North Dakota voters just approved an age limit for congressional candidates
North Dakota’s approval of an age cap (81) for congressional candidates is prompting broader questions about how to handle aging political leadership in the U.S. Commenters weigh arguments for age limits as a safeguard against gerontocracy and declining cognitive fitness against claims of ageism, incumbency reform, and the need for term limits instead. Many also note constitutional hurdles, party control over candidate selection, and deeper structural issues like gerrymandering, lobbying, and voter behavior that an age cap alone cannot fix.
Support for Age Limits
- Many see gerontocracy as dangerous; argue leaders in their 70s–80s are often out of touch with current realities and tech.
- Some want far lower caps (60–70), equating eligibility for retirement benefits with loss of generational relevance.
- Age caps are compared to mandatory retirement for high‑stakes professions (e.g., pilots) where health decline can quickly become a risk.
- Supporters say incumbency and re‑election advantages keep very old politicians in office despite declining health or relevance.
Opposition & Concerns About Ageism
- Critics call explicit age caps “arbitrary” and “ageist,” arguing individuals age at different rates and some remain highly capable into their 80s and beyond.
- They note existing age minimums are tied to expected experience; maximums don’t map cleanly to competence.
- Emphasize that voters, not laws, should remove unfit officials; better tools for evaluating performance are preferred.
Term Limits, Incumbency & Lobbying
- Some argue term limits attack the real problem (career politicians and incumbency) better than age caps.
- Others counter that term limits can empower lobbyists and special interests, since rotating legislators become short‑timers reliant on long‑tenured lobbyists for expertise and post‑office jobs.
- There is disagreement whether long experience in office mainly benefits governance or entrenches corruption.
Constitutionality & Legal Constraints
- Several note Supreme Court precedent that states cannot add qualifications for federal office beyond the U.S. Constitution; many expect the ND law to be struck down.
- A few argue Congress or a constitutional amendment could impose an upper age nationally; state‑level attempts are seen as legally weak but potentially a “test case.”
- Some suggest precedent could be overturned, but this is speculative within the thread.
Generational Relevance & Culture
- Strong theme: very old leaders don’t “live in the same world” as younger generations, lacking lived experience with digital life, identity issues, modern work, and economic pressures.
- Some say society should respect elders’ wisdom but resist being “ruled” by them; power should rotate as generations change.
Voting Age & Political Maturity
- A side debate argues for raising the voting age (closer to 30) due to brain maturation and life experience.
- Others defend lower ages on liberty grounds and cite past conflicts where people could be drafted but not vote.
- Mixed views on whether changing the voting age would materially affect participation or outcomes.
Broader Systemic Critiques
- Multiple comments blame party gatekeeping, money, gerrymandering, and a two‑party duopoly for giving voters unappealing, elderly choices.
- Some see demand for age caps and term limits as a symptom of deeper structural failures rather than a true fix.