An age-old question: Should there be an age limit for the presidency?

Yes (by Leah Becker)

While it’s true that wisdom and experience can be valuable in politics, there comes a point where age can become a hindrance rather than an asset.

There’s no denying that politics can be cutthroat with high stakes and endless maneuvering. It takes a sharp mind, quick reflexes and the ability to keep up with a fast-paced, ever-changing political system. But as we’ve seen time and time again, age can catch up with even the most seasoned politicians, leading to a decline in their abilities to govern effectively.

One of the primary reasons an age limit is necessary is because of the potential for physical and mental decline. As people age, their cognitive abilities diminish, creating serious consequences for decision-making. According to, cognitive decline typically begins around the age of 65. In politics, where decisions can have far-reaching effects, it’s crucial to have leaders who are at the top of their mental game.

We need to begin balancing wisdom and experience with a leader’s mental capabilities.

As times change, it is necessary to provide fresh perspectives. Older politicians may have outdated views on current issues, leading to policies that are out of touch with the needs of the current generation. By adding an age restriction, we can ensure that new voices and ideas are regularly implemented into the political sphere. This can help to prevent stagnation and ensure that the government is more responsive to the needs of the people it serves.

Age needs to start being a factor that is carefully considered alongside other important criteria. Just as we look for experience and wisdom, we must also ensure that our leaders have the physical and mental stamina to tackle the challenges of governing in the modern world.

A balance of youthful energy and seasoned judgment can help build an effective political system, ensuring that our democracy remains adaptable to the needs of society for generations to come.

No (by Zach Ashare)

When voting for a president, many look for the candidate that most aligns with their beliefs as well as a candidate that seems fit enough to handle the immense responsibility of being commander-in-chief.

Barring fit candidates from assuming office solely based on their age is absurd as Americans could potentially be passing up on a great leader. A question that must be asked: In a time of crisis, does the age of the president matter? A leader needs to be fit, but some make it seem as if age is the only determining factor.

When thinking of great leaders from around the world, one that comes to mind for many is the late Nelson Mandela, who became president of South Africa in 1994. Mandela assumed office at the age of 75. Had South Africa seen Mandela’s age as an issue, he would not have been the country’s first democratically-elected president and they would not have had someone to facilitate the reconciliation between races following Apartheid.

While some say that having an old and “out of touch” president will be harmful for the future of our nation, it is worth noting that many presidents have not been in touch with the various communities that make up America. When has there been a Jewish president? A Muslim president? A Hispanic president? A female president? A president living in poverty?

The reasons stated above are why a president has a cabinet of advisors, so they do not have to bear the responsibility of appeasing every community in America. The president’s cabinet will guide them on issues relating to the youth of America through to their own generation. The president does not bear sole responsibility for the changes that are made in our great nation.

Having an age limit and restricting fit candidates from becoming president is not worth consideration. as Americans deserve the right to elect the person they see most fit to handle being President of the United States of America.

Should there be an age limit for the presidency?


Sorry, there was an error loading this poll.