Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, But we need higher standards for all candidates.

    Age does imply life experience, But what it doesn't do is quantify intellect, Morality, And leadership ability. We elect old, White businessmen billionaires with the assumption they are going to be suitable as presidents. If that was the case why are we in the last stages of a civilization decline? My thoughts are that we need some sort of institution that only qualified individuals could attend. A college of sorts where canidates are educated in ethics, Leadership, And government. Only the most qualified are allowed to run for president, Thus the age limit would not matter.

  • The younger generation has better ideas and IQ then most middle aged people

    Many students are learning different things than previous generations. They have better ideas and are as smart. Our future is in young adults. I think that our generation needs better than middle aged to old people building walls, Commiting fraud and other awful things. I feel strongley about this and I also want a woman president. Maybe not Hillary but someone new and fresh.

  • It's probably worth the risk. . .

    There clearly are issues today where young people have an interest in being represented in government. Whether you think it's climate change or the growth of budget deficit, Long-term decisions have been made by the older generation which are detrimental to future generations on whose shoulders it will fall to clear up this mess.

    Nor has Age proven to be a measure of maturity or responsibility. It has been the older generation that is responsible for the excessive borrowing and indebtedness of consumers, Business and government that led to the 2008 financial crisis. A vast network of financial and political institutions conspired to advance their own short-term gain through a speculative bubble whilst abdicating their long term responsibilities to protect people's homes, Businesses and livelihoods. Yet, This same model of indebtedness has become the basis for student loans and debt that young people are unlikely to ever be able to repay.

    Giving all the constraints, Letting the voters have the choice of a 21 one year old presidential candidate is perhaps not the worst idea in the world. In normal circumstances the series of primaries, Television appearances, Trial by media, State-to-state travel has a tendency to select out those candidates who are unfit or not serious about running for office, Even before the voters get a chance to decide at a general election. (I'll admit 2016 wasn't normal for either party though). A serious candidate almost inevitably requires the nomination by a major party as third parties typically can't break through.

    I think most people can agree the range of candidates is not up to scratch. We may have our preferences, But national debate wouldn't suffer from a small number of 20 somethings getting air time and talk about the issues facing young people and perhaps shaping party platforms more in favour of their age group in the process. In practice, That is probably the extent of what reducing the Presidential age would achieve.

    In 1870, Former slaves got the right to vote. It was only in 2008 when the first Black President was elected, And only after decades of struggle against racial inequality and segregation. Nationally, Women gained the right to vote in 1920. Although minor parties did run women candidates for President and Vice President, It wasn't until 2016 that a women won the nomination for a major party. Although both politicians had their share of failings and you could well argue that neither of them fairly represented blacks or women, Even if a Constitutional amendment was passed today that gave 21 year olds' the right to be President, We're probably still a long way away from it actually happening. It's unlikely to have an immediate effect, But perhaps it may help adjust some of the considerable power inequalities between the young and old in the US today.

  • J j j j

    H hh h h h hh h h h h g v y yy yu huo hiuo h uy. U u guy g yyg guy guy gy gy gyyg ugy uyg hiu. Iuy uy ugy yi guy ug u uo hu iuhohu hui hiu hiu iuh iuhiuh hiu

  • They have not even stopped developing

    If the age was 21 Kylie Jenner and all sort of egotistical people would run. Trump just proved you do not need experience only that enough people like you.
    Having the age set ensure that most reckless people are already dead and you can see what they did with their lives. What type of person are they. What did they do. Exceptional young people do exist but I myself do not want them to run for office. Young people believe they know everything but older people more or less can see reality and be realistic.

  • Most millennials are just entitled craps that are sensitive to anything

    A A A A A A N()EUIEIEIJ(E fjoij89ua909re uu984u58u948wrieart8i e8 wurmw9e8ru98wue8 ruw8 eur8w em rie riwuer 98uw8u 9eriw0ire09i0 ir 4i9i39ir90i0riw a0i 0e9 i0 They will make bad decisions. Ajwue jfaijewiofjalkjsk lfal jsdkalf klasl kdfaklskd fjalkjsdlkfj alsjdlfk jalkjsdflkajsdlfjalksjdfl;ajsldfkjal;kjsf;lk ja;lskfj;alkj ;lklk jl jf asjdfal ksa a sjdf akslkd fakjl lkl j;lk aslk

  • Way too young

    21 is way too young to be the president, I would say 30 since you have a house, You know more about the world, And just more wise in total. When you are 21, You just got out college, And even if they allowed it, You won't have a successful campaign.

  • If Voters Were Smarter I Would Say Yes But Look at Who They Elected

    Most 21 year olds don't have the good judgment and reasoning required for the job. This would not be a problem if voters were more discerning and we could count on them to only ever vote for someone that young if that individual person was in fact in the minority of 21 year olds who do have the sort of reasoning necessary to be a good president. But voters have shown that you can't trust them to do that. I mean people voted for Trump. Granted he's way older than 21, But it shows that if we lower the age there will be an even bigger pool of unreasonable people who can run for president and voters will be willing to vote for those people.

  • Just too young.

    By age 35, Your old enough to have completed your education, Gotten married, Purchased a home, And raised kids. These are factors that the citizens of the country deal with so they need someone who can identify with the issues that are important to them. What real life experiences does a 21 yr. Old have to compete with that?

  • No, The presidential office requires someone of high intellect.

    The entire reason for why the presidential age is 35 is because a younger person may not be suited for such a critical role in politics. And given that a person graduates high school at 18, And a few years of law school and other things in between - 21 is a far too low age to be president. I would maybe support this with different reasoning if the age had been perhaps 30, But 21 is just too low. It is also hard to run a campaign at such a young age as the candidate just graduated and doesn't have many affiliations to support his campaign.

    In American politics, The constitution also states that the minimum age is 35 years (and 14 years living in America if I recall correctly), So it requires a constitutional amendment for this to occur. And those are very hard to ratify. So that's a reason why nobody would support this - it is very hard to get this change even if a decent percentage of the public wanted it.

  • Younger people lack experience(I would know)

    Even if young people have technically higher IQ's it doesn't make a difference if they haven't learned anything. IQ basically just means how fast you can learn a new thing. An average person who works hard and knows lets say 10% of the knowledge in the world, Will always beat the smartest person in the world who only knows 1%. Old people also retain their crystallized intelligence, Which means everything they've learned they can still use at the same capacity. So you really want the person whose learned the most, Not the smartest person. This comes with time. If you also want an example, I think of Jeoffrey in game of thrones.

  • 21-Year-Olds aren't Fully Mature. . . They Aren't Adults

    Although a relatively young person myself, I think that if you lower the presidential age to 21, You'll get these young kids who don't understand the world quite yet. Yes, Young peoples' opinions are important, But that doesn't make them responsible enough to run a country. By 35, It's pretty likely that one is responsible enough for the job (save for our president right now). Imagine if he was 25 right now: America would be even more of a hell than it is now. Having young people in charge might be productive; maybe 21 year-olds could be advisors, But the fact remains that they are just inexperienced and not responsible enough to lead a country. Some 70-year-olds aren't responsible enough to lead a country *cough cough* Donald Trump.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.