Our politicians are voting one day and dying the next.

Just hours after casting her final vote this week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) died at home with her daughter at her bedside at 90 years old. While many are praising Sen. Feinstein’s prolific career in the Senate, her refusal to retire amidst numerous health scares demonstrates a major issue on the Hill: geriatric lawmakers.

In recent months, senior political leaders endured multiple health scares that called into question whether or not age limits should be implemented for politicians. Minority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell recently froze up for the second time in months while losing the ability to speak or move. Sen. Feinstein’s behavior prior to her death was cause enough for concern, like forgetting she was absent from the chambers for a month while in the hospital or not knowing how to vote in her final weeks. Besides President Joe Biden being the oldest president in US history, the median age in the Senate is 65, the highest ever recorded.

Older lawmakers have proven to be ineffective in modern debates that concern everyday Americans. During the Congressional trials over TikTok, Gen Z and Millenials watched on in horror as Congressional leaders asked inane questions, like Rep. Hudson, who asked the CEO of TikTok, Shou Zi Chew, “Does Tiktok access the home wifi network?” Or when in the Facebook trials, Sen. Richard Blumenthal asked CEO and Founder of Facebook/Meta Studios Mark Zuckerberg, “Will you commit to ending finsta?”

Moments like these make young people already despondent over the current state of affairs, even more disappointed in the political process and once again let down by their elected officials. As politicians age, technology develops, changes, and adapts, which they need to be ready for. But if you lack the ability to understand how wifi works, maybe you should take a back seat.

Over 75% of Americans think there should be an age limit, but passing legislation to implement this would be incredibly difficult. While other areas of the government have maximum age limits, like the military, imposing this kind of regulation would require at least two thirds of both chambers of Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution. This legislation presents several issues; a majority of politicians would be directly impacted by its passage and therefore vote against it.

Outside of an age limit there should be term limits. Some experts argue that this would bring power back to the cities, but I argue that term limits bring more power back to the people to elect who represents them best, while consistently moving new faces into the hallowed chambers to pass legislation that actually addresses their issues. A major problem in both Congress and the Senate is seniority. Amending the Constitution to ratify term limits would eliminate this problem entirely. There would be less of a hierarchy which could lessen the time spent arguing over bureaucratic non-issues, new representatives could actually do their job, and the issue of competency in regard to aging would be virtually eliminated. Adding term limits might also be easier to pass as it doesn’t define one specific age. That doesn’t mean it would be simple; many lawmakers will be opposed. But just because those in power don’t want to bend to the will of the people, does not mean they can ignore us. Ultimately, your elected representatives work for you; they should follow your wishes accordingly, or you will vote them out. This is where real advocacy work comes into play and requires each and every one of us to step up to the plate and work to pass legislation like this.

It’s moments like these that call into question the validity of our democratic leaders and call on us, the American people, to push for clarity and transparency in our governmental structures.