General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The minimum age of 35 to be President is such an unnecessary rule [View all]DEMTough
(90 posts)wouldn't matter.
Most interested young people wouldn't run, school, debt, job finding/holding, it would be tough to run and then hold office, sacrificing many of their best years. Those uninterested in politics, a fair majority of young people, obviously aren't going to run.
If one were to run, most of the electorate would likely be turned off by a candidate who would take advantage of the rule change. Along with many of the concerns raised here in the thread.
If they had merit to their ideas both according to their party, and worldview at large, they could be competitive with proper youth vote outreach, combined with a constant media focused on them out of curiosity.
As far as the Presidency goes, there's so many de-facto rules of society in place, I don't think anyone in their twenties, after abolishing the age requirement, could possibly be elected, or hold enough experience to get appointed to a line of succession post. (i.e. Cabinet Secretary, no one will elect a young House Speaker, due to the seniority rules in the House, and the Senate for that matter, with the President Pro-Tem). There's no evident law giving an age requirement for Cabinet Secretary, but Presidents appoint people with proper authority in a field relating to the office, and you really can't get that for many years.