Discussion (4)
Grab this poll for your site
Votes cast anywhere this poll is embedded count toward the same live total.
From Groundbeat
Help us build thisWe're building the Groundbeat community one person at a time, and we need your help — if you know someone who belongs here, please send them groundbeat.com.
More in News & Politics
- Should the 2026 midterm results be treated as a verdict on President Trump? · 6 votes
- Were Missouri voters right to block the state's Republican-drawn congressional map? · 1 votes
- Were Idaho voters right to reject the ballot measure and keep the state's abortion ban? · 1 votes
- Should the U.S. fund a high-speed rail network? · 1 votes
I favor AGE limits, i.e., I would prefer that no one be permitted to run for office after the age of 75. It's arbitrary, sure, but at least it creates a reasonable "goal line" after which we assume people start to lose a step or two and should relinquish there seat in Congress or wherever. I am opposed to TERM limits, i.e., 2 terms and then out, because it means people who are REALLY GOOD and SMART and have something to offer are cut off, even if they are young and have plenty of "life left" to server. I do think we should have limited terms for judges but for different reasons.
Some 75 year-olds struggle, while others are sharp and have decades of earned wisdom to draw from. A hard age limit feels a bit discriminatory. I'd rather leave it to voters to decide. Maybe in combination with some type of objective cognitive test, though that can easily become politicized.
Why limit voters’ options? Would rather let voters decide on a case by case basis than put in a blanket restriction
Term limits trade experience for turnover, but "experience" also means the guy who's been writing tax law since 1994. Which part scares you more?