anymore?
Probably a fair trade to remove half the mummies in congress and get younger more progressive people in there. Bernie is getting on in years, we should be supporting potential replacements regardless.
elon is arguing for term limits
That’s because he knows they’re antidemocratic.
Ok, and?
term limits give even more policy setting power to elon, a guy who is rich but not elected
That’s not really true, Elon’s “position” already doesn’t have a term limit. Even if he supports it doesn’t automatically make it bad for us or good for him, you need to support your argument.
Term limits make more elected officials lame ducks. That weakens their power relative to the civil service and the unelected party bureaucrats.
Term limits don’t stop the seat from voting, it just makes the seat more likely to promote change and new ideas and perspectives. It actively helps remove the oldest members of congress. There will always be a senate or congress seat, the term limit is for the person sitting in it.