Should we lower or raise the age for one to be able to run for President?

[Varysblackfyre321]

Or is it fine as is?

[Iskaral Pust]

Is this the start of the AOC bandwagon?

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Is this the start of the AOC bandwagon?

Lol, I’ll admit to have thought of it when researching her and how people are responding to her. Not really a fan yet. I just think the standard of age a person must be to try run for President should be examined.  

[Iskaral Pust]

I would agree in general that any person eligible to vote should also be eligible to run for any office for which they can vote. 

[Darth Richard II]

34 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Is this the start of the AOC bandwagon?

Naw, it’s what happens when you make topics late at night while drunk.

[Varysblackfyre321]

49 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I would agree in general that any person eligible to vote should also be eligible to run for any office for which they can vote. 

Meh, I don't know how to feel about going that far. An 18 year old hasn't had lifelong experiences to grant them wisdom.  And one must note they're still biologically developing. I understand it's unlikely they'll actually win, but still not a risk I'm exactly comfortable taking.

[DMC]

No.  The federal age minimums for officeholding are fine as is.

[Varysblackfyre321]

37 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Naw, it’s what happens when you make topics late at night while drunk.

Goddamn. Another devastating post. I haven't been this shattered since you called me drunk for saying a book was boring in another thread. I am humbled. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

No.  The federal age minimums for officeholding are fine as is.

Really? Why not have  25 be the minimum rather than 35? I think there's room to go that far at most. 

[DMC]

Because I don't want a 25-34 year old to be president.

[DMC]

Honestly if anything I'd advocate raising the presidential minimum to 40.  The House minimum though?  Sure, that could go down to 20.  Most of them act like 5 year olds anyway.

And to preempt an argument, extending suffrage is a right while extending the ability to hold office is a privilege.  Choosing your representative in government is fundamentally different than being that representative in government.

[Alarich II]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Honestly if anything I'd advocate raising the presidential minimum to 40.  The House minimum though?  Sure, that could go down to 20.  Most of them act like 5 year olds anyway. 

And to preempt an argument, extending suffrage is a right while extending the ability to hold office is a privilege.  Choosing your representative in government is fundamentally different than being that representative in government.

Well by that first argument, you might as well lower the age to 6 because the president that the US electorate did vote for doesn't really raise the bar any higher.

I also happen to disagree with the second argument. Privilege ist just another word for "a right that only special people have". Active and passive voting rights are two sides of the same medal. Citizenship means full participation in the political process, which you cannot have if you can't be elected. The difference is obvious but I don't think that it's really that fundamental if you consider both rights as complementary for full citizenship.

Now, wether it is wise to elect a president who isn't allowed to drink alcohol on his inauguration party or not. is IMO a question you should ask the electorate. It seems to me that there's always this underlying thought that if we cannot keep "stupid" people from voting, at least we can try limit their choices in a way that mitigates their bad choices. Of course there's much to be said about protecting people from their own stupid decisions, in many areas of every day life. But this isn't a seat-belt issue and every now and then, the electorate finds a way to vote people with questionable character, morals and/or mental capabilities into office despite an age limit.

The question to me would be twofold:

1. Why is age such an important factor for a president that the electorate must be prevented from voting for anyone under 35?

2. And if age is such an important factor in a "good" president that there needs to be a special and higher age limit than for any other office, why is there only a minimum age and not a maximum age as well (to prevent having a president who suffers from the early stages of Alzheimers for example)?

 

Edit to give an example: In Germany any citizen over the age of 18 can be elected as chancellor. But we never had one that young, in fact the youngest was Kohl at the age of 52. Now of course there's no direct election of the chancellor (who is elected by parliament) so one could argue that this makes all the difference but I don't think that it really does and in the end, I don't think an 18year old would pass the presidential primaries in the US either. But that is just a gut feeling not more.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

Well by that first argument, you might as well lower the age to 6 because the president that the US electorate did vote for doesn't really raise the bar any higher.

First, I said 5 year olds, not 6.  Let's get that straight .  Second, I'm saying only for the House, which is a shitshow anyway.  The House Freedom Caucus is probably the most important small group in the country that has an official title.  To argue 20 year olds can't argue against that bullshit is intellectually dishonest.

11 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

Privilege ist just another word for "a right that only special people have". Active and passive voting rights are two sides of the same medal. Citizenship means full participation in the political process, which you cannot have if you can't be elected. The difference is obvious but I don't think that it's really that fundamental if you consider both rights as complementary for full citizenship.

I'm not gonna deny "privileges should come with rights" is a valid argument.  I just disagree.  Our system is set up as a republic, not a democracy.  And I'm pretty elitist.  If you disagree with that, that's fine.  But I still hold that distinction.

14 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

2. And if age is such an important factor in a "good" president that there needs to be a special and higher age limit than for any other office, why is there only a minimum age and not a maximum age as well (to prevent having a president who suffers from the early stages of Alzheimers for example)?

I would be very open to a maximum age.  I don't think, however, it's politically palatable.  And that's ok.  There's these things called elections where we get to make choices on this anyway.