411
After the Midterms, the Average Age in the Senate Falls to 63 (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Incoming senators are nearly 15 years younger than departing ones, on average. But the chamber’s overall age isn’t shifting much.

Nov. 7, 2026Updated 3:17 p.m. ET

When the new Senate convenes in January, it will welcome some (relatively) young new legislators. A few are even millennials, including James Talarico of Texas, 37, and Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan, 42, two Democrats who may have energized young voters to turn out.

But their effect on the average age of the Senate — which has crept up over the last few decades — will be small. The senators of the 120th Congress will be less than a year younger, on average, than the Senate’s current members were at the start of the 119th Congress two years ago. That’s because so many sitting senators are old, and getting older.

These numbers assume that Mary Peltola and Scott Colom will win their races in Alaska and Mississippi; they were both ahead in the vote count Saturday. (If both lose, the Senate’s average age will land at 63.6.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

There should be term limits

It's harder to argue for an age limit, because the issue of representation comes up. There are even pensioners' parties here and there. The Netherlands, for instance, has a party called 50 Plus that represents people 50 and above. It wouldn't be surprising if those voters wanted to elect someone over 70 to represent them.

It's also easier to argue for term limits since they're already in use for the presidency. Maximum age limits are uncommon all around the world

I do understand that this still wouldn't prevent people like Sleepy Don or Mitch McFrozen from taking office though... But then you look at Bernie Sanders and he's not sleepy at all. If anything, he's at the peak of his career. So there's my conundrum.

EDIT: Maybe it should be like a driver's licence, where you have to do a medical check-up every few years! You fail it, you lose it. But something like that would be vulnerable to corruption

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Personally I don't like this because to me it violates a fundamental principle of Democracy and removes power from the people.

    The negative side of this is when Representatives are doing a great job, why risk jumping ship to a less known quantity? If my Rep is someone like AOC, then by golly I'd want her for life if she maintained my support.

    The real root of the problem resides in campaign finance & election reform, where newcomers are at a disadvantaged state facing an incumbent. This can almost mathematically be offset if this aspect of the system is corrected.

    As far as age limits go, here in America we already have age-minimums. Can't be a House Rep until 25; Senator until 30; President until 35. Clearly there is no representation for anyone below 25 whatsoever and their future in this world. That also skirts the real problems with the literal meaning of aging: cognitive and physical decline. While people may not need to be at peak performance, there are so many more probabilistic risks with those past retirement age / pensioners that it becomes a liability. Not only that, they're less invested in the future because they're frankly not long for this world. That said, given my belief here contradicts my take on giving power to the people, I'd say lift all age constraints and again fix the campaign finance / election reform system so the electorate is actually more responsive to political stagnation.

    Voters should also be able to (a) Recall any Congressperson, House and senate, and (b) There should be federal-level referendum measures to enable direct / participatory voting by the people -- even if the threshold is at a higher bar, like 65% or 70%.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (1 child)

    The counter argument is that great Representatives would and should be grooming future great Representatives. It would give more motivation for highly qualified staff to want to work under these Representatives if they know that in a few cycles they will have to step down and eventually support their campaign.

    The higher quality staff that Representatives have, the more they should be able to accomplish.

    It also should in theory provide more people to choose from come primary time too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •