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, USAPresident 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 presidentsShould 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, POTUSThe 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. presidentsThe 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 statesSome 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 stripesThe 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. presidentsJoe 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 limitsJohn 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 eligibilityAdding 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
Democracy

Arizona election official posts perfect response to woman who received two mail-in ballots

These kinds of clear, concise explanations are the best way to battle misinformation about how votes actually get counted.

Photo by Tiffany Tertipes on Unsplash

A woman received two ballots in the mail. Is that a problem?

Since having elected leaders instead of kings is a hallmark of our democratic system, Americans share a common concern for election integrity. But for some, that concern has grown into full-blown conspiracy theories and misinformation about election fraud since before Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election.

Despite dozens of lawsuits either being dismissed as groundless or lost on their merit in court, people still try to claim that the 2020 election was rife with fraud.

One of the primary targets of those fraud claims is mail-in ballots. People haven't seemed to wrap their minds around how mail-in ballots can be secure and how people can be prevented from voting twice if they happen to have more than one ballot mailed to them.

Turning Point USA field rep Aubrey Savela shared a photo of two official Arizona ballots with her name on them to X, with the caption, "Maricopa county at its finest… My first time ever voting in a presidential preference election and I received not one but two mail-in ballots.Thank you @stephen_richer."

Stephen Richter, the man she tagged, is a Maricopa County election official—and a Republican, incidentally, who sued Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake for defamation after she accused him of sabotaging the election. And his response to Savela's insinuation that receiving two ballots was somehow problematic was absolutely pitch perfect.

"Hi Aubrey!

Thanks for reaching out. You changed your voter registration on the last day of voter registration (Feb. 20) from your Chandler address to your new Tempe address.

Because early ballots must go out on Feb. 21, your Chandler ballot was already set to go out, and so it did.

Then we sent out a new ballot to your Tempe address when we processed your voter registration modification.

That's why you had to redact out different lengths in the address (because they were sent to different addresses).

You'll also notice that one of packet codes ends in "01" (the one to your old address) and one ends in "02" (the one sent to your new address). As soon as the "02" one goes out, the "01" packet is dead. Meaning even if you sent it back, it wouldn't proceed to signature verification, and it wouldn't be opened. That's how we prevent people from voting twice.

So just use the one with your new address ending in "02" -- that's the only one that will work.

Hope this helps! Have a great night! Happy voting!"

Richter didn't slam her, make fun of her, call her names or shame her for trying to make it look like something fishy was afoot. He simply laid out exactly what happened to cause her to receive two ballots, explained how the first ballot was rendered invalid as soon as the second ballot was issued, and explained how the process safeguards people's vote and the integrity of the election in general.

These are the kinds of cool-headed, informative, clear and concise explanations we need for people to understand how mail-in ballots and other election apparatuses function. People make all kinds of assumptions about how those processes work without actually finding out the reality, so having a real example laid out in such a clear way is fantastic to see.

Yes, election fraud can happen, as can honest mistakes that impact people's votes. But time and time again, investigations into election fraud claims have yielded only a miniscule fraction of a percent of votes impacted by actual fraud—not enough to even come close to swinging an election one way or another.



From Your Site Articles
voting
Democracy

No, Abraham Lincoln was not 'barred from the ballot' in Southern states in 1860

The Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on Trump has triggered a wave of false claims about Lincoln's election. Here's what actually happened.

Simon Abeta/X, Public Domain

People are claiming Lincoln was taken off the ballot in the slaveholding states, but that's not what happened.

In a ruling on December 19, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court declared former president Donald Trump ineligible to be included on the state's primary ballot, citing the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause. The ruling prompted a wave of responses, some of which claim that Abraham Lincoln had been "barred from the ballot" or "taken off the ballot" by Democrats in 10 Southern slaveholding states in the 1860 election, which preceded the Civil War.

Unfortunately, thousands of people have "liked" and shared claims like this one:

It's unfortunate because it's false. While it's true that no ballots were distributed or cast for Lincoln in those states, it wasn't because he was barred, banned or taken off the ballot.

Here's why this claim is inaccurate:

First of all, there was no such thing as "the ballot" in 1860.

Generally speaking, a ballot today is an official piece of paper that lists candidates running for a public office and a place to mark which candidate you are voting for. We also say "the ballot" to refer to the list of candidates on that official piece of paper.

That's not at all what a ballot was in 1860. And there was no "theballot" the way we think of it today at all.

In Lincoln's time, a ballot was either 1) a blank paper on which you wrote in the name(s) of who you were voting for or 2) a preprinted piece of paper with the name(s) a specific candidate or candidates handed out by a specific party. There was no ballot that had a list of candidates to choose from like we have today. That kind of "blanket ballot" wasn't used in U.S. elections until after 1888, when it gradually became adopted.

Lincoln couldn't be barred or taken off a ballot when there was no list of candidates on a ballot to begin with.

Secondly, state authorities didn't issue printed ballots. Political parties did.

old piece of paper labeled Republican ticket with a list of names

A Republican party ticket (i.e., ballot) from Ohio, 1860

Library of Congress

Today, ballots are non-partisan documents issued by state or local governments. That was not the case in 1860. According to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, the only things state election laws in the 19th century typically specified about ballots were the paper size and thickness a ballot should be and the size of type to be used on it. The rest was left to candidates, parties and party operatives to decide.

And they did. Political parties and newspapers that supported specific parties printed and issued ballots with their all of their candidates' names on them to make partisan voting super simple. As the History Channel reports, "By the mid-19th century, state Republican or Democratic party officials would distribute pre-printed fliers to voters listing only their party’s candidates for office. They were called Republican and Democratic 'tickets' because the small rectangles of paper resembled 19th-century train tickets."

If you wanted to vote for a party's candidates, all you had to do was take the ticket they gave you to the ballot box and drop it in. Otherwise, you used a blank ballot and wrote in who you wanted to vote for.

Third, voting in the mid-19th century wasn't exactly safe, and it also wasn't secret.

Voting wasn't a confidential thing at this point in history. Preprinted party ballots had distinguishing marks, party symbols and candidate portraits on them and they were often printed on colored paper, making who you were voting for quite conspicuous. (For example, Virginia's Union party ballots in 1860 were pink, so if you dropped off a pink ballot, everyone at the polling place knew who you voted for.)

Elections in the mid-19th century were particularly contentious among the voting populace as well. Election day rioting and violence was common, claiming the lives of 89 Americans in the mid-1800s. The slaveholding South was already a tinderbox and tensions between the North and South were high—imagine trying to print and issue ballots for the anti-slavery-expansion Republican party when both election violence and violence against abolitionists was commonplace. What newspaper or printer in those Southern states would take that risk?

Fourth, issuing ballots in those states would have been a waste of resources for Lincoln and the Republicans, and they knew it.

Let's remember that the Republican party—Lincoln's party—was literally founded to combat the spread of slavery, the institution for which the antebellum South was willing to split the country in two. The official party was only a few years old when Lincoln was nominated. There was no support for Republican politics in the South, much less any party infrastructure in place there.

Since writing on a blank ballot or submitting a preprinted party ballot was how people voted in 1860, there would have been no point for the Republicans to print and issue ballots in the southern slaveholding strongholds. Lincoln knew he was considered persona non grata in those states and had no hope of winning Electoral College votes there against the three other candidates running, so he focused his campaign on the north and west. It simply would have been a huge waste of resources to issue ballots in states he couldn't possibly win. (As it turned out, Lincoln received no votes in any of the states that would soon form the Confederacy, with the exception of Virginia, where he received a whopping 1% of the vote.)

So to sum up, while it's true that ballots were not distributed for Lincoln in the 10 slaveholding states mentioned and he didn't receive any votes there, it's not true that those states barred or removed Lincoln from the ballot. In 1860, there was no such thing as a ballot with multiple candidates to choose from, candidate-specific ballots were issued by political parties and not state governmental authorities, and Lincoln and the Republicans simply didn't bother to try to distribute ballots in the states where they knew he didn't stand a chance.

From Your Site Articles
history
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
Trending Stories