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

51–60 of 103 posts

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

#51

Post by zeroonetwothree »

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…

I thinks a federal law could set a maximum age. Just a state law cannot.

Although again, the SCOTUS decision was very close (5-4) so we can’t say they would rule the same way again.

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

#52

Post by roenxi »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #33
pdonis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The evidence is that the current crop aren't doing a good job though; and despite that they have shown remarkable staying power. The last 50 years of political leadership have led to ... vast amounts of capital being built in China, Trump leading in the polls [0] and while civil war looks unlikely it is an option that comes up from time to time in the discourse. Happily the US population has had lots of practice from a series of disastrous foreign expeditions that may have achieved nothing (or the achievements are too unpolitic to talk about, maybe). The US Congress has a lot of trouble pointing out the genuine wins they have presided over if their popularity polling is a guide.

The 2-term limit on presidents seemed to do great things, more limits on the congress is probably a good idea. There are 333 million people in the US, even if the candidates are drawn from the top 10,000 instead of the top 1,000 the results would be good in practice.

[0] Love him or hate him, symbolically the man isn't an endorsement of the status quo.

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

#53

Post by kvonhorn »

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…

I remember when I first voted at 18, thinking that I'd be pissed if I were old enough to die fighting a war, but not old enough to elect the people that drafted me in the first place.

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

#54

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

oatmeal_croc wrote: post #36
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.

> And they'd be right to riot.

Care to explain? I can make assumptions but I will probably not have the same interpretation you have.

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

#55

Post by bilbo0s »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #33
pdonis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Part of the issue is that you haven't shown the 30 year old to be competent when s/he stood for the first election. (Now I think of it, you haven't shown a 70 year old to be incompetent, but that's another issue.)

If you have rules that are not based in competency, but on a simple feeling you have that group of people X, are not competent to do job Y. That's just not going to go well for you. Age minimums as conceived by the founders, for instance, were based in competence. A desire for people to have experience. Even then, they were not draconian. As evidenced by the fact that someone 35 years old could be President of the US.

If you were arguing in favor of competency testing, people might get behind you. But you're arguing in favor of a blanket ban. Which is another matter entirely.

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

#56

Post by UncleEntity »

carabiner wrote: post #38
spoonjim wrote: post #32

Pointless law as the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot add qualifications for national office beyond those in the Constitution.

What if the Constitution might be bad?

Then they're are means to change that.

Maybe tomorrow some state decides that freedom of religion is bad?

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

#57

Post by bilbo0s »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #39
bilbo0s wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

there’s a different between a 40 year old wanting to serve 20 more years and a 70 year old doing the same

No there isn't.

Both these people will put your society into a world of hurt. They want to serve 20 years. I can guarantee that ain't for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden, any more than the district they draw up for themselves to achieve their dream is for the benefit of its constituency.

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

#58

Post by UncleEntity »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #54
oatmeal_croc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> And they'd be right to riot. Care to explain? I can make assumptions but I will probably not have the same interpretation you have.

I think they're making the false assumption that only the effected parties would be out protesting.

I mean, I'm in my 50s and I'd be out in the streets throwing down with the cops if they took away the right to vote from a significant portion of the population.

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

#59

Post by earthling8118 »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #35
dcow wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Even if someone could do fine, I'd prefer to skip out on them rather than let those who aren't fit through.

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

#60

Post by rayiner »

dheera wrote: post #23
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #3

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

The problem is real voters don't really determine who to elect. If they did, Biden and Trump would both not be candidates.

Biden and Trump are probably the worst examples for the point you’re trying to make. There’s no Democrat that polls better against Trump than Biden. Biden beat Kamala Harris (who had Obama’s team behind her), Elizabeth Warren (the choice of affluent white professionals), and Bernie Sanders (the choice of progressives) because he had the support of the party’s critical black voters and moderate/conservative faction. Trump, meanwhile, was the choice of populist republicans who overthrew the party’s establishment (Bush/McCain/Romney) wing.
Post reply on HN