I’d go for a net worth restriction.
Anyone who is in the top 10% of the net worth of their constituents cannot run.
Anyone who is in the top 1% of the net worth of their constituents is immediately replaced.
👍 Which is why I didn’t say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly.
Term limits just push things to the unelected “advisors” and aids.
An age limit would be a better option. I would push for 90% of life expectancy, which is 71 in the US. If you’re over that age, you can’t run again.
I’d go for a net worth restriction. Anyone who is in the top 10% of the net worth of their constituents cannot run. Anyone who is in the top 1% of the net worth of their constituents is immediately replaced.
I’d set it at the retirement age. Nobody over 65. Go spend time with your families ffs.
What was that? Retirement age is now 100?
👍 Which is why I didn’t say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly.
No, no, it is 65 for our government if they want, everyone else is 100.
Retirement age can be gamed. Even worse, it’s to the rich’s benefit, and our cost. Life expectancy is harder to game in a way that hurts the plebs.