Valmese Soldier Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 (edited) Regardless of where you stand on politics, the current POTUS right now has very little political experience prior to sitting in the highest office in the most powerful country in the world, if any, at least compared to his predecessors; whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is for you to decide. So I say we should start a new movement: America should allow persons as young as 18 years to run for political office. Barring the rare cases of prodigies (which honestly I could see as the kind of young people running for office) there aren't any rules stating that a [relevant] degree is required, it's just that they would likely help a lot with getting votes. If you think a type of person wouldn't win any elections anyway, why prohibit them from at least making attempts? Young people running an entire nation is by no means a new thing. In history, there have were kings who had to take charge of entire kingdoms/empires while they would still be in their teens, and unlike today, since they were absolute kings instead of democratically elected officials, they had a lot more weight on their shoulders compared to the majority of world leaders today, so really, an elected 19 year old would in actuality have an easier job than a very long time ago because other people could impede on their decisions, as America is not an absolutely ruled. People of this age group are allowed to vote, which is where the majority of the power for the US lies in, so in a way, people that young already can impact what happens in this country anyway, they vote because they can make good decisions for the country. There are also 18 year olds in the most vital part of any society, the military. If we can trust people that age to be in the most stressful and life threatening task that takes a lot of disciple, cooperation, bravery, and coherency in stressful situations, then they can definitely take working in a public office. I think, should this become law, what we'd actually see is people in their 20s and 30s running for office, I don't think old people should have a monopoly. Mental health isn't even checked when an American runs for office, even the highest one; why not just let the best candidate win and become a mayor, govenor, senator, president, etc? It should be the people's choice. Edited October 5, 2017 by Valmese Soldier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaoticHoundoom Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 (edited) What I do know is that in the US to run for a congressman seat you need to be 25, 30 to run for a senate seat, and 35 for president. That is all in the constitution. There are actually some states that have political office positions that the age requirement is only 18. Most cities also have the age requirement at 18 to run for mayor. The thing is it's hard to overtake the people who have been in the same spot for a very long time, especially if you are new to the political game. People don't know who this 18 year old kid is. this kid is an unknown. It would be hard for me to want to chose a kid who doesn't have much of a political history over someone who I have a general idea what their stances are on matters. While having a degree in the political field isn't a requirement, it would help a person in understanding how politics work or it is suppose to. Edited October 5, 2017 by ChaoticHoundoom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Branniglenn Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Well it's true we have some especially high age restrictions for the highest offices compared to other nations, I never envisioned it as a huge problem. I live in California, and we have no age restrictions past 18 for any office, you just need to be a registered voter. Most candidates for Congress and the Presidency tend to only get taken seriously after years of public service working their way up from local to regional offices. I know our current president is a huge BUT to that statement, but that's usually how it goes. I've never heard from a serious candidate that honestly wishes they could run for an office they're too young for. Maybe the Congressional and Presidential restrictions could stand to go down another 5 years. But 18 years need time to finish their degrees and start building their way into the political field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 28 minutes ago, Valmese Soldier said: There are also 18 year olds in the most vital part of any society, the military. That's a bold statement (pun intended). 30 minutes ago, Valmese Soldier said: People of this age group are allowed to vote, which is where the majority of the power for the US lies in, so in a way, people that young already can impact what happens in this country anyway, they vote because they can make good decisions for the country. This isn't quite true, even though the American population pyramid is still more pyramid-shaped than the German one. Anyway, in Germany, you can theoretically be elected as chancellor as an 18yo (you have to be 40yo to be president, but that's mostly a representive figure over here), but the youngest chancellor we had after WW2 was actually Angela Merkel, who was elected when she was 51 (!) years old. Adenauer, the first chancellor in 1949, even was 71 years old when elected. I'm inclined to agree with the above answers that your suggestion would be mostly symbolic anyway (and I personally think that the US electoral system has some way more pressing issues, as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valmese Soldier Posted October 5, 2017 Author Share Posted October 5, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, ping said: That's a bold statement (pun intended). But true. Without a military, a country would shortly be conquered, and the populace all the other institutions would be subject to the will of the conquerers. We don't truly even live in peace right now, we're in a many decades-old Mexican standoff. There's a reason why our military budget is where most of the US taxpayer money goes to... If someone can not only survive but remain cohesive on the battlefield, that person has the temperament to even be the President. A relevant degree is all I think someone should really need to do very well. Edited October 5, 2017 by Valmese Soldier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Why not run for local office? IIRC there was someone who was relatively young who ran (and lost) for local neighborhood board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Things that I consider more important than the military: Agriculture and food industry/distribution, water management (to avoid both dying of thirst and cholera), education, police, fire brigades, medical care. And that's just off the top of my head. 20 minutes ago, Valmese Soldier said: If someone can not only survive but remain cohesive on the battlefield, that person has the temperament to even be the President. No. The requirements to be president (or a politician of any kind) are completely different from what is asked from a soldier, that much I can say with certainty, even though I haven't been conscripted. The clear hierarchy that is present in the military is notably absent from the political world - the president might have the highest post in the country, but Trump had to learn the hard way that if he shouts "Jump!", people don't just ask how high. I'm explicitly not saying that military leaders can't do well as politicians, but I do not agree that a successful military career is any indication of how well that person would do in politics. -- Going back to the age debate: Emmanuel Macron is considered to be incredible young to be a head of state, and dude's 39 years old. I really don't think that your suggestion would factually change anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lushen Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 (edited) The reason you have to be 35 is because they want people with experience. Politians as a full time job weren't really a thing back when this was decided and political parties certainly werne't. Thus, Trump is actually quite a valid candidate in the eyes of the founding fathers since since politians back in the day were just regular people. If anything, the founding fathers would have made the age much older given that we can live a lot longer than they did. Either way, this movement would never really work because convincing a bunch of people who have 18 year olds children that their sons/daughters are just as qualified to be in their seats will probably make them laugh in your face. And yea, there's always local office. Again you face an uphill battle in trying to explain to people why an 18 year old is a great candidate when many 18 year olds are still dependents in high school who may have never payed taxes, had a full time job, or voted in any elections (ie just starting to learn about the real world). The military argument is fair, but when you sign up for the military at 18 years old there is no way you're going to start out as a General. Edited October 5, 2017 by Lushen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 10 hours ago, eclipse said: Why not run for local office? IIRC there was someone who was relatively young who ran (and lost) for local neighborhood board. Yeah you can absolutely run for mayor or country freeholder or local party chair as soon as you turn 18. I know people who have done that (you'll usually lose to someone older and more experienced, but every now-and-then some kid straight out of high school gets a small-town win). Honestly though--I don't think people should run for higher office until they've first demonstrated requisite levels of competence and public poise and good character in those lower positions. (or in a comparably demanding position) Thats how you get Donald Trumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lushen Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said: Thats how you get Donald Trumps. And every single US president before the existence of political parties and full-time politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Lushen said: And every single US president before the existence of political parties and full-time politics. Of which there was only one, who happened to be a well-beloved general and effective administrator. John Adams invented party politics, and it's only gotten worse from there. Stop pretending Donald Trump isn't an anomaly, because he is one, and he doesn't deserve what he has. Edited October 5, 2017 by Hylian Air Force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lushen Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 5 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said: Of which there was only one, who happened to be a well-beloved general and effective administrator. John Adams invented party politics, and it's only gotten worse from there. Stop pretending Donald Trump isn't an anomaly, because he is one, and he doesn't deserve what he has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience 5 actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zasplach Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Lushen said: 5 actually. Being a general in the United States Army is a political position. Yes, there is movement up the ranks, but all the commanders are all appointed by the commander-in-chief and are beholden to the American people; ie if the lose, they get fired. Take General Grant for example, yeah he never held an office, but he held the hottest seat in the nation during the Civil War, commander of the army of the Potomac was held by at least 5 different men over a short period of time. President Trump is most similar to Herbert Hoover who was a successful businessman in his earlier carrier, but even he devoted his later life to public service when he was Secretary of Commerce, an important job, and after WWI he ran the US Food Administration, which was a huge endeavor at the time. For good or for ill, in terms of political experience, especially in the last century, President Trump is an anomaly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 On 10/5/2017 at 4:12 PM, Valmese Soldier said: Regardless of where you stand on politics, the current POTUS right now has very little political experience prior to sitting in the highest office in the most powerful country in the world, if any, at least compared to his predecessors; whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is for you to decide. So I say we should start a new movement: America should allow persons as young as 18 years to run for political office. Barring the rare cases of prodigies (which honestly I could see as the kind of young people running for office) there aren't any rules stating that a [relevant] degree is required, it's just that they would likely help a lot with getting votes. If you think a type of person wouldn't win any elections anyway, why prohibit them from at least making attempts? Young people running an entire nation is by no means a new thing. In history, there have were kings who had to take charge of entire kingdoms/empires while they would still be in their teens, and unlike today, since they were absolute kings instead of democratically elected officials, they had a lot more weight on their shoulders compared to the majority of world leaders today, so really, an elected 19 year old would in actuality have an easier job than a very long time ago because other people could impede on their decisions, as America is not an absolutely ruled. People of this age group are allowed to vote, which is where the majority of the power for the US lies in, so in a way, people that young already can impact what happens in this country anyway, they vote because they can make good decisions for the country. There are also 18 year olds in the most vital part of any society, the military. If we can trust people that age to be in the most stressful and life threatening task that takes a lot of disciple, cooperation, bravery, and coherency in stressful situations, then they can definitely take working in a public office. I think, should this become law, what we'd actually see is people in their 20s and 30s running for office, I don't think old people should have a monopoly. Mental health isn't even checked when an American runs for office, even the highest one; why not just let the best candidate win and become a mayor, govenor, senator, president, etc? It should be the people's choice. I don't know if it's accurate to say kings had more weight on their shoulders compared to modern leaders. I mean there was no real media back when monarchs were the ruling the world. Now a days politicians have to deal with the fact that everything they say or do can be taken out of context, scrutinized immensely and remembered forever. Absolute monarchs certainly had it drilled into them that it was their responsibility to lead but the absoluteness of it meant they had to go pretty far to actually be viewed as incorrect or wrong. Of course that depends on the nation and individual in question. I don't want to outright say modern leaders have more stressful jobs, but I don't think it's quite true to say the contrary. I realize this is rather off topic with what this thread is really about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) On 10/5/2017 at 5:12 PM, Valmese Soldier said: Young people running an entire nation is by no means a new thing. In history, there have were kings who had to take charge of entire kingdoms/empires while they would still be in their teens, and unlike today, since they were absolute kings instead of democratically elected officials, they had a lot more weight on their shoulders compared to the majority of world leaders today, so really, an elected 19 year old would in actuality have an easier job than a very long time ago because other people could impede on their decisions, as America is not an absolutely ruled. Most young monarch rulers I know are human disaster that shouldnt be there to begin with. I am not sure what kind of fantasy you are reading but no one, not a single monarch can rule the empire alone without help from older/more experience advisors. I wont be using them as example since they are bad example. On 10/5/2017 at 5:12 PM, Valmese Soldier said: There are also 18 year olds in the most vital part of any society, the military. If we can trust people that age to be in the most stressful and life threatening task that takes a lot of disciple, cooperation, bravery, and coherency in stressful situations, then they can definitely take working in a public office. Yeah...about that, sure 18 years old can be soldier. But the most important role they gonna play is cannon fodder. They dont hold any power at all in the military machine. They are the lowest of the low. If anything, they are the expandable. It's the generals, the top brass who are important and powerful. Lol, if you think simply being in the army can make you anymore relevant than other 18 years old guys then you are pretty wrong. Nobody trust you or anything and that is why you will go out there and patrol the village while your officer who will probably be over 30 stays inside the base and ready to roast your ass. Or even worse, they wont sortie you and shove you into the camps for years since they know you wont last more than 30 minutes in the wild! The army dont need your disciple, they gonna whip disciple into your soul. No one in the army respect a newly recruit guy. By the time when you are a well trained and experienced soldier, you would be over 20 already. Ask your self, what is the last time you see a 18 years old lieutenant? Edited October 21, 2017 by Magical CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 5 hours ago, Magical CC said: Most young monarch rulers I know are human disaster that shouldnt be there to begin with. Louis XIV was probably the most effective king of France from his father until Napoleon (that's probably a bad thing). Richard II was pretty brutal but he was anything but incompetent. Most are bad (Puyi was egregiously bad, but he didn't actually rule anything), but not all child rulers will necessarily drive their countries into the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) On 10/5/2017 at 4:18 AM, Valmese Soldier said: But true. Without a military, a country would shortly be conquered, and the populace all the other institutions would be subject to the will of the conquerers. We don't truly even live in peace right now, we're in a many decades-old Mexican standoff. There's a reason why our military budget is where most of the US taxpayer money goes to... If someone can not only survive but remain cohesive on the battlefield, that person has the temperament to even be the President. A relevant degree is all I think someone should really need to do very well. That's just discretionary spending, the total spending includes discretionary and mandatory... 9 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said: Louis XIV was probably the most effective king of France from his father until Napoleon (that's probably a bad thing). Richard II was pretty brutal but he was anything but incompetent. Most are bad (Puyi was egregiously bad, but he didn't actually rule anything), but not all child rulers will necessarily drive their countries into the ground. Any time a countries prospers during the minority of a child monarch, it's in spite of them, not because of them. Whoever happens to be ruling in their name is responsible, and since they are ruling for someone else, rather than themselves, their hold on power is tenuous, and often leads to power struggles. Edited October 21, 2017 by Rezzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 If you think Puyi is bad then you havent seen anything yet. Imagine being the emperor when you are 5 then played around so hard that you died at the age of 22 because you did nothing but having wild sex, drinking booze and sleeping all day and night for half of your life. The general problem is the sudden power surge, young people really have no experience in handling power and it tends to explode in their face because they cant control it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Denver Fan Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 18 year olds may not have the political experience so, I don't think that they should run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zera Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 The Presidential minimum age shouldn't be lower than 25, but it also shouldn't higher than 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanguard333 Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 On 10/21/2017 at 6:24 AM, Hylian Air Force said: Louis XIV was probably the most effective king of France from his father until Napoleon (that's probably a bad thing). Richard II was pretty brutal but he was anything but incompetent. Most are bad (Puyi was egregiously bad, but he didn't actually rule anything), but not all child rulers will necessarily drive their countries into the ground. Richard II got deposed by Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV) after a violent revolt that met little resistance, and that deposing and the subsequent crowning of Henry eventually led to the bloodiest civil war in English History (The War of the Roses). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 2 hours ago, vanguard333 said: Richard II got deposed by Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV) after a violent revolt that met little resistance, and that deposing and the subsequent crowning of Henry eventually led to the bloodiest civil war in English History (The War of the Roses). You're not the reason why this thread was necro'd. If you really REALLY want an answer to this, PM me. I'm gonna lock this due to said necro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts