Should there be a maximum age to serve in Congress?

• K

  Kofi1mo ago

  watched a senator last week struggle to understand what a website was during a hearing. like sir. a WEBSITE. we need term limits AND age limits yesterday.

  214Reply
• Z

  Zara1mo ago

  I'll be honest — I came into this debate pretty firmly against age limits. Felt discriminatory. But I watched my own mother go through a slow cognitive decline starting around 76 and the hardest part was that she genuinely didn't know it was happening. She thought she was sharp as ever. That's what scares me about self-reporting or 'trust the voters.' The person themselves may be the last to know.

  211Reply
• J

  Jordan1mo ago

  I'm 31 and I can't get a job interview for most serious positions without 10+ years of experience. Meanwhile a guy born before the Korean War is making decisions about TikTok and climate policy. The generational imbalance in Congress is genuinely a policy problem not just a talking point.

  203Reply
• Q

  Quinn1mo ago

  I'm a registered Republican and I agree something has to change. I'm tired of defending people who clearly should have stepped back years ago just because they have an R next to their name. It's embarrassing for everyone.

  189Reply
• M

  Maya1mo ago

  Nurse here. I've cared for patients across the full spectrum of cognitive aging and let me tell you — there is NO reliable way to pick an age number that predicts decline. I've had 90-year-old patients doing crosswords and holding conversations that would embarrass most 50-year-olds. I've had 65-year-olds who couldn't remember why they came into the room. Any cutoff you legislate is medically indefensible. Full stop.

  187Reply
• DM

  Diego M.1mo ago

  Both parties have their elderly embarrassments in Congress. This isn't a left or right issue. It's a competence issue.

  178Reply
• O

  Omar1mo ago

  The irony is that the legislators who would have to vote on an age limit ARE the elderly legislators. You see the problem here.

  178Reply
• J_

  Jamie _x1mo ago

  Mandatory annual cognitive evaluations after 70, administered by independent physicians with results publicly available. No age ban. Just accountability. Problem solved, next question.

  167Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  I'm 67 and I find this debate exhausting. I'm also a former city councilwoman and I CHOSE to step down at 63 because I felt the next generation deserved the seat and I deserved my grandchildren. Leadership is also knowing when to leave. No law needed. Just integrity.

  156Reply
• N

  Noah1mo ago

  I grew up in a district that kept sending the same guy to Congress for 38 years. When he finally retired the new rep got more done in two terms than the old one did in his last decade. Fresh energy matters. I don't care if that comes via age limits or term limits but something has to change.

  148Reply
• CB

  Casey B.1mo ago

  Term limits. Age limits. Cognitive tests. Y'all are out here rearranging deck chairs. The real problem is that Congress is a career and it shouldn't be. Public service should be a sacrifice, not a golden ticket to lifetime power and a pension most Americans will never see.

  142Reply
• I9

  Iris 921mo ago

  The voters ARE deciding. And they keep re-electing these 80-somethings. Which tells me the real problem is that incumbents have such structural advantages — name recognition, fundraising, PAC money — that voters aren't really choosing freely. An age limit would actually level the playing field for younger talent.

  137Reply
• ZR

  Zara R.1mo ago

  okay let me be the villain here: most of the passion for age limits is coming from people who want THEIR political opponents' elderly champions removed. nobody is out here passionately demanding that the old legislators on THEIR side step down. be honest with yourselves.

  134Reply
• I

  Iris1mo ago

  What bothers me isn't the age, it's the refusal to step aside. Some of these folks are clearly declining and their staff is basically running the office. That's the unelected shadow government people should actually be worried about.

  119Reply
• N

  Noah1mo ago

  The argument that voters should decide breaks down when you consider that many elderly incumbents represent states with disproportionate electoral college weight and extremely low population density. A senator from a small rural state can be reelected essentially forever with a tiny absolute number of votes. 'Voters deciding' isn't the self-correcting mechanism people think it is.

  112Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  Somebody upthread said cognitive tests are the answer. Do you realize how easily those can be gamed with a week of prep? There are whole coaching industries around neuropsych evaluations. Rich, connected politicians will ace them regardless of actual function. We'd be creating false confidence.

  109Reply
• D

  Drew1mo ago

  The same people calling for age limits are totally silent on term limits. You can't claim to care about fresh leadership and then protect 45-year incumbents just because they're 58 years old.

  94Reply
• A

  Avery1mo ago

  Genuine centrist here who votes in every election: I think the answer is somewhere between 'no limits ever' and 'mandatory retirement at 75.' What if we required full medical and cognitive disclosure — not just a doctor's letter, but actual standardized test results made public — as a condition of being on the ballot after age 72? Voters then have real information. Isn't that the compromise?

  93Reply
• N

  Nina1mo ago

  Okay but who decides what the cutoff is? 75? 80? 85? The second you pick a number you're opening a can of worms and you know politicians will gerrymander the age limit to favor whoever they want.

  91Reply
• Q

  Quinn1mo ago

  I love how this debate always brings out the 'let voters decide' crowd. Voters HAVE decided. For decades. And the result is a legislature with an average age somewhere around retirement. The system isn't working the way you think it is.

  88Reply
• Y2

  Yuki 211mo ago

  Respectfully, the people saying this is pure ageism are conflating age discrimination in private employment with democratic qualification standards. We already accept that you must be 35 to be president. The principle that age CAN be a qualification is already baked into the Constitution. The debate is just about direction.

  88Reply
• N

  Nina1mo ago

  Hard disagree with the person saying cognitive decline is unpredictable so we should do nothing. Unpredictability isn't an argument for inaction — it's an argument for BETTER tools. Standardized, transparent, independent cognitive screening. Not a birthdate cutoff, but not zero accountability either.

  84Reply
• QS

  Quinn S.1mo ago

  My grandmother is 84 and sharper than half the people I work with. Age alone tells you nothing about cognitive fitness.

  83Reply
• N

  Noah1mo ago

  What I want is for this to be decided by actual data — neurologists, gerontologists, political scientists doing longitudinal studies on legislative performance across age cohorts. Not vibes. Not anecdotes about sharp grandmas or confused uncles. Actual peer-reviewed research informing policy. Revolutionary concept I know.

  77Reply
• L

  Leo1mo ago

  Slippery slope waiting to happen. Today it's age limits, tomorrow it's net worth limits, then education requirements. We don't add eligibility restrictions to the Constitution every time we get frustrated with current politicians.

  76Reply
• N

  Noah1mo ago

  The fact that we're debating age limits instead of why wealthy donors can fund campaigns indefinitely is exactly the kind of distraction that keeps real reform from happening. Not saying age is irrelevant but we're arguing about symptoms not causes.

  73Reply
• M

  Marco1mo ago

  Unpopular opinion: older legislators actually understand long-term consequences better because they've LIVED through long-term consequences. A 35 year old congressman has never seen a real recession, a major war, or a sustained inflation cycle. Experience isn't nothing.

  71Reply
• O

  Omar1mo ago

  The 'voters decide' argument would be compelling if voters had perfect information. They don't. They have carefully managed public appearances, press releases written by staffers, and campaign ads. The information asymmetry alone is reason enough to consider structural guardrails.

  71Reply
• A9

  Alex 921mo ago

  Real talk — if age limits passed, which party benefits more? Because I guarantee that's the only math anyone in DC is actually doing on this question.

  66Reply
• R

  Ravi1mo ago

  ok so genuine question for the 'let voters decide' people: what happens when the candidate themselves is no longer fully capable of understanding the campaign they're running? Who's deciding then — them or the staff around them pulling the strings? Because THAT is the actual nightmare scenario nobody wants to address directly.

  63Reply
• TR

  Theo R.1mo ago

  The Constitution sets a minimum age requirement for a reason — to ensure basic maturity and life experience. The same logic, applied consistently, suggests a maximum age is not inherently unconstitutional in principle, though it would require an amendment. But the more defensible policy solution is mandatory cognitive fitness testing at regular intervals after, say, age 75.

  62Reply
• C

  Casey1mo ago

  why are we even discussing this when gerrymandering is still legal, campaign finance is still a disaster, and half the country doesn't vote in midterms. Fix those things first and age stops mattering so much

  58Reply
• P

  Priya1mo ago

  okay but that logic also means they remember the world BEFORE the internet before climate data before basically everything that matters for modern policy. experience cuts both ways my friend

  56Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  i dont care about age i care about whether my rent is affordable and whether my kids school has books. can congress be old AND functional? yes. have we seen evidence of that lately? debatable

  56Reply
• L_

  Liam _x1mo ago

  My dad had a stroke at 71 and was completely fine mentally. My neighbor got early onset dementia at 63. Age is literally just a number, people.

  54Reply
• O

  Omar1mo ago

  If we're old enough to die for this country at 18, we're old enough to vote someone out at 30. Let the voters decide. Period.

  47Reply
• S

  Sam1mo ago

  My state keeps electing the same people decade after decade and I don't even blame the voters anymore I blame the party infrastructure that clears the field for incumbents and makes primaries meaningless. Age limits won't fix that. Primary reform would.

  47Reply
• MB

  Morgan B.1mo ago

  75. That's my number. Serve until 75, that's more than enough time to make your mark. After that, write your memoirs.

  44Reply
• Y

  Yuki1mo ago

  My grandfather served in local government into his late seventies and was genuinely one of the most effective public servants our county ever had. But he also knew every road, every family, every budget line by heart because he'd been doing it for decades. Congress isn't local government. The complexity and pace are completely different. I don't think his example scales up.

  44Reply
• T_

  Theo _x1mo ago

  Actually, the 26th Amendment establishes voting rights at 18 but places no upper age limit there either, which is the correct principle — we don't strip rights based on age. Applying that same logic to candidacy makes constitutional sense. The voters are the check.

  41Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  Hard no on this. You don't fix bad government by restricting who can run. You fix it by actually showing up and voting.

  39Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  lmao at this whole conversation. billionaires are literally buying legislation and we're debating grandpa's birthday. priorities people

  38Reply
• H_

  Hana _x1mo ago

  Constitutionally speaking this would require a 27th Amendment and there is approximately zero chance that gets ratified. So this is all just a fun Twitter debate with no actual policy path forward. Focus your energy elsewhere.

  37Reply
• K

  Kofi1mo ago

  Setting an arbitrary number feels wrong to me but I genuinely don't know what the right answer is here. I've gone back and forth on this for years. Some people are sharp at 82. Some are lost at 65. I just wish there was a cleaner solution.

  33Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  I don't want the government telling me I'm too old to serve my community. That's a line I'm not willing to cross regardless of my political views. If my district wants to send an 88 year old to Washington that is their democratic right.

  31Reply
• Z

  Zara1mo ago

  nope nope nope. this is ageism plain and simple. you wouldn't accept a maximum age for voters so why would you accept it for candidates

  29Reply
• M

  Morgan1mo ago

  constitutionally this is a non-starter and everyone acting like congress would just pass this cheerfully has never watched congress do anything

  29Reply
• NS

  Noah S.1mo ago

  my uncle ran for city council at 78. Lost, but that was the right outcome and it happened without us needing a law banning him. democracy working as intended

  22Reply
• D

  Diego1mo ago

  no upper limit. voters decide. next question.

  19Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about