I don’t think this crosses the line regarding poltics on the board but note that as a warning header.
I was just struck by a though related to the upcoming elections in the USA. Age of both party’s candidate have been noted and create both some concern and even risks for the country.
No age limits exist and I suspect trying to get get legislative action on that would be slow to impossible as it undoubtedly would be a new ammendment to the Constitution.
BUT, I don’t think there is any law or other restriction on any political party imposing their own age limit for any candidate they will nomimate to Federal or State positions. If not, and if anyone knows please speak up:
Would the existing incentive strucutures suggest it might be easier for a political party to do this than expecting Congress to address these concerns?
Should any party enact such a rule, would that be a completitive advantage in the way of improved (at the margins at least) for that party in the competition for membership and voters?
Would that in any way help to improve the performance of parties by mitigating both entrenched status quo leadership and perhaps reduce overall factionalism within the party?
From what I understand, because the US Electoral College is structured such that state laws determine who the electors will vote for as president, you wouldn’t need any constitutional amendment or federal legislative action to impose an age limit for the US presidential election in particular. In contrast, I think the lower age limit of 35 for US presidents is a constitutional requirement, and as such would not be nearly as easy to change.
On a somewhat related note, there’s an interesting attempt by US states to assign electoral votes based on the national popular vote.
In 48 of the 50 states, state laws mandate that the winner of the plurality of the statewide popular vote receive all of that state’s electoral votes.
Based on this Wikipedia quote, I imagine states could impose arbitrary requirements for who can or cannot receive the electoral votes, including imposing an age limit. Basically, add a clause to the state laws that “Electors must abstain if the winner of the plurality does not fulfill the following requirements...”.
EDIT: Note, however, that if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote (270+ votes), then the US House of Representatives elects the US President instead. So while such a state law would disincentivize particular candidates, if such a candidate ran for president anyway and won the plurality of the state vote, then the abstention of the electors might well result in the Electoral College disempowering itself. And furthermore the House of Representatives could still elect an arbitrary candidate.
EDIT2: Okay, I think I’ve come up with a better state law design: If the winner of the plurality of state votes exceeds the age limit, then assign the electoral votes to either the second place instead (regardless of their age), or alternatively to whoever of the top two candidates is younger. Either version ensures that the electoral college will not abstain, which makes the House of Representatives route less likely. And either version disincentivizes a scenario where the presidential candidates of both parties exceed the age limit, since in this case, both parties are incentivized to run either a candidate below the age limit, or if not that, then at least a younger candidate than the opposing party’s. And only the former strategy results in a stable outcome, whereas the strategy of running a younger candidate above the age limit can be circumvented by the opposing party running a still younger candidate.
Age limits do exist: you have to be at least 35 to run for President, at least 30 for Senator, and 25 for Representative. This automatically adds a decade or two to your candidates.
I don’t think this crosses the line regarding poltics on the board but note that as a warning header.
I was just struck by a though related to the upcoming elections in the USA. Age of both party’s candidate have been noted and create both some concern and even risks for the country.
No age limits exist and I suspect trying to get get legislative action on that would be slow to impossible as it undoubtedly would be a new ammendment to the Constitution.
BUT, I don’t think there is any law or other restriction on any political party imposing their own age limit for any candidate they will nomimate to Federal or State positions. If not, and if anyone knows please speak up:
Would the existing incentive strucutures suggest it might be easier for a political party to do this than expecting Congress to address these concerns?
Should any party enact such a rule, would that be a completitive advantage in the way of improved (at the margins at least) for that party in the competition for membership and voters?
Would that in any way help to improve the performance of parties by mitigating both entrenched status quo leadership and perhaps reduce overall factionalism within the party?
From what I understand, because the US Electoral College is structured such that state laws determine who the electors will vote for as president, you wouldn’t need any constitutional amendment or federal legislative action to impose an age limit for the US presidential election in particular. In contrast, I think the lower age limit of 35 for US presidents is a constitutional requirement, and as such would not be nearly as easy to change.
On a somewhat related note, there’s an interesting attempt by US states to assign electoral votes based on the national popular vote.
Based on this Wikipedia quote, I imagine states could impose arbitrary requirements for who can or cannot receive the electoral votes, including imposing an age limit. Basically, add a clause to the state laws that “Electors must abstain if the winner of the plurality does not fulfill the following requirements...”.
EDIT: Note, however, that if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote (270+ votes), then the US House of Representatives elects the US President instead. So while such a state law would disincentivize particular candidates, if such a candidate ran for president anyway and won the plurality of the state vote, then the abstention of the electors might well result in the Electoral College disempowering itself. And furthermore the House of Representatives could still elect an arbitrary candidate.
EDIT2: Okay, I think I’ve come up with a better state law design: If the winner of the plurality of state votes exceeds the age limit, then assign the electoral votes to either the second place instead (regardless of their age), or alternatively to whoever of the top two candidates is younger. Either version ensures that the electoral college will not abstain, which makes the House of Representatives route less likely. And either version disincentivizes a scenario where the presidential candidates of both parties exceed the age limit, since in this case, both parties are incentivized to run either a candidate below the age limit, or if not that, then at least a younger candidate than the opposing party’s. And only the former strategy results in a stable outcome, whereas the strategy of running a younger candidate above the age limit can be circumvented by the opposing party running a still younger candidate.
Age limits do exist: you have to be at least 35 to run for President, at least 30 for Senator, and 25 for Representative. This automatically adds a decade or two to your candidates.