No, because in a proper democracy any representative could be removed from office at anytime solely by their constituents voting to remove them. No I don't mean during a predetermined election cycle. I mean at any time.

That way each community can decide if someone should be out of office, and it transfers power back into the hands of the people rather than their representatives.

60*

No. That's age discrimination. If you're concerned that a person could be suffering from mental degradation, require annual testing for it. I know folks in their 90's who are better critical thinkers than a lot of 20-somethings.

The problem we have is not that a bunch of old people run the country. It's that a bunch of young people put them there because they were the only real choices they had. Fix the two-party system first by employing ranked-choice voting. That will break the stranglehold that Republicans and Democrats have on the US political system.

No. Doing so would be very short sighted, considering that human life expectancy would be seeing a massive bump in the coming decades.

No. I do support conditional retirement. What I don't want to do is remove those individuals who are older and have the connections and experience to get things done, and actually do the job they are there to do. I'm at work and don't have time to expand on the how, though a system should be put in place so that those conditions need to be followed, and locked in requiring majority approval through the normal process, with a subclause to be revisited every single damn year if it is temporarily unrestricted due to some issue or another.

No, because that's literally agism.

I understand that it's tempting to think that old age necessarily means degraded mental faculties, but there is no scientific link between the two. There are people who develop Alzheimer's in their 30s, and others who remain lucid into their 100s. Tomorrow there could be a scientific breakthrough that doubles the average lifespan of every human on earth, and we'd be sitting here with an irrelevant age limit on the books like simpletons. The abilities of the person are what matters, the number itself is a red herring (in the same way that the color of their skin should not be used to infer anything).

If the issue is term length, then put a term limit on the position. Otherwise, democracy means the people will elect the wrong people sometimes. We're in a unique situation where the baby boomer generation has more voting power than the rest of the population, but this issue will resolve itself.

Edit: the AARP's position on the matter

Mandatory? No. Customary? YES.

There are plenty of people who are cogent, thoughtful, insightful, and able to use their years of experience to see solutions or consequences someone younger might not.

But the custom and usual practice needs to be for congresspersons to mentor the newbies so they can be successful, then get the hell out of the way.

Why would the people in power limit their power?

I'd support the abolishment of both - term limits of 0, and the move to an actual democracy, which is not what "choose which nigga talks for you" accomplishes

I'd support term limits. Some people are still very sharp at 100. And as recent history shows, people immediately forget lessons learned we learned in WW2 when we (the world) kicked Hitler in the cock.

Plus, as others as said, you have some politicians that are young and as stupid (and dangerous) as they come, wanting us to join the Russians.

I think the people of the United States should be allowed to elect whoever they want, without us interfering.

I wouldn't because the age doesn't really matter. Fuckwit politicians will still be fuckwits politicians, even when they are young. See Zelensky and his team, for example. Maybe they look more "presentable" to the media, but they do the same shit old men before them did