Age requirement for Office

[DarthRetard]

Alrighty, so I'm trying to actually contribute to this forum with an issue that I think is something that should really be a more debated topic than it is, but that's just me. US Constitution states for Senate and Executive branch, one cannot be less than 35 years of age, and 25 for House of Representatives.

However, I'm wondering why not elect a younger president? Obama's mid-40's if I'm correct, and McCain is 73-ish, I believe? Nader is even older, though none of us consider him a serious candidate it seems. My point is, do you think it's viable for a candidate who is younger to market a better image in terms of being more in touch with current social concern? Or, is it better to have the age of experience?

[Colchek]

I've got a few opinions on this topic. In addtion to the age requirements, you have to be a natural born US citizen, at least for President. That's it. If you were born in the US, and you meet the age requirement, you can run for President. In today's world, unfortunately, it's not age, or experience, that get you into office. It's money. You have to have enough money to campaign all over the US, and create one TV/radio ad after another to counter the mud-slinging that is a hallmark of modern political races. What your platform is, or what you promise, means little these days. It's whether or not you have enough cash to wage war. The average Joe American isn't going to have near enough to even compete, nor cover damage control when their opponent starts digging up that they wet their pants when they were three.

It's not like the days when our country was young. To get elected, you had to get the people to agree with your platform. To get them to understand that you had their needs and concerns in mind, and a promise that you would do everything in your power to see to them once elected. A big speech, a few caring words and gestures, to show you were one of the people. In today's campaigns, that's overshadowed by the mud slinging. Sure, you had a little of that in the past, that's human nature. However, it was no where near the level it is today. If you go into a political race today, be prepared to be put under the largest microscope known to man, with all of your faults, all of your mistakes (which make us human, I say) brought to the forefront for all to see, to discredit you, even if what is said is full of mistruths. How good an orator you are matters little. It's how good of a spin doctor you are.

That's my $0.02

[Giggle Goose]

Shit, a lot of people think 40's is too young. Seems people are getting uppity because a lot of young people are throwing their support behind Obama. I think some Clinton supporters said one of his rallies looked like Facebook; and some of my college classmates were pissed that they weren't being taken seriously.

It doesn't matter, younger people never make it to the polls anyway. The lady at the place I voted in 2004 nearly had a heart attack when she saw me voting. (I was 18). Kind of sad, really.

This is just my personal experience; don't make me dig up stats and shit; that's Darth's job anyway.

[IDrinkaRum]

The last young president we had was JFK who was around 43/44 when he was elected. Everyone since there has been older.

Most people in the American public equate age with experience. (Same as in the corporate world). Just thought to point that out.

[DarthRetard]

I understand, but let's say it was a local public office, like, hmm, school board.
For me, I just came out of the education system these people have been implementing policies in. I'm still a teenager and understand how it works and what worked in that system and what didn't, because I am a product of it, I would think that in cases like that, that's where my "experience" would be.

One of the things I actually like about Obama is his lack of "washington experience", meaning, he hasn't the chance to let his mind get completely warped yet, or maybe he has, I don't know, but it's something I do think would be refreshing.

[lordlundar]

The last young president we had was JFK who was around 43/44 when he was elected. Everyone since there has been older.

Most people in the American public equate age with experience. (Same as in the corporate world). Just thought to point that out.

And yet JFK was considered to be latest truly great president. Funny that.:D

[daleduke17]

The last young president we had was JFK who was around 43/44 when he was elected. Everyone since there has been older.

Most people in the American public equate age with experience. (Same as in the corporate world). Just thought to point that out.

What about Bill Clinton? Where did he land in age?

EDIT: Clinton was 46-47 when he took office.

[AFPheonix]

And yet JFK was considered to be latest truly great president. Funny that.:D

Mostly because we didn't have him around long enough to get really pissed at him about something or another.

He did screw up the whole Bay of Pigs incident pretty well.

[Boozy]

The Bay of Pigs fiasco led directly to Cuba positioning nuclear warheads less than 100 miles off the coast of Florida. And yet JFK is still being called a "great" president.

I don't mean to be crass, but apparently being assassinated goes a long way towards improving your image. :rolleyes:

[DarthRetard]

Don't forget, Boozy, and all, that at the same time that the USSR was positioning nukes in Cuba, we were positioning missiles and warheads in Turkey.

[Boozy]

No doubt. Kennedy almost turned the Cold War into a hot one.

[DarthRetard]

The USSR tried, actually. I read a Chomsky piece (Ooh, a conservative reading chomsky, I know), and he recounted an incident that had the Soviets giving the order to fire on Washington, and it being stopped by a Sub captain who belayed it. If I can find the quote online, or if I can find the book, I'll put it word for word in here, but it was most definitely Chomsky.

[Boozy]

To my knowledge, there was never any such order from the Kremlin, and if there were, I can't imagine they'd allow one submarine captain to change the orders.

Chomsky might have been referring to the 1962 incident where a US destroyer fired on a Russian sub, unaware it carried nuclear weapons. The three officers on board, having been attacked first, had standing authorization to launch if they felt it was necessary. However, the captain refused to do so, and nuclear war was averted.

[DarthRetard]

No, I distinctly remember Chomsky referring to such an incident, that much is clear. Either way, this thread got derailed, so fuck it.

[Slytovhand]

Ok - back to the topic then... I don't think there should be an 'age requirement' for going for election. If you're going to be considered too young, you won't get voted in anyways.

I do think, however, there needs to be an upper limit. The older you get, the more conservative your thoughts and behaviour becomes. So it becomes harder and harder to become truly innovative. It's the younger generation that actually makes the positive changes this world has been needing.

To me, 73 is waaay to old to just be taking up a position in office. Other than the above, there's a much higher chance of a natural death, and also they tend to be somewhat 'out of touch' with the rest of society. 'Middle age' would make the most amount of sense. 45 can try to relate with 20 year olds and 60 year olds, but I wouldn't say the same about the other extremes (younger or older).

There's my thoughts...

[AFPheonix]

I think there should at least be a limit set based on when your brain is done maturing, which apparently isn't until someone is in their 20's or 30's.

[Boozy]

To me, 73 is waaay to old to just be taking up a position in office.

My 79 year-old grandmother is sharp as a tack and has a wealth of experience and knowledge. She knows as much about computers as I do and is concerned about alternative fuels and climate change. She's not running for office, but she'd be a much better candidate than the last asshole I had to bite down and vote for.

My grandmother might be the exception to the rule, but she's a good example of why age limits are....well, ageist. Ideally, we'd have a system whereby someone's knowledge, maturity level, and innovation is judged individually, regardless of their age.

[Sylvia727]

I do think, however, there needs to be an upper limit. The older you get, the more conservative your thoughts and behaviour becomes.

And the younger you are, the stupider and more immature you are. I'd trust my 80 year old grandmother more than I would my 25 year old cousin.

If you're going to be considered too young, you won't get voted in anyways.

If you're going to be considered too old, you won't get voted in anyways.

I think any eligible voter should have the right to run in an election. That just makes sense to me.

[Slytovhand]

Sylvia and Boozy..

You're right, you're right, you're right...

I'll take back a fair chunk of what I just wrote...

I did a bad, in as much as I did a quick think through my head of the leaders of the elder generation (Bush, McCain, Bjeike-Petersen (in Queensland) etc) and went 'eeewwwww......', and thought of the younger ones and thought 'yeah - they aren't too bad' (mostly just Kevin Rudd, Kennedy - our new PM..though he's yet to fully prove himself, he has done some rather dramatic things already). I should have thought of people such as Castro, Mao Zedong (though of course, they are debatable.. but this is fratching :p)



But anyway... I'm not happy with a) 1 leader who has masses of power, and b) party politicking. Much better when the local representative actually represented the locals - not just towed a party line - but that's a different fratch.