I wrote this 3 years ago, just as true today as then:

https://old.reddit.com/r/DownWithIncumbency/comments/uxgcrp/we_should_not_serve_the_dead/

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein was born in 1933, assumed her office in 1992, and still serves today at the age of 88. Thank you for your service Dianne, but don't you think it's past time to groom a younger protege to take your place?

The laws shaped and passed by our statesmen, elder and otherwise, will control how people live for decades to come. Not only should they be of sound mind when crafting and considering these laws, they should also have a bit of skin in the game: live with the results of their decisions for at least some time.

U.S. Presidents must be at least 35 years of age. I propose that, ideally, they should also not be much over 70 years of age while serving. To gently shape our current system toward this ideal, we might modify election laws to deduct age points from candidates who will be over this age threshold while serving. For instance:

For every year in which the candidate would be over the age threshold while serving their term, one electoral point is deducted from their total for each year of age they will be over the threshold.

If the ultimate age threshold is 70, and a presidential candidate will be 66 years of age or younger when sworn in for a four year term, then that candidate will receive all electoral points the same as they do today. But, if they are 67, and their elected term runs at least 6 months past their 70th birthday, then one electoral point is deducted from their total when deciding the election outcome for that period of "age over threshold" during their term. If they are 68, then there would be one point deducted for the third year of their term and two points deducted for the fourth, a total of 3 points off. If they would be 80 when assuming office then that would be 10+11+12+13=46 electoral points deducted, making victory difficult, but not impossible.

If an older candidate truly is the better choice and will win by such a wide margin, then let the people choose them to continue to serve. But their advantages need to be clear over a younger candidate.

To avoid disruption to the current system and fields of candidates, the age threshold could be "soft started" at 90 and reduced by one year per year until it reaches 70. So, if this system of old age disadvantage were started in the year 2025, it would not reach its final age of 70 until 2045.

Senators and members of the House of Representatives could face similar age disadvantages, granting 0.25% of the popular vote per year of age that would be served over the threshold age. If an 88 year old senator runs for re-election against an age threshold of 70, they would be granting their opponent an (18+19+20+21+22+23)*0.25 = 30.75% advantage in the election, in other words they would need to win more than 80.75% of the popular vote in order to be elected against a candidate 64 years of age or younger.

We've got the wisdom of the elders in the Supreme Court, keep the new laws relevant to the people who they will be impacting.