California and senate elections are slightly better in that regard, however, look at how much money Feinstein was able to raise over her opponents. This is nothing special about Feinstein, it's an advantage incumbents generally enjoy:
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/dianne-feins...
I think getting this money out of politics is a start to ensuring elections are based on the candidate themselves & their policies and less around how much special interests already have invested in them. I don't have any ideas about how to get more people to show up specifically for primary elections, but the ideas people have around getting more people to vote in general elections could help, like expanding absentee voting, making it a holiday, etc.
> The U.S. electorate is aging: 52% of registered voters are ages 50 and older, up from 41% in 1996. This shift has occurred in both partisan coalitions. More than half of Republican and GOP-leaning voters (56%) are ages 50 and older, up from 39% in 1996. And among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, half are 50 and older, up from 41% in 1996.
> Another way to consider the aging of the electorate is to look at median age. The median age among all registered voters increased from 44 in 1996 to 50 in 2019. It rose from 43 to 52 among Republican registered voters and from 45 to 49 among Democratic registered voters.
I think that on average, people consider age significant, so they expect their candidate to be around as old as them. I don't think it's the whole picture, but it helps me feel less baffled at least.
Their underlings support them because they lose access to a great influencer in case of removal.
It's more difficult for young people to rise up when there's very little influence to be had. However, in times of great upheaval young people tend to rise up much faster as the incompetent people at the top get removed.
Due to practicality and congressional gridlock, this has to happen state by state, and in many states the 'easiest' method is some sort of ballot initiative. I encourage anyone who reads this to look up the process in their state (https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_ballot_measures_by_state) and at least try to get a signature out to one so they show up on the ballot.
California runs an open primary and a top two general.
I'm not especially in favor of short term limits, since there is a benefit to politicians with experience. But I'd definitely consider options that better balance their reasonable desire to elect experienced and influential candidates with the very heavy hand that experience puts on everybody else.
Heck, California has gone so far as to have all their senate elections be between two members of the same party.
Most other votes will be largely sublimated to the party priorities. The individuals will determine the specific contents of what they're voting on, but in general the person from the other party is going to vote against the things you're most interested in. You may watch your party vote on things that aren't your favorite, but it's unlikely they'll be repugnant to you. That's how they got to be your allies.
If you want to get more involved than that, you show up for the primaries. That's a multi-way contest to find the person who best represents you and your allies. That's where the party priorities get set. People who vote only in the general election are missing out on the real work of politics.
At the end of the day, the people continue to elect them. If voters were unhappy with Feinstein's performance (or that of her key aides), the solution was as simple as voting her out.
Name recognition is powerful.
Seniority leads to leadership of key committees in the US Congress.
But, I do agree that this is a problem. RBG was another example - had she retired a few years prior to her death, the state of SCOTUS would be very different today. Was she addicted to the power? Did she truly think nobody younger could do a better job? Same for Feinstein, McConnell, Biden, and many others on both sides of the aisle.
Often these incompetent people are in "safe seat" regions. Either heavily democrat or republican. Voters won't switch parties just because representative is incompetent. There should be another options.
In her last election, both final candidates were Democrats. Neither party could unseat her. Voters have been clear that they preferred Feinstein to anybody else.
So the question is why? Was it her power in the Senate? Was she particularly good at bringing pork to CA? Or was it just money and the political machine? Probably a lot of that last item - the parties themselves have incentives to keep winning politicians around - they're good for fund-raising.
The only people losing power with her early retirement would have been her handlers. She hasn’t made a decision on her own in a long time. And when she did pretend to do so, the handlers would “help her remember the right choice”.
Life or death. The mindset is that when they retire they have nothing to live for and will die soon after. The personality type required to get to a powerful position like Senator can also (frequently * ) not be able to conceive of a meaningful life after office. Quitting office is like giving up on life for these people.
*Jimmy Carter is a good counter example. He found a meaningful purpose after holding a powerful office.
Perhaps the "reason to live" is more important than people realize.
This is their life. It is literally the only thing they have ever one in one form or another.
For many of us this would be like never touching a computer again after turning 65.
Could be a bit more true of Biden, I don't know, but I doubt it's significantly more than other high profile figures or other presidents.