Retirement age for politicians?

Definitely. Older politicians that don't have the values of the younger populace should not be in office, as they can't represent their community effectively.

 

I believe one reason why same-sex marriage struggled to get approved in Finland is because its parliament has a lot of older members whose views and opinions contradict that of the wider population.

 

I'd like to see it, but coupled with strict limits on how much $$$ they could take for campaigns. I'd like to get the $$$ out, so everyone has the same amount to work with, and then, impose term limits: I can't see more than 2 senate terms (12 Years) or 5 house terms (10 years). I'm not sure about an absolute 'age', but I'd also like to see representation based on having people of various ages and incomes representing corresponding people of various ages and income, and having to have so many of each age range/income range literally represented.

Now, it's almost all rich, white, old (male) millionaires.

 

Depends on which ones. I'd support giving the President a one-term limit and potentially changing his term to six years.

However in terms of state legislatures/Congress, I'm 100% against term limits. The problem with term limits is that it inevitably results in people with no governmental experience running the government. You end up with people learning as they go how the government even works, and that's never a good idea.

I think that for governors, they should be limited to two consecutive terms, which is how most states with term limits have theirs set up. The Governor can run for re-election, and after his second term, he's ineligible for 4-8 years, and then he can run again. Here in Michigan, we're one of 7 states where the Governor's term limits are like the Presidency: two terms and then you're banned for life from ever running again.

 

This would serve career politicians better than others. Someone moving from their profession into politics is already at a disadvantage. Bringing relevant and valuable outside expertise from some areas requires real, long-term experience in a successful career. That will take up the majority of a person's working life - having an age of compulsory retirement means that these people can't spend nearly as much time in politics as the politicians who started off as political staffers in their 20s and have never worked in another area. And even then, when those career politicians are actually good, I don't see a reason to kick them out if their voters like them.

Say we put the political retirement age at 70, like Australia's judiciary. In doing that, you cut out quite a few war veterans and other elderly people who have great interest in the concerns older people have (remember that the elderly do not exercise an overwhelming vote and have legitimate issues of their own, not just young people). While it does keep politics fresh, it also risks cutting out experienced and well-liked (hence why they're continually voted into office) politicians, as well as those with the ability to soberly take into account what skills and knowledge they've acquired over the course of their longer lives. Ultimately, the public choose and have a right to choose whom they send to their legislatures to represent them in a democracy. While some sleazy old politicians with terrible voting records are voted in time after time until their deaths, people are still voting for them and it is, essentially, the responsibility of the voter.

I understand the idea behind such a suggestion. I just don't think that it's particularly helpful. It's much like proposals for a minimum level of education to enter politics - I can see why that would help smooth the process of government, but it does end up putting limits on an area that shouldn't be defined by professionalism and qualifications in the same way specific professions are.

 

Nah.
Older politicians may not align with your values, but if they're still being voted that means that a good portion of the electorate approves their work and, as some people have already pointed out, age doesn't determine where people fall on the political spectrum.

 

No, I think the Canadian parliamentary system works just fine as it is and that adding term limits or mandatory retirement ages would not bring the nation any benefit.

 

I don't agree with term limits, if the people feel like a candidate has been in office too long they can choose to not vote for him next time around.

Mandatory retirement is ageist. Look at someone like Jerry Brown who at 76 is starting his fourth term as governor while preparing Califnornia for the future with clean energy jobs and high speed rail, not to mention he's gotten the state out of the regression. I understand the concern of health risks affecting our leaders ability to do their job, but older does not necessarily mean less healthy. Jerry Brown is in much better shape than Chris Christie who's like 50 years old.

 

An age limit or term limit for the Congress doesn't make much sense at least to me.

 

When a politician starts telling only truths it is time for them to retire.

 

Yes.

Finally, it has been said. It is rather frustrating when a politician thinks, everybody makes what they make financially, so they can delay any laws or programs, believing everybody has that high-digit income to fall back on. I totally second the income representation.

With the ages, there's a few potential issues, but as a whole, a more age-reflective representation would be nice.

 

Age limit itself? No. Term limits, yes. I would support (4) four year terms for US Congress and the same for Senate. For president, I would support just two consecutive 4 year terms max.

I am against Citizens United and Super Pacs. Third party candidates deserve to speak at debates. The careers of lobbyists need to be limited to 10 years.

 

I am not for an age per say, but I am for term limits. In the US I think all offices should be limited to 2 terms. Yes for house of reps members that means 4 years, if they want to continue in politics they should run for a different office. I think a reason things are so slow to change is that career politicians are just there for the pay. They should have to go back and get a real job.

Yes, that will get rid of some good politicians, but there should be no reason anyone should ever be in the same office for 30+ years. (one of my senators, Mike Enzi has been there for 3 senate terms or 18 years. That is much to long!

As for getting money out of politics. I think political spending should be capped at $1000, that is enough to pay someone to build a web page that lists their policies and qualifications. If the voters actually care they will read the website. Anyone who wants a job in politics can come up with $1000 and run, and the parties would loose all their power.

 

Good things do come out of having a Senator with a lot of seniority. Here in Michigan, Carl Levin, our former senior Senator, just left office after six terms, from 1979-2015. The good thing about having someone in office that long is that they have more influence and power, which can result in good things happening for your state. For example, Carl Levin would have had a lot more influence in terms of getting more road funds for the State of Michigan than his successor, Gary Peters would, being in his first term.

On a side note, instead of complaining about term limits, why don't you find a viable candidate to run against that person, or a primary challenger who's not a fringe candidate? Our current senior Senator here in Michigan is Debbie Stabenow. The Michigan GOP has run unelectable candidates against her the two times she's been up for re-election since she defeated an incumbent Republican back in 2000. In 2006, they ran Mike Bouchard, the Oakland County Sheriff and did hardly any campaigning, and she cruised to a 57% landslide. Six years later in 2012, the Republicans ran Pete Hoekstra, who ran a hateful campaign that sank like a lead balloon. He ran an ad called "Yellow Girl" in which a Chinese girl said in a Chinese accent in front of a stereotypical Chinese background, "Thank you Debbie Spend-it-now for all you've done for my country!"

 

Sorry, I was in Michigan for Levin's term. I would definitely have term limited him out in 1991 after two terms.

The congress was not meant to be a career for politicians. They were supposed to serve their time and go home. If you have been in Washington for 30+ years, you don't have any connection to your state anymore. It does also give him more influence and power, but the senate was created to make the states equal, not allowing one to have significant influence over the others.

 

Levin and Stabmenow are some of the worst senators ever.

 

Yes, yes, 100% yes. When George Washington resigned after his second term, it should have been taken as a precedent for ALL politicians to take.