Would you support lowering the eligibility to be President to 18?

[Obama24]

Well? You obviously want lifelong Presidents now in an overwhelming majority. So, should we drop any age requirement whatsoever?

[Trans Rights Are Human Rights]

Sure, why not. Old enough to vote, old enough to run.

[TDAS04]

I’ll settle this once and for all. Let’s limit the people eligible for the presidency—along with every other public office, and even voting—to citizens between the ages of 5 and 9, and those 90 and above. 10-89-year-olds (as well as people under 5) get no voice in government.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Age limits are arbitrary, but this is still too low of an age.

[President Johnson]

Yes, there shouldn't be age limits beyond majority age.

I think most other countries don't require minimum age for their chief executive either. There's no requirement for the chancellor of Germany for example, though 40 for the (ceremonial) president.

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes. 35 is archaic and arbitrary and it unnecessarily precludes Americans from choosing a qualified candidate just because they're "too young."

Age limits are arbitrary, but this is still too low of an age.

Most of the time, of course it is, and the people can see that and make that call for themselves.
But I don't believe that an 18-year-old is just by virtue of his age automatically unfit to govern; in some cases, he could be quite able, or at least be a better choice than the alternatives.

18 is a good choice because that is the age of majority and the age at which one is legally an adult - old enough to serve in the military, old enough to marry, old enough to vote, etc. They should be old enough to run for any elected office, too.

[Obama24]

Yes. 35 is archaic and arbitrary and it unnecessarily precludes Americans from choosing a qualified candidate just because they're "too young."

Age limits are arbitrary, but this is still too low of an age.

Most of the time, of course it is, and the people can see that and make that call for themselves.
But I don't believe that an 18-year-old is just by virtue of his age automatically unfit to govern; in some cases, he could be quite able, or at least be a better choice than the alternatives.

18 is a good choice because that is the age of majority and the age at which one is legally an adult - old enough to serve in the military, old enough to marry, old enough to vote, etc. They should be old enough to run for any elected office, too.

Brain doesn't stop developing til 25. Teenagers aren't the brightest bunch lol, still having raging hormones, and you want to hand them nuclear codes. Good luck with that.

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes. 35 is archaic and arbitrary and it unnecessarily precludes Americans from choosing a qualified candidate just because they're "too young."

Age limits are arbitrary, but this is still too low of an age.

Most of the time, of course it is, and the people can see that and make that call for themselves.
But I don't believe that an 18-year-old is just by virtue of his age automatically unfit to govern; in some cases, he could be quite able, or at least be a better choice than the alternatives.

18 is a good choice because that is the age of majority and the age at which one is legally an adult - old enough to serve in the military, old enough to marry, old enough to vote, etc. They should be old enough to run for any elected office, too.

Brain doesn't stop developing til 25. Teenagers aren't the brightest bunch lol, still having raging hormones, and you want to hand them nuclear codes. Good luck with that.

?

I don't want an 18-year-old elected president, necessarily (and given the points you've made, I highly doubt other Americans do either; ergo, it probably will never happen barring extraordinary circumstances). But nor do I want the right to elect an 18-year-old president just taken away. Even if it is granted, it's a right that likely will never be exercised. As a matter of principle, however, 18 years old is the age of adulthood and the age to begin enjoying its benefits -- one of those benefits should be the right to run for office, even if it's the highest office in the land.

[Obama24]

Yes. 35 is archaic and arbitrary and it unnecessarily precludes Americans from choosing a qualified candidate just because they're "too young."

Age limits are arbitrary, but this is still too low of an age.

Most of the time, of course it is, and the people can see that and make that call for themselves.
But I don't believe that an 18-year-old is just by virtue of his age automatically unfit to govern; in some cases, he could be quite able, or at least be a better choice than the alternatives.

18 is a good choice because that is the age of majority and the age at which one is legally an adult - old enough to serve in the military, old enough to marry, old enough to vote, etc. They should be old enough to run for any elected office, too.

Brain doesn't stop developing til 25. Teenagers aren't the brightest bunch lol, still having raging hormones, and you want to hand them nuclear codes. Good luck with that.

?

I don't want an 18-year-old elected president, necessarily (and given the points you've made, I highly doubt other Americans do either; ergo, it probably will never happen barring extraordinary circumstances). But nor do I want the right to elect an 18-year-old president just taken away. Even if it is granted, it's a right that likely will never be exercised. As a matter of principle, however, 18 years old is the age of adulthood and the age to begin enjoying its benefits -- one of those benefits should be the right to run for office, even if it's the highest office in the land.

I tend to believe that the legal age of adulthood should be raised to 21, as a compromise between 18 and the developmental adulthood of 25. 18 year old Zoomers are not the 18 year olds of times past. Much less mature and lacking in life experience that isn't online as well as generally empathy levels.

[Mr. Smith]

25 methinks, just like House.

[Sopranos Republican]

Sure.

As we've seen, most office holders are like 30-40 years older than the legal minimum anyways. Maybe this would actually lead to someone in their 40's/50's being president.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Sure. I can't wait till we get TikTok E-boys on the debate stage running against literal fossils

[SWE]

Yes. 35 is archaic and arbitrary and it unnecessarily precludes Americans from choosing a qualified candidate just because they're "too young."

Age limits are arbitrary, but this is still too low of an age.

Most of the time, of course it is, and the people can see that and make that call for themselves.
But I don't believe that an 18-year-old is just by virtue of his age automatically unfit to govern; in some cases, he could be quite able, or at least be a better choice than the alternatives.

18 is a good choice because that is the age of majority and the age at which one is legally an adult - old enough to serve in the military, old enough to marry, old enough to vote, etc. They should be old enough to run for any elected office, too.

Brain doesn't stop developing til 25. Teenagers aren't the brightest bunch lol, still having raging hormones, and you want to hand them nuclear codes. Good luck with that.

Your brain will continue to develop until the day you die. There is no significance to the age 25 whatsoever, that is something the media flat out made up

[Sir Mohamed]

Yup.

Btw, I think the only qualifactions should be voting age and US citizenship. Repeal both the natural-born citizen clause and minimum age.

[Xing]

35 might be too high, but 18 is definitely too low, as the brain isn’t even fully developed yet.

[MyLifeIsYours]

30 would be a better minimum age to lower the eligibility. Good enough life experience by that age you should be able to run for the oval office.

[Mexican Wolf]

25 or 30 like the House or Senate would make more sense to me.

[Santander]

Eligibility should begin at conception.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There won't be an old Prez after Biden or Trump ever again so it's no need

[MarkD]

25 methinks, just like House.

Yes, 25 for House, Senate, and presidency.

[darklordoftech]

Yes, and eligibility restrictions should be determined by legislation, not in the Constitution.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I think 25 (when the brain is fully developed for most people) is probably better, but the age limits for house and senate should be lowered to 18.

[dead0man]

get rid of the age, add a competency test

[Cokeland Saxton]

I would not want a president that young for some pretty obvious reasons

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wonder if the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election has the widest age range of any election, featuring both an 18 year old and a 100 year old.