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

31–40 of 103 posts

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

#31

Post by [deleted] »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #28
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…

[deleted]

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

#33

Post by zeroonetwothree »

pdonis wrote: post #21
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…

> 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.

If someone is doing a good job why wouldn’t we want to keep them around? If a 30 year old is elected to congress I don’t see why they couldn’t serve for 40 years if they are competent.

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

#34

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

dcow wrote: post #25
lstodd wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Term limits on the presidency have nothing to do with age. You could be 35, serve two terms, and you’d still be banned from being president again … at age 43.

The ND ban is nothing but ageism.

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

#35

Post by pinkmuffinere »

dcow wrote: post #25
lstodd wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are you not generationally relevant after a certain age? Would you say the same to Noam Chomsky, Leslie Lamport, and Donald Knuth?

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

#36

Post by oatmeal_croc »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #30

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 res…

Unfortunately for you, the vast majority of people who riot are between 18 to 30. And they'd be right to riot.

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

#39

Post by zeroonetwothree »

bilbo0s wrote: post #29
lstodd wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don’t think incumbency is inherently a problem. Having representatives that have experience is an advantage.

The real problem is gerrymandered districts that essentially mean it’s impossible to lose, even if you aren’t doing a good job.

And age is still a separate problem, there’s a different between a 40 year old wanting to serve 20 more years and a 70 year old doing the same.

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

#40

Post by zeroonetwothree »

p1esk wrote: post #26
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…

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

It’s not strictly necessary. And Congress has seated people younger than the minimum on several occasions. So in practice it doesn’t have much effect.
Post reply on HN