Gerontocracy: How an Aging Congress Is Threatening Democracy 

Photo via: Roll Call

***

On September 14, Senator Mitch McConnell returned to the Capitol after a three-month medical absence, and the internet responded as it often does: with memes. Clips of McConnell sitting expressionless in the back of a car, alongside photos of him in a wheelchair, spread quickly, but the jokes soon spiraled into genuine concern and discourse about the health and mental aptitude of elderly lawmakers. McConnell’s return to the Senate floor also came two months after the death of Senator Lindsey Graham, whose passing renewed focus on aging politicians.

We live in a historically old era of U.S. politics. With an average member age of 58.9 years old, the 119th Congress is the third-oldest Congress since 1789, behind only the 117th and 118th Congresses. Executively, Trump and Biden are the two oldest presidents to ever be sworn in, aged 79 and 82, respectively. These facts have led experts to label the U.S. a gerontocracy—a society controlled by a government of elderly people. America’s gerontocracy is more than just content for Instagram memes; it is eroding younger generations’ trust in government, and only term limits and proportional representation can fix it.

Although defenders of the gerontocratic status quo do have a fair point: experience matters in Congress. Long-serving members hold a legislative edge over their younger counterparts because they spend years building the foundational relationships that get bills passed. One analysis of effectiveness scores found that each additional term a member of Congress serves increases the success rate of their introduced bills by about four percentage points. A strong track record matters because trust in a representative is often built on demonstrated competence. A representative with decades of experience has the influence to act on constituents’ interests, while a younger representative may still be building that power.  But does action matter if those constituents feel underrepresented in the policymaking process?

This feeling of underrepresentation is especially acute among younger voters. A recent poll found that 70% of Americans ages 18-29 feel their generation is underrepresented in politics, and more than half believe that their vote matters “only a little” or “not at all”. This frustration cuts across party lines, too: 82% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats support a maximum age limit for elected officials in Washington, D.C. Additionally, with AI reshaping the futures of young Americans, critics are also frustrated with the lack of technological fluency among senior policymakers. Americans increasingly want younger leaders who understand the challenges that will define the next generation’s future.

However, rebuilding the U.S. gerontocracy is harder than passing a simple bill. Instituting term limits seems like the obvious answer. Popular proposals for a three-term House and two-term Senate limit would push out career politicians (lawmakers who spend most of their professional life working in politics), encourage fresh perspectives, and avoid ageism allegations of a hard age cap, protecting the expertise of those who enter public service later in life. The biggest obstacle to implementing congressional term limits is the Constitution itself. The only federal term limit in place is the 22nd Amendment’s two-term cap on the presidency, meaning a precedent has been established, and an additional amendment would be required to impose term limits on representatives or senators. The process of passing a constitutional amendment is arduous, but the most fundamental obstacle would be that Congress itself has to approve it. In a legislature dominated by career politicians, it is unlikely members would vote to limit their own terms. 

Besides term limits, experts have floated the idea of proportional representation as a method to address gerontocracy and promote political representation among the youth. Under proportional representation, parties are incentivized to present balanced tickets with younger candidates, who serve as strategic assets for appealing to younger voters. Proportional representation also eliminates the need for primaries, which favor incumbents who tend to garner more popularity and campaign financing. Finally, if young voters are frustrated with existing party options, proportional representation enables them to form new parties with a real shot at winning seats. However, similar to term limits, the process of uprooting our current winner-takes-all congressional framework and dismantling our bipartisan system would require extensive, labor-intensive work.

One of my favorite quotes is, “Everything you want is on the other side of hard.” Term limits and proportional representation are difficult reforms, but they would help end the recent trend of gerontocracy that has dismantled faith in our government and misrepresents our future generation of voters. Institutional change was never meant to be easy, but term limits and proportional representation could help American democracy encompass everyone. 

***

This article was edited by Jackie Gonzalez, Brianna Leathem Brazzini, and Maahi Kumar.