upworthy

elections

Elections

People are debating whether U.S. presidents should be able to be elected past age 65

There are some solid points being made on both sides.

The White House (public domain)

The last few presidential elections have prompted debates about age limits on politicians.

In today's political climate, it's hard to find thoughtful, respectful discussions online, especially when people disagree on an issue. We've all seen the way public discourse can break down into personal attacks, partisan stereotypes, logical fallacies, and other things that limit our ability to hear and understand one another's perspectives.

However, we have important issues to discuss as a collective, and when we find examples of public discourse where people with differing opinions voice their thoughts and make their arguments reasonably, it's worth looking at. When someone on Reddit asked, "Would limiting the age of the President to 65 be something you’d support? Why or why not?" thousands of responses came in, and the discussion was remarkably civil.

from AskReddit

Considering the fact that the two most recent presidents have been the oldest to ever serve in the office, were both well past the average retirement age for Americans when they were elected, and both had their cognitive abilities publicly questioned during both of their terms, the question of upper age limits on the presidency has become more relevant than ever. Hopefully, this discussion will offer some good food for thought as the average age of our politicians at the federal level still sits close to retirement age.

YES—arguments for presidential age limits

The folks who advocate for an upper age limit on the presidency cite the greater possibility of cognitive decline as people age as one reason, but that's not all. Some point out that the people making decisions should be the ones who will have to live with them long term and that politics needs fresh ideas and perspectives. Some point out that the chance of a president dying in office increases with age, and some say it's only fair to have an upper limit since we have a lower one.

 donald trump, joe biden, oldest president, presidential age limits, USA President Trump and President Biden are the two oldest people to be elected U.S. president.The White House (public domain) 

Here are some of the affirmative responses:

"Yes, if there is a young age limit then an older one is justified as well."

"I’d support age limits for all politicians. Asking someone to live a while in the world they create is a fair ask, in my opinion."

"I recently read: 'Someone whose time left on this earth is best measured in years should not make decisions with an impact over decades.'"

"I think the young age limit is bulls--t anyway. We need more people in power who'll live long enough to experience the outcomes of their decisions."

"There is a minimum so a maximum makes sense. 35-70 seems reasonable. A 70 year old running for election would finish the term at 74, maybe 75 depending on time of birthday of course. Just for discussion sake."

 presidential age limits, presidential eligibility, oldest presidents Should eligibility for the presidency be limited to age 65?Photo credit: Canva

"If the average US citizen dies at 74-76 and retirement age is 65 then the max age to be elected should also be 65. I know humans can live well past 100 but the US culture of health spits in the face of aging gracefully."

"I think the dilemma is that experience grows with age but so mental abilities decline. Finding that point where the mental decline is no longer acceptable is tough. Especially with a role like the presidency where really you should be relying on the expertise of other.

Still I support a max age limit. And you could let the older more experienced politicians work as advisors if they want. They don't have to get out of politics but they do have to let someone younger have the final say in things."

"People should be retired from politics at retirement age. As in you can’t run for office after you hit retirement age. And while we are at it, lowering retirement age back to 65 sounds great."

  Joe Biden was the oldest person to become president at age 78.  Giphy GIF by Election 2020 

"As someone who actually interacts with 70 year old people, I can honestly tell you the mental 'slow-down' really doesn't start until the late 70s or early 80s.

65 is a little too safe but I would absolutely agree with not being able to run past 70. That would make the oldest member of the exec/leg branches 74. Five years might not seem that different but that's what I'd choose. Granted, I'd definitely support 65 over there not being an age limit.

SCotUS, on the other hand, should be forced to retire at retirement age, whatever that is. I feel that each of them needs to have more of their finger on the pulse of where the country is, due to their more impactful position; 1 of 9 vs. 1 of 100/435."

"75 by Election Day I would support 100%. I would almost definitely support 70 by Election Day."

"Agree. 75 by election day is fair. I work in healthcare and people over 65 should have an opportunity to be represented because they have a drastically different set of needs than people who are 55."


 

 presidential seal, president of the united states, POTUS The president of the United States is one of the most powerful positions in the world.Photo credit: Canva

"I get that many people are able to work effectively at advanced ages, but there is a difference between being a professor, insurance agent, or retail worker and being President of the United States. Warren Buffett waited until an advanced age to retire, beyond what most corporate boards would tolerate, but Berkshire Hathaway doesn't have any nuclear warheads. Presidents Reagan, Biden, and Trump have all shown signs of age-related cognitive impairment while in office without any 25th Amendment action being taken, so we need some sort of additional safeguard."

"I support age limits for both physical and mental wellness reasons; 75 by Election Day seems reasonable to me, just because it would have to be somewhere. If nothing else, after 75 the chances a president will die in office go way up, and it’s always better to avoid that."

"Yes. Regardless of one's ability to perform, new ideas need to come into government. The added bonus of weeding out people who have aged out of their competency is second."

"Absolutely yes. They should be young enough to have to live with the consequences of their actions."

 president washington, president lincoln, u.s. presidents The only age requirement in the Constitution is that the U.S. president has to be at least 35 years old.Photo credit: Canva

NO—arguments against presidential age limits

The people who say there shouldn't be age limits cite the fact that cognitive decline or impairment is not guaranteed with age and that plenty of older people are sharper than people many years their junior. Some cite the need for people of all ages to have representation, including the elderly, and others point out that a long life an experience can be an invaluable asset in a world leader.

Here are some anti-age-limit arguments:

"No, I've met people in their 50s who would be too incapacitated for the job, and yet met people in their 90s who would be. As long as they are mentally fit then it's fine."

"No, because that's ageist, and elderly people need representation too. Our issue isn't the fact we have presidents over 65 years old; the issue is we keep voting for presidential candidates(even in the nominations) that are over 65 years old."

"There is a pretty wide range on health from individual to individual. In theory voters should be able to judge whether the person's health is a concern. That of course assumes transparency on candidate health though."

"No. The issue is mental decline, not age. Different people experience mental decline at different ages. Some lucky people don't experience it until their 70d and 80s. Let the people decide who is fit to serve by our votes."

 voting, elections, electing the president of the united states Some argue that the voters should decide whether a candidate is too old at the ballot box.Photo credit: Canva

"Why? Just vote for a younger candidate next time. You're literally advocating for limiting your own democratic choice... Why?"

"Age ain't always about the number, ya know? Like, got some folks in their 70s sharper than a fresh pencil and others in their 60s feeling like grandpa needs a nap. Suppose depends more on the energy and ideas they bring than digits in their age. We gotta vet 'em on their vibe, not just the year on their birth cert, IMO."

"No. I know too many people over 65 who are some of the smartest and hardest working people I have ever met. It's not the age. It's the attitude and ability.

And the experience in a lot of cases. The type of experience matters. If you have someone with experience making the lives of others better - they will continue to be able to make the lives of others better, even if they are in their 80s (see the notorious RBG). If they have experience with bankrupting companies and not paying their bills, they will continue to be able to bankrupt companies and not pay their bills even if they are in their 80s.

I know more folks over 65 (heck, over 75) who want good education and national healthcare and guaranteed parental leave and higher minimum wages than folks under 40."

 The American flag, united states, stars and stripes The United States has very few requirements to be eligible to run for president.Photo credit: Canva

"No. It's not going to change the quality of candidates and it's an arbitrary cutoff. People can get dementia at 50."

"I don’t know that age limits are fair. My mother-in-law is 90 years old and she is sharp as a tac and still in great physical health, believe it or not. Not that she’s interested in running for president. Lol. However, competency tests may very well be in order. I could certainly get behind that."

"No. The president needs to have experience, a long knowledge/understanding of current events domestically and geopolitically, and a deep reservoir of alliances, leverage, etc. for getting things done at home and negotiating on the world stage. Biden, for example, had served in Congress forever and was remarkably effective at getting legislation passed despite Republican blockades: a lot of this effectiveness was due to Biden, Pelosi, Schumer's long experience and behind-the-scenes understanding of how to get things done.

 joe biden, choose diplomacy, u.s. presidents Joe Biden had decades of experience in governance when he was elected.  Giphy GIF by GIPHY News 

I agree that we need more young voices in government but there is ENORMOUS value in having some representatives who are long-entrenched and have an infrastructure and savvy to harness.

This is especially important for diplomacy, which is arguably one of the President's most important jobs. Biden, for example, had been actively involved with foreign affairs for decades and the value of that cannot be understated. Ukraine owes a great deal to the fact that Biden, his cabinet, and his intelligence agencies outplayed Putin at the outset of the invasion, and to the fact that Biden was on a first-name basis with so many world leaders, who he called upon personally to unite with sanctions, Ukraine aide, etc.

Frankly, a young president who only knows of the Cold War from history class would get eaten alive by Putin at the negotiating / leverage table. How can you be taken seriously interacting with world leaders if you were still a kid when they were fighting battles and moving world politics?"

 john f. kennedy, youngest president, presidential age limits John F. Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected U.S. president. Photo credit: Canva

"No. If someone spent 20 years as a teacher, in the military, being a doctor, etc before getting into politics and then got the experience to actually make a run, they’d probably be in their 60s and we could miss out on a genuinely good candidate who wasn’t a lifelong politician. But I would say the oldest I’d prefer would be voting for a 70 year old for their re-election as president. I’d prefer they be younger, but if they’re a good leader I wouldn’t say no over their age at that point. But by 75 they should have no business trying to run the country."

"Personally I want term limits for all branches of government and routine cognitive tests for people 65 and over. I do believe older people should be represented because ageism can exist. As long as you are sharp, you should be able to work."

"In and of itself an arbitrary age limit is meaningless. What we need is yearly cognitive tests with mandatory independent verification and publishing results."

"Absolutely not. While some people have significant cognitive decline past 60, plenty do not. Politicians don't need to have the reflexes of a pilot or motor skills of a neurosurgeon so citing other mandatory retirement ages doesn't follow. We'd be removing decades of experience for potential candidates. Solving the problem of entrenched politicians and stagnating perspectives is going to be much trickier than adding an age limit."

 u.s. constitution, constitutional amendment, presidential age limits, presidential eligibility Adding an age limit for the U.S. presidency would require a constitutional amendment.Photo credit: Canva

What would it take to put an age limit on the U.S. presidency?

The eligibility requirements to become president are set in the Constitution, so it would require a new constitutional amendment to add an upper age limit. That means two-third of Congress in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would have to vote for it, and then 38 out of 50 state legislatures would have to ratify it. The chances of those majorities agreeing on anything of that great a significance is highly unlikely, but the same could have been said for many of the amendments we've passed in the past. But it's hard to say if a presidential age limit is even something most Americans really want, which is why seeing the pros and cons being argued is so interesting.

From Your Site Articles
democracy
Elections

Midterms are some of the most important elections in our democracy. Here's why it matters.

Every vote counts, so make your voice heard.

Photo by Elliott Stallion on Unsplash

Midterms are some of the most important elections in our country.

The 2022 midterm elections are here and while it may seem hard to escape the seemingly endless advertisements of candidates and ballot initiatives, some people don't understand the importance of voting. In America, we have three branches of government, designed to perform checks and balances. One branch can't work properly without the others.

No matter who is in the White House, they can't move things through without Congress.

But when it comes to policies, the heavy weight falls on Congress. A presidential hopeful can promise everyone a pony and a million dollar stable, but if Congress says no, then no ponies for the American people. When you vote in the midterms, you're helping to handpick who is more likely to not only listen to your needs as a voter, but work with the president and members of Congress to pass policies that you find helpful. Let's help you get your vote counted.

Black and white picture of someone putting a ballot in a box.Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash
1. Where's my polling place?

So where do you vote? That's a good question. You can type in your address here and it will tell you where your polling place is. Remember if you haven't updated your address on your voter registration then you'll need to use that address to find your polling place.

2. I forgot to register, oops!

Yikes! Election Day is like right now and you forgot to register to vote. No worries, there are 22 states that allow same-day registration. See if your state is on the list here. Go through the list carefully though because some states only allow same-day registration for presidential elections. You'll want to be sure your state allows it for midterms.

Close up picture of a red circular sticker with white writing that says "I voted" stuck to a finger.Photo by Parker Johnson on Unsplash
3. How do I check my registration?

Pretty sure you've already registered to vote but your state's website is confusing or directing you to an in-person location to ask. Check your voter registration here and ease your mind before you get to the polls.

4. I have no idea who to vote for.

Now that you understand why midterm elections are important, you've checked your registration and found your polling place, the rest is up to you. Use the few hours or minutes you have free to research candidates and their positions to see how they align with your own.

Some candidates are not as vocal about their stances and don't have information readily available. Don't stress. If the candidate is attempting to get re-elected you can check out your state government site for their voting record and if it's a federal candidate, you can check here.

No matter who you vote for, get out there and vote. Your voice matters.

From Your Site Articles
midterms
Democracy

Pete Buttigieg uses 7 perfectly chosen words to show how we can all work to uphold democracy

America needs a definite reminder.

via Flickr/Gage Skidmore

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

America is a country based on the idea that people can believe and say whatever they want. Those core values have helped create a country with a rich tapestry of viewpoints but oftentimes they come into conflict.

The key to the nation’s survival is how we can make peace with that conflict. It hasn't always been easy, but we've always pulled through these struggles by embracing a common belief in democracy. Unfortunately, given the recent spread of election conspiracies, America’s way of healing itself and finding peace in a pluralistic society is in danger. This problem is confounded by the fact that in the upcoming 2022 midterm elections, nearly 300 Republican candidates don't believe that Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden in 2020.

The assertion that Biden didn’t beat Trump has been proven false time and time again.

Many are rightfully fearful that the widespread acceptance of election denial will come to a head during the midterm elections, further weakening American democracy.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg made a strong statement in support of democratic values Monday, October 24 on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.” He made a simple, but powerful statement to reaffirm the core values that each American must support to maintain a civil society.


“One of the most important principles in democracy is that when you lose, you accept the outcome,” the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and onetime presidential candidate told Colbert. “And I’ve had to do that. Winning is much more fun than losing. I’ve done both.”

We can all have different views, but the one thing we must have in common is a belief in the process of how we make decisions.

“And the reason that’s so important is because we expect the same thing from citizens in terms of policy decisions,” Buttgieg added. “Part of what it means to live in a democracy is that we have this process for getting decisions that all of us have to live by―those of us who agreed with the decision and those of us who were against it.”

via Gage Skidmore/Flickr

“And so if we all have to live with the outcome of each of these policy choices, it’s only fair that the people who make them have to live with the outcome of when we choose which one of them is going to be in charge,” Buttigieg continued. “That’s how the bargain works.”

The idea that we have to reaffirm these core values that the vast majority of us hold dear to our hearts is a bit frightening. But as history has shown us, democracy should never be taken for granted. Since the dawn of civilization, democracy has been the exception not the rule and it has to be continuously fought for in the face of humanity's innate bend toward tribalism and authoritarianism.

At a time when there are so many issues that America faces as a country, Buttigieg is right to promote the need for us to reassert our belief in democracy. Because once that’s gone, all the rights that we have now may soon be lost, too.

From Your Site Articles
elections
Democracy

Rumors vs. reality: 6 facts about voting by mail for folks worried about election integrity

Worried about mail-in voting? Don't be.

Photo by Tiffany Tertipes on Unsplash, @Mynorthwest/Twitter

Myths and facts about voting by mail.

As we head toward midterm elections in early November, there's a lot of misinformation floating around about how voting is conducted and how votes are processed. Sadly, we're reaping what widespread misinformation has sown in the form of continued election result denial, legislation that makes it harder to vote and even vigilante voter intimidation at ballot drop boxes.

Convincing someone their preferred candidate didn't win because the other side cheated is an easy political win, especially in a hyperpartisan atmosphere. But the reality is that the vast majority of Americans want elections to be as fair and accurate as possible, so sorting out truth from fiction and understanding how our election processes actually work—as opposed to how partisan sources tell us they work—is important.

Voting by mail comes up a lot in discussions of election integrity, so let's take a look at how mail-in ballots work and clear up some misunderstandings that might cause people concern.

Frequently, people will share things they've heard from a friend or a cable news host or a social media post without verifying whether those things are true. Every state handles mail-in ballots a little differently in terms of how people receive ballots and when they get counted, but the safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure eligible votes are counted are fairly standard.

Rumor: Mail-in voting is too new to be safe and secure.

Reality: Americans have been voting by mail since the 19th century. Those early mail-in votes came from soldiers in the Civil War and since then, members of the military who are deployed outside of their home states have long been voting by mail.

Widespread mail-in voting for civilians is newer, but not new. Oregon has been conducting all mail-in elections since 2000, so has had more than two decades to perfect its system. Washington state has done the same since 2012 and Colorado since 2014. In the past three years, Utah, Hawaii, Vermont and California have gone to all-mail-in voting. (Incidentally, Vermont and Washington took the No. 1 and No. 2 spots for electoral integrity in the 2018 midterm rankings in Harvard's Electoral Integrity Project, and all of the other states named here ranked in the top 20.)

Rumor: Mail-in voting gives Democrats an unfair advantage.

Reality: Studies have shown that there appears to be no statistically significant advantage for either party when mail-in voting is implemented. So there's that.

But as an anecdotal example as well, Washington state (where I live) elected a Republican secretary of state—the person in charge of elections at the state level—multiple times with our mail-in voting system until she resigned last year to work on election security at the federal level. And that's in a Democratic-leaning state overall. And the district I live in has elected a Republican representative to the House for years with all mail-in voting. Mail-in ballots are equally available to everyone and make voting very simple, so it doesn't make sense that it would give either party an advantage.

Rumor: Mail-in voting makes it easier to commit voter fraud.

Reality: The Brookings Institution shared data from the conservative Heritage Foundation that analyzed voter fraud over many years in different states. Here are the number of voter fraud cases Heritage found for states that had mail-in voting during most of the time period they analyzed and the total number of ballots cast during that time.

Colorado: 14 cases over 13 years out of 15,955,704 votes cast.

Oregon: 15 cases over 19 years out of 15,476,519 votes cast

Washington: 12 cases over 6 years out of 10,605,749 votes cast

This is what people mean when they say voter fraud isn't a concern. It's not that it never ever happens. It's just that it doesn't even come close to being anywhere near significant enough to approach making a dent in election results.

And false fraud allegations can have tragic real-world results. Everyone needs to make sure they triple-fact-check fraud claims before passing them along.

Rumor: I know of people who received more than one ballot in the mail, which means they'll be able to vote twice.

Reality: Nope, they can't vote twice even if they have two ballots. It doesn't really matter how many ballots a person receives since only one can be submitted and processed for each voter. Election officials try to avoid voters receiving more than one ballot since it causes confusion, but if it happens, it's not an indication that anything fishy is going on. Once one ballot is processed, another ballot for the same voter can't be. Multiple safeguards are in place to ensure that only one ballot is processed for each registered voter and to ensure that the person's signature on the ballot envelope is legitimate.

Rumor: Mail-in voting opens up the possibility of voter coercion.

Reality: This could be true. At a polling place, each individual votes privately so no one else can see who they vote for. People can still feel coerced into voting a certain way, but there's no way for anyone else to really know how they voted. When ballots are mailed to homes, it is possible for one person in the home to force another person to vote a certain way, but: 1) If there are really enough controlling and abusive households that coercion could sway an election, we have bigger problems on our hands than mail-in voting, and 2) Voter intimidation and coercion is a crime, whether it's someone sitting next to a drop box with a gun or someone sitting next to their spouse with a threat.

Rumor: Mail-in voting offers more opportunities for mistakes in the election process.

Reality: There's no evidence for a claim like this. Every voting system can run into problems. Polling places have power outages and voting machines break. Tens of thousands of voters in Virginia were recently given the wrong information about which polling place they are supposed to go to to vote in person. Mail-in voting systems aren't any more prone to things going wrong than any other voting system.

The full reality is that mail-in voting is a convenient, secure way to run an election, which has been proven by bipartisan and nonpartisan sources over and over again. Claims to the contrary are simply political games designed to sow fear and distrust, which is unfortunately an easy way to sway voters.

However you decide to vote, just vote. Democracy only works as intended if we all participate.

From Your Site Articles
Trending Stories