4 opinions, 3 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
1 vote
Jun 22, 2015

I think we need to either have term limits or change campaign funding to public funding, so incumbents don't have an unfair advantage. Until just recently, the two Senators in my state (one a Republican, the other a Democrat) had each been in office for over thirty years. The Democrat finally retired or he might still be in office. The last time our Republican senator was up for re-election, his opponent challenged him to a debate, and he refused. Mr. Incumbent has every advantage: he's well-known and well-liked, thanks to the commercials that PAC money paid for, and debating the issues would only allow his opponent to illustrate where Mr. Incumbent made bad choices or favored the corporations who fund his campaign over the majority of voters. It would also allow Mr. or Ms. Challenger to introduce him/herself and his/her ideas, which voters might favor over Mr. Incumbent's.

The problem isn't a need for a retirement age. The problem is that being in political office shouldn't be a permanent job that you retire from. It should be a temporary job with a lot of turnover.

subscribe
-3
3 votes
Jun 22, 2015

Political office should not be a lifelong career, so yes, politicians should have a retirement age. Sometimes they're just too old, their views are too closed.

Our politics need a couple of fresh faces, some new ideas and views. Politicians are making laws. They can't do that properly if they have health issues.

They need to understand the decisions they are making, and I feel that sometimes they just don't understand them. I don't know if it is a dementia or they are just closed to any new ideas but this is really bad for our country.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
4 votes,
Jun 22, 2015

I think these common grievances against old politicians are valid but that forcing retirement isn't the best method. We have seen many examples of old guys who can keep an open mind(Ron Paul for example). Health issues are rare enough among congressmen/women that it's almost null and void.

Electing narrow minded individuals who don't know they are making bad choices is, I think, a result of other electoral failures, not of age.

I think a more appropriate response might be to have congressional term limits. It would allow a fresh cycle of legislators every few terms, just like the president, but without discriminating against age.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Jun 22, 2015

A very valid point. And a very good solution. I have to recant my vote, It is now, No Opinion.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Jun 22, 2015

No, I am against a retirement age and I am against term limits. However, a politician should not be permitted to serve three consecutive terms. That way, certain people (like Feinstein, Bloomberg, Kennedy) won't be able to become so entrenched that they can't be removed from office. But, if the people really like a person, they have an opportunity to reelect in the next election.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Jun 22, 2015

The implement of a retirement age would most readily effect the supreme court leading to a larger presence of liberals.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Jun 22, 2015

No, they should all have term limits. The retirement age is the retirement age... it they're that old then they most likely have no business in politics as they most likely don't have a firm grounding in what's going on NOW rather than "how they remember it".

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: