So interesting! I've been looking at the aging Congress issue, too, and rejected age and term limits, but your suggested limits are pretty generous. I wouldn't reject them. Proportional voting seems useful. But I can't help wondering why 70+'ers aren't looking forward to retiring. What is it that keeps them in the game? One possibility is that the job is lucrative... not in terms of the paycheck, but rather side benefits like (let's call it) "informed" stock trading. If individual stock trading is banned, would the average ages in the House and Senate fall? I guess my gut says there isn't a silver bullet solution for this, but a collection of policy changes and other initiatives that would tip the scales away from gerontocracy, and toward a more representative democracy.
There are so many problems with the statistical or other analysis in both your post and in the paper you reference that I stopped counting, such as:
-the constitution places age restrictions on the House (over 25) and the Senate (30)
-the average tenure in the House is 8.6 years and in the Senate it's 11 years, and that's WITH people like Maxine Waters and Chuck Grassley driving averages up
-People under 30 got trump elected, but we're not supposed to pay any attention to that
-there is no clear path to mandating federal proportional representation, let alone individual states
As an economist, I find the analysis offered here a joke. But maybe I need to grade on a curve. Is all political science as flimsy as what's offered here?
The USA may have the most geriatric politicians, but please do not expect a change to proportional representation to deliver a more equitable form of democracy. New Zealand (where I am writing from) has had Mixed Member Proportional Representation since 1996 and our multi-party parliament is now a squabbling shambles. This has occurred because minor parties negotiate “deals” with the major party after an election to enable the major party to govern. Unpopular minor party policies are supported the major party in return for the minor parties agreeing to support the major party’s policies. This results in deeply unpopular decisions being rammed through our parliament.
In my view, democracy is in decline worldwide - regardless of the electoral system used - and I think is occurring primarily because:
1. Political parties are inherently competitive – not cooperative.
2. Election cycles result in wasteful short-term decision making
3. Government decisions are made with insufficient consensus.
While the following suggestions were written for a New Zealand audience, (which has a small number of electorates, 3 year terms and a single layer house of elected representatives), I think democracy’s deficiencies could be fixed relatively quickly; with possible solutions being:
a) Encourage independent political candidates and enfeeble political parties by limiting donations to parties to a small amount, say $50/year maximum from any one individual or organization
b) Implement elections that “roll” around the country every month by dividing the country into 72 electorates, with 2 geographically disparate electorates voting on a rotating basis every month of the year. In its designated month, every electorate would elect one individual by popular vote to serve that electorate for a 3 year term.
c) To reduce the impact of political parties, support every elected representative by a citizen advisory group (CAG) randomly selected from their electorate and allow the CAG to fire the elected representative if at least 80% of CAG members consider that the elected representative is not meeting the local community’s expectations.
d) Require a consensus for the passing of votes in parliament to be 80% or more.
The end result should be a government more representative of the general population, subject to refreshment monthly. If the politicians are getting things wrong in the public’s view, government’s makeup would quickly change as new pairs of electorates vote over the following months. In the long term, ego-driven (AND OLD AGED!) politicians should disappear!
But the US has a higher age than non-PR parliamentary systems, not to mention non-list systems (e.g., France). It seems like that's really a more relevant question. Part of the issue is that the US is highly unusual in that it has a first-past-the-post electoral system that doesn't lead to massive national waves that unseat very senior politicians. Even 1992 was just a loss of 59 seats and 2010 was just a loss of 63 seats by the Democrats, which my global standards isn't that big a deal, and those are the biggest wave elections we've seen in the last decades.
I remember when Ronald Reagan was thought to be too old when he was elected at age 69.
What I will never understand is why some people think younger means better.
At the end of the day, we vote. And if the old person gets the most votes, then that's democracy. What the author of this article wants to do is increase the odds for "his" person to win. Not increase the odds for the "best" person to win.
This is an interesting analysis setting forth yet another reason why our present electoral system is not helping American democracy. When you combine it with the pervasive influence of big money in politics (and who runs for Congress with party support) and gerrymandering, you get a clearer picture of why we need to change how we conduct elections in our political system.
As a political scientist, I oppose term limits because they also limit institutional memory and empower unelected staff people to carry on.
I confess I have LM’s concerns here. The paper was underwhelming.
I am also struck by your first chart and your claim about weak parties. We did something in 2002 that made national parties much weaker. BCRA. A lot of programming disappeared. Like policy offices. And leadership development.
So another story could be something like our incredibly narrow understanding of political parties that was reflected in the campaign finance reform rhetoric was further entrenched by campaign finance reform.
It would be interesting to compare to the state level where your argument ought to hold with equal power. Are there meaningful differences between states? To what could we attribute that to? If your claim is correct, states with more competitive seats should have lower ages. Obviously you have term limits in many places. You have VERY different campaign finance regimes. You have party affiliated leadership development.
The national parties are simply legal vehicles. The real parties are in the states.
So interesting! I've been looking at the aging Congress issue, too, and rejected age and term limits, but your suggested limits are pretty generous. I wouldn't reject them. Proportional voting seems useful. But I can't help wondering why 70+'ers aren't looking forward to retiring. What is it that keeps them in the game? One possibility is that the job is lucrative... not in terms of the paycheck, but rather side benefits like (let's call it) "informed" stock trading. If individual stock trading is banned, would the average ages in the House and Senate fall? I guess my gut says there isn't a silver bullet solution for this, but a collection of policy changes and other initiatives that would tip the scales away from gerontocracy, and toward a more representative democracy.
What keeps them in the game? The same old things: money, ego and influence.
Michigan is currently circulating citizen petitions to allow ranked choice voting. Does ranked choice voting help with all or any of these problems?
There are so many problems with the statistical or other analysis in both your post and in the paper you reference that I stopped counting, such as:
-the constitution places age restrictions on the House (over 25) and the Senate (30)
-the average tenure in the House is 8.6 years and in the Senate it's 11 years, and that's WITH people like Maxine Waters and Chuck Grassley driving averages up
-People under 30 got trump elected, but we're not supposed to pay any attention to that
-there is no clear path to mandating federal proportional representation, let alone individual states
As an economist, I find the analysis offered here a joke. But maybe I need to grade on a curve. Is all political science as flimsy as what's offered here?
The USA may have the most geriatric politicians, but please do not expect a change to proportional representation to deliver a more equitable form of democracy. New Zealand (where I am writing from) has had Mixed Member Proportional Representation since 1996 and our multi-party parliament is now a squabbling shambles. This has occurred because minor parties negotiate “deals” with the major party after an election to enable the major party to govern. Unpopular minor party policies are supported the major party in return for the minor parties agreeing to support the major party’s policies. This results in deeply unpopular decisions being rammed through our parliament.
In my view, democracy is in decline worldwide - regardless of the electoral system used - and I think is occurring primarily because:
1. Political parties are inherently competitive – not cooperative.
2. Election cycles result in wasteful short-term decision making
3. Government decisions are made with insufficient consensus.
While the following suggestions were written for a New Zealand audience, (which has a small number of electorates, 3 year terms and a single layer house of elected representatives), I think democracy’s deficiencies could be fixed relatively quickly; with possible solutions being:
a) Encourage independent political candidates and enfeeble political parties by limiting donations to parties to a small amount, say $50/year maximum from any one individual or organization
b) Implement elections that “roll” around the country every month by dividing the country into 72 electorates, with 2 geographically disparate electorates voting on a rotating basis every month of the year. In its designated month, every electorate would elect one individual by popular vote to serve that electorate for a 3 year term.
c) To reduce the impact of political parties, support every elected representative by a citizen advisory group (CAG) randomly selected from their electorate and allow the CAG to fire the elected representative if at least 80% of CAG members consider that the elected representative is not meeting the local community’s expectations.
d) Require a consensus for the passing of votes in parliament to be 80% or more.
The end result should be a government more representative of the general population, subject to refreshment monthly. If the politicians are getting things wrong in the public’s view, government’s makeup would quickly change as new pairs of electorates vote over the following months. In the long term, ego-driven (AND OLD AGED!) politicians should disappear!
But the US has a higher age than non-PR parliamentary systems, not to mention non-list systems (e.g., France). It seems like that's really a more relevant question. Part of the issue is that the US is highly unusual in that it has a first-past-the-post electoral system that doesn't lead to massive national waves that unseat very senior politicians. Even 1992 was just a loss of 59 seats and 2010 was just a loss of 63 seats by the Democrats, which my global standards isn't that big a deal, and those are the biggest wave elections we've seen in the last decades.
I remember when Ronald Reagan was thought to be too old when he was elected at age 69.
What I will never understand is why some people think younger means better.
At the end of the day, we vote. And if the old person gets the most votes, then that's democracy. What the author of this article wants to do is increase the odds for "his" person to win. Not increase the odds for the "best" person to win.
OR it may be the case that in other countries their politicians get arrested, thrown out of a window, blown up in a car bomb, or poisoned.
Only young, fearless people are brave enough to be politicians in these other countries.
This is an interesting analysis setting forth yet another reason why our present electoral system is not helping American democracy. When you combine it with the pervasive influence of big money in politics (and who runs for Congress with party support) and gerrymandering, you get a clearer picture of why we need to change how we conduct elections in our political system.
As a political scientist, I oppose term limits because they also limit institutional memory and empower unelected staff people to carry on.
I confess I have LM’s concerns here. The paper was underwhelming.
I am also struck by your first chart and your claim about weak parties. We did something in 2002 that made national parties much weaker. BCRA. A lot of programming disappeared. Like policy offices. And leadership development.
So another story could be something like our incredibly narrow understanding of political parties that was reflected in the campaign finance reform rhetoric was further entrenched by campaign finance reform.
It would be interesting to compare to the state level where your argument ought to hold with equal power. Are there meaningful differences between states? To what could we attribute that to? If your claim is correct, states with more competitive seats should have lower ages. Obviously you have term limits in many places. You have VERY different campaign finance regimes. You have party affiliated leadership development.
The national parties are simply legal vehicles. The real parties are in the states.