Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

North Dakota voters just approved an age limit for congressional candidates

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: North Dakota voters just approved an age limit for congressional candidates

#21

Post by pdonis »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #13
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #3

This is so weird, because you could also just not elect them.

The issue is not electing people... it's re-election advantage. Incumbent candidates rarely lose, especially in Congress... and power is addicting. This leads to the current situation where U.S. Congress median age is pretty far on the cognitive decline curve - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/30/house-get... . I think there were multiple issues that took down USSR, but aging leadership with inflexible…

> The issue is not electing people... it's re-election advantage.

The fix for that isn't age limits, it's term limits. Which would also help with many other issues that are caused by politics being a lucrative career.

Re: North Dakota voters just approved an age limit for congressional candidates

#24

Post by toomuchtodo »

meristohm wrote: post #20
chrisco255 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really weird at all. It's enough time to gain some experience and wisdom in the world before being endowed as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military on earth. A maximum age is dumb though. There really is no telling what developments in tech will lead to in terms of human lifespan. I'm more concerned with people staying in politics for too long. Yes if someone entered Congress at 25 they should c…

Is it okay to die? Are we each so important that we need to extend our life with technology, beyond the low-tech solutions of exercise, sleep, nutrition (can get enough exercise just meeting this need), warmth, purpose, and love? What is the role of culture and generational bonds in all this?

It’s not just okay, it is necessary. Otherwise, old ideas won’t die and give room for new ideas to grow, like a forest burning so that the saplings can get sun.

Re: North Dakota voters just approved an age limit for congressional candidates

#25

Post by dcow »

lstodd wrote: post #19
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not electing people... it's re-election advantage. Incumbent candidates rarely lose, especially in Congress... and power is addicting. This leads to the current situation where U.S. Congress median age is pretty far on the cognitive decline curve - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/30/house-get... . I think there were multiple issues that took down USSR, but aging leadership with inflexible…

well maybe work on that "re-election advantage", understand and curtail it instead of instuting blanket (and imo insane) bans?

If you’re old enough to retire and collect old person benefits you are no longer fit to lead not because you are might be incapable but because you are simply not generationally relevant. The office of president has term limits for effectively the same reason and nobody calls those insane.

Re: North Dakota voters just approved an age limit for congressional candidates

#26

Post by p1esk »

chrisco255 wrote: post #15
3vidence wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have age minimums for just about everything it doesn't seem crazy to have age maximum for things for mainly the same reasons. Isn't the minimum age for presidential candidates 35? That actually seems weirder to me than an age maximum of 80.

That's not really weird at all. It's enough time to gain some experience and wisdom in the world before being endowed as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military on earth. A maximum age is dumb though. There really is no telling what developments in tech will lead to in terms of human lifespan. I'm more concerned with people staying in politics for too long. Yes if someone entered Congress at 25 they should c…

So don’t vote for young candidates then? Why do you need these limits?

Re: North Dakota voters just approved an age limit for congressional candidates

#28

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

boredpeter wrote: post #10

Why can a lower limit on age to participate in elections be constitutional but an upper limit not? You need to be 18 to vote and 35 to be president but we can’t legislate an upper age limit on running for office?

It’s because of the constitution. The most fundamental laws of the land are expressed in the constitution, and nothing else can override them. In the US, the 26th amendment establishes the minimum age of 18 for voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_...) and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution establishes the age of 35 for presidency. However, a constitutional amendment (which is difficult to pass with today’s political divide) could theoretically change that.

Re: North Dakota voters just approved an age limit for congressional candidates

#29

Post by bilbo0s »

lstodd wrote: post #19
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not electing people... it's re-election advantage. Incumbent candidates rarely lose, especially in Congress... and power is addicting. This leads to the current situation where U.S. Congress median age is pretty far on the cognitive decline curve - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/30/house-get... . I think there were multiple issues that took down USSR, but aging leadership with inflexible…

well maybe work on that "re-election advantage", understand and curtail it instead of instuting blanket (and imo insane) bans?

That's what's weird to me also.

I honestly don't understand? Clearly the problem is incumbency, why are we going after age? It doesn't make much sense.

The law is clearly unconstitutional and would be overturned without a change to that document. And a change to that document won't happen.

But we can make laws to diminish the power of incumbency that would be in complete compliance with all constitutional parameters. I'm not even talking about the constitutionally questionable things like term limits. (Which, clearly, we could also try since people don't care about the constitutionality of the laws apparently.) I mean, why wouldn't we?

Why are we nibbling around the edges? Let's go for the jugular.

Re: North Dakota voters just approved an age limit for congressional candidates

#30

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

Personally I think it’s more important to increase the voting age than to prevent elderly candidates. Democracy is only as good as the participants. And the human brain does not mature until closer to 30. That’s also when people have gone through more of life’s big steps and can have better perspective on the world to make better decisions. I simply don’t understand the push from some to lower the age, as it will result in worse decisions in our system. The only reason I can see for lowering the age is to favor one side or the other at that time.
Post reply on HN