[1] This article is from six years ago. https://www3.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2017/10/11/congres...
is: "McConnell’s frozen moment renews questions about America’s aged leaders" https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/mitch-mcconnell-...
this is an interview he gave within the last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qldqgtCYMs0
In the military, you're always training a replacement, and come 65 (or 68), you're retiring, regardless of your capacity.
That is: Why do we exclude people under 18 from voting? Because we think they don't have the mental tools to understand policy well enough to make an informed decision. Well, if seniors don't have the mental tools anymore, should they be allowed to vote?
And this is even stronger with holding office. You can vote at 18, but you can't be a representative until 25, or a senator until 35. Why? Because you need to be old enough to (hopefully) have some judgment. Well, what if you're too old to have judgment?
So, yeah, excluding seniors from office would in fact be reasonable. Or at least requiring an annual mental competency test.
Unfortunately, we'll never get it without a state-driven constitutional convention, because those with the most power in Congress are highly correlated with those with the highest age.
Not every 15 year old would make an unsatisfactory legislator, and yet ...
And then we see under-18 routinely be charged as adults.
And yes, if 15 year olds could vote and run for office, I do think we'd see more issues aimed at the younger generations ALONG WITH longer views of how our government is run. And we're seeing the judicial side of this with youngsters suing for climate devastation, like https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/1...
There is truth to the idea that, whether due to life experience or brain development, teenagers struggle with proper decision-making.
I don't like the arbitrary nature of age cutoffs, but I would no longer support the idea of giving more political power to anyone under 18.
I don't like the arbitrary nature of age cutoffs, but I would no longer support the idea of giving more political power to anyone under 18.
while that's just an anecdote, even if it were the norm, it is also the norm for old people of a sufficient age
if it makes you feel better, we can administer cognitive tests to old people and determine at what point they fall into "teenager" level of mental acuity
I had a friend who remained sharp until her mid 90s. I have family members who shouldn't be voting in their early 70s. That range is massive, whereas we can mostly agree that nearly all 14 year olds aren't capable, but most 20 year olds are - unfair but not as vast a range.
I'm not sure that's true. Mental maturity in kids varies widely, too. There are some pretty mentally mature kids changing the world. Look at Greta Thunberg.
There are also many fewer years for older people to live with the consequences of their votes. Everything has trade-offs. In this case, the loss would not be as bad as the loss we get from excluding those below 18.
Whatever the counterexample of sharp old people, I can think of one for sharp young people. We ignore those exceptions for young people, we can ignore them for old people, too. And if you're worried the old-age cutoff will be too young, just pick whatever age's median mental acuity matches 18 year olds - what's good for the gosling is good for the goose.
If you get ages can be seen to have the same legal cognitive patters as an adult, why shouldn't they also have the same rights as an adult?
There's no way to separate the able minded from the seniles fairly, so an age limit is the best way to do it.
Sorry about your father, but there are plenty of 70 year olds who are extremely competent, capable and that also bring valuable connections and experience.
And if you've been around many elderly people, you know that quite a few are less competent to vote than the average 14-year-old student council member, and that letting ~all of them do so is no less arbitrary than that "18".
The minimum ages necessarily put an upward skew on it, but very few are anywhere near the minimum. There is little need to ensure representation for the elderly. And meantime, anybody of working age is badly under-represented.
An age limit would be a crude form of that. So would a term limit.
We could alter the seniority system that gives much more weight to people who have been there the longest. But that's a rule Congress passes for itself, and it's hard to imagine many incumbents giving up on a privilege they've been waiting for.