@ISIDEWITHQuestionselectionsStarted 2yrs agoActive 11mos ago

Should politicians over 75 years of age have required to pass a mental competency test?

Countries that have mandatory retirements for politicians include Argentina (age 75), Brazil (75 for judges and prosecutors), Mexico (70 for judges and prosecutors) and Singapore (75 for members of parliament.)

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Paleoconservatism

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 208 Paleoconservatism voters.

80%
Yes
20%
No
75%
Yes
17%
No
3%
Yes, and politicians of any age should be required to pass a mental competency test
1%
No, I would prefer term limits instead
2%
Yes, and ban anyone over the age of retirement from running for office
1%
No, mental competency is too subjective and the testing process could be abused
0%
No, our government needs experienced leaders
0%
No, this discriminates against older politicians

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 208 Paleoconservatism voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 208 Paleoconservatism voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Paleoconservatism voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @4SNPK4B answered…11mos11MO

A mental competency test for all politicians sounds great, but to be actually good it would need to be decided on by a group more mentally competent than any politicians currently in charge anywhere.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

House Democrats Filibuster Flip-Flop: Keep It When the GOP’s in Charge, Kill It When We Are

Filibuster for me, but not for thee. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added. The Senate filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote threshold to end debate and pass most types of legislation in the upper chamber, is seen as the best chance Democrats have at blocking the adoption of President-elect Donald Trump agenda – with Republicans taking a 53-47 seat advantage in the Senate and expected to retain a slim majority in the House. Jayapal, as recently as September, was pushing to “abolish” what she called the “Jim Crow filibuster.” “The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”The Washington Democrat dislikes that the procedural tool makes it difficult for progressives to ram their agenda through Congress. “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal tweeted. The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would’ve “built some trust with the American people.”“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular … then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal argued.

▲  226 replies