• Freefall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’d support (median life expectancy ±15 years determine at the start of the election year). Gives you a middleing generation so the extremes are not super underrepresented and it makes sure they have some life under their belt.

      • AngryMob@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah no. Look at what those numbers would actually be. Median is 70-80 depending on country and sex. I dont want a 95 year old president when they enter office… And 55 as a minimum is far beyond “life under their belt”

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35 all the way 250 years ago. People made it to their 80s but your life expectancy was much lower. Basically 35 was the perfect age.

      What we need is an amendment to make this reflect modern life.

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35

        Yep. Gotta figure someone who’s 35 has been around the block, seen some things, knows some things, the office of POTUS doesn’t seem like one you should be able to run for right out of high school. Oh, but imagine if we could. I’m sure it would be hilarious to put a high school graduate in office. Especially a Gen Z kid lmao.

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Yeah… As it stands right now our first priority needs to be eliminating the ultra wealthys influence otherwise that amendment will be changed to “all non-wealthy debtors, convicted criminals, and the unemployed can be used as slaves.”