What qualifications should be ..

[Masark]

The ability to bring up politicians on the other side of the political spectrum or leaders of other nation's without resorting to creating an insulting nickname.

How many politicians on the other side do I have to be able to bring up in that manner?

Because I'm having a really hard time coming up with many republicans who don't deserve such insults.

[Fugus]

What qualifications should be to run for political office?

1. To be a Natural Born Citizen
2. To be at least 35
3. To hold no private position that conflicts with the office.

4. No older than 55.
5. Holds no vested interest in any company at the time of signing in and is banned from ever holding any vested interests from the day of the nomination onward, holds no vested interested in any foreign nation period, this includes employment. Running the nation should be seen as an endgame in a career, not a stepping stone to something else.
6. Has a background that can qualify for military clearance at the time of swearing in and is able to maintain that clearance throughout time in office. If they can not keep that clearance, they can not hold office.
7. Must disclose tax records for themselves and any significant other over the past 15 years.
8. Must not lie during their campaign or coordinate with anyone who is.
9. Any campaign promises made during the primary are legally binding promises so if they promise to attempt to do something, they are legally obligated to at least attempt it and if they refuse to attempt or go the other way, they are in breach of contract unless under extenuating circumstances.
10. All votes they have made are required to be a matter of public record for all to see.
11. Must be entirely publicly funded, they aren't even allowed to self fund their campaigns.

12: Can win with a ranked choice voting method without gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement or the electoral college.

[Captain N]

How many politicians on the other side do I have to be able to bring up in that manner?

Because I'm having a really hard time coming up with many republicans who don't deserve such insults.

Maybe I should have said the ability to resist using said nicknames in public?

[Adam Jensen]

The ability to bring up politicians on the other side of the political spectrum or leaders of other nation's without resorting to creating an insulting nickname.

Or at least to be able to come up with something better for Nancy Pelosi than "Nancy"

[Deletedaccount1]

Yup, will be pretty funny watching these FREEDOM LOVING, CONSTITUTIONALISTS show their true colors in this thread. So utterly predictable. Like the wealthy land owner comment...LOL.

The constitution said literally nothing about universal suffrage when it was first drafted and neither did any of the federalist papers. It was crafted from an Athenian conception of citizenship.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a pretty terrible condition, given that it guarantees that a leader has little vested interested in the majority of their constituents or their lives. This is kind of precisely why the founders went with our entire system of government that allows the common man to become a leader, after seeing how the aristocracy and rule of the elite turned out back home. Pretty much all of Europe collectively came to the same conclusion and diminished the power of / threw out / killed their leaders, too.

For my own idea of qualifications, I really don't care about natural born citizenship. There's nothing that inherently says the guy who was shit out in a dumpster behind an Alabama Wal-Mart is more loving of our country than someone originally from X foreign country that worked hard to get here and make something of himself. US citizenship, maybe residency for some amount of time, that's about all that I can think of that matters. It should follow the same principles capitalists love: instead of regulating who can play the game, open it up and let the free market of democracy decide who gets to lead.

I have a solution to this that helps preserve the interests of electorate while also removing the need for popular voting in the electoral college.

You would make all members of the electoral college elected members for a given region of a state that would fit this requirement of military service, being wealthy and landed, and having two natural born parents. These members must have never held public office before and would be elected only for one meeting of the electoral college at a time and would be respected figures in their communities who represent their region in the electoral college.

Come November 8th, there is no popular vote for president. In December, the electoral college meets and casts votes for whoever the parties decided to nominate as their candidates or whomever the members of the college decide they want to vote for.

[Danner]

Each country to their own.

The US were terrified about being usurped by foreign countries, so they put in a clause on natural citizenship and residency of minimum 14 years.
The 35 year threshold seems to mainly be there to limit hereditary dynasties, but I am fairly certain there was some sort of conservative gatekeeping thought included as well.

If you ask me, the only real limit should be that you win the election. If that means you are an actual real-life chimpansee whose main political policy is "I want more bananas", then so be it.
51% of the population thought you were the better candidate than the other options, that makes you the optimal candidate.

The real question should be how to make the election between multiple good candidates, rather than a nonsense choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

[ranzino]

"natural born citizen" is bs; you are not responsible for your birthplace. rather "being citizen for XX years"

[Adam Jensen]

The constitution said literally nothing about universal suffrage when it was first drafted and neither did any of the federalist papers. It was crafted from an Athenian conception of citizenship.

- - - Updated - - -



I have a solution to this that helps preserve the interests of electorate while also removing the need for popular voting in the electoral college.

You would make all members of the electoral college elected members for a given region of a state that would fit this requirement of military service, being wealthy and landed, and having two natural born parents. These members must have never held public office before and would be elected only for one meeting of the electoral college at a time and would be respected figures in their communities who represent their region in the electoral college.

Come November 8th, there is no popular vote for president. In December, the electoral college meets and casts votes for whoever the parties decided to nominate as their candidates or whomever the members of the college decide they want to vote for.

So you'd bring back the system where wealthy elites make all the votes.

No thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

The real question should be how to make the election between multiple good candidates, rather than a nonsense choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

Start by throwing in ranked choice voting, which gives third parties significantly more power. I can vote for my favorite independent, then have my "safe vote" in the back. Eventually, you'll start to see more and more independent winners, because people won't feel like they're wasting a vote if they don't vote D or R.

[Grapemask]

Start by throwing in ranked choice voting, which gives third parties significantly more power. I can vote for my favorite independent, then have my "safe vote" in the back. Eventually, you'll start to see more and more independent winners, because people won't feel like they're wasting a vote if they don't vote D or R.

Ironically, despite being considered a "new idea," ranked choice would actually bring us closer to what the founders intended. Pre-12th amendment, we basically had a really naive version of it; electors voted for 2 people, 1 of which had to be from another state, and this would keep local celebrities from trumping national interests. But after both of the following two post-Washington elections led to a minority party nearly running government anyway, they quickly worked to change the whole thing. Even the post-12th was better than what we have now, because it required winners to be chosen by the majority, until Andrew Jackson threw a fit and states quickly changed their electors over to plurality winners. A modern version of ranked choice with a majority requirement would be pretty much the best of both worlds.

[infinitemeridian]

Be less than 60 years old.
Not get roiled in stupid identity politics (looking at you Warren).
If you have potential baggage, bring that shit up first.
Recognize that you're not going to win and drop out ahead of time (Looking at you Harris / Gabbard).
Don't come off as corny and fake "woke" to appear to younger generations when you have a history of maintaining the status quo (Looking at you Booker)

[Adam Jensen]

Ironically, despite being considered a "new idea," ranked choice would actually bring us closer to what the founders intended. Pre-12th amendment, we basically had a really naive version of it; electors voted for 2 people, 1 of which had to be from another state, and this would keep local celebrities from trumping national interests. But after both of the following two post-Washington elections led to a minority party nearly running government anyway, they quickly worked to change the whole thing. Even the post-12th was better than what we have now, because it required winners to be chosen by the majority, until Andrew Jackson threw a fit and states quickly changed their electors over to plurality winners. A modern version of ranked choice with a majority requirement would be pretty much the best of both worlds.

If we keep the EC, we should modify the election such that the winner has to win both the plurality and the EC. 270 electoral votes AND +50%. If one or both of these are not achieved, ranked choice voting kicks in until someone passes both 270 and 50%.

Or just throw out the EC, but then I'm not sure how to best eliminate Tyranny of the Majority.

[Fugus]

If we keep the EC, we should modify the election such that the winner has to win both the plurality and the EC. 270 electoral votes AND +50%. If one or both of these are not achieved, ranked choice voting kicks in until someone passes both 270 and 50%.

Or just throw out the EC, but then I'm not sure how to best eliminate Tyranny of the Majority.

There is no Tyranny of the Majority though as the Senate deals with that already where all states get equal representation regardless of land or population size and all bills must pass through on their way to the president.

Honestly though, I would like to see California and Texas both broke up into smaller states along with making DC and Puerto Rico as states as well.

[Yuujin]

Adult sized hands.

[gaymer77]

Raise the age to 40.

Must have held an elected position. We're no longer in the 1700s.

And how exactly are they going to hold an elected position when the question was about "to run for political office"? So since nobody can run for political office since nobody can be elected that means you want an anarchy?

- - - Updated - - -

On topic though

1. US Citizen
2. Currently alive
3. At least 18 years old.

Anything else is irrelevant to being elected to govern people. If your constituents feel you are the most qualified person to lead them, then they will vote for you. If they don't feel you are, they won't vote for you.

[Lynarii]

9. Any campaign promises made during the primary are legally binding promises so if they promise to attempt to do something, they are legally obligated to at least attempt it and if they refuse to attempt or go the other way, they are in breach of contract unless under extenuating circumstances.

I have to say that this is a very very dangerous suggestion. Private citizens are rarely in possession of all the relevant facts when beginning a campaign. Especially when dealing with national security issues that require clearance, but even with more basic stuff. Nobody knows everything. It is absolutely imperative, in my opinion, for politicians to have the ability to learn new information and change their opinions based upon new information that they have learned.

I understand the desire to reduce the amount of bald-faced lies and impossible promises made in campaigns. But be careful about going so far the other direction that you actually encourage harmful bills to be passed because of a poorly thought out campaign promise.

[PACOX]

And how exactly are they going to hold an elected position when the question was about "to run for political office"? So since nobody can run for political office since nobody can be elected that means you want an anarchy?

- - - Updated - - -

On topic though

1. US Citizen
2. Currently alive
3. At least 18 years old.

Anything else is irrelevant to being elected to govern people. If your constituents feel you are the most qualified person to lead them, then they will vote for you. If they don't feel you are, they won't vote for you.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post50843298

[Fugus]

I have to say that this is a very very dangerous suggestion. Private citizens are rarely in possession of all the relevant facts when beginning a campaign. Especially when dealing with national security issues that require clearance, but even with more basic stuff. Nobody knows everything. It is absolutely imperative, in my opinion, for politicians to have the ability to learn new information and change their opinions based upon new information that they have learned.

I understand the desire to reduce the amount of bald-faced lies and impossible promises made in campaigns. But be careful about going so far the other direction that you actually encourage harmful bills to be passed because of a poorly thought out campaign promise.

That was why I put the "Unless under extenuating circumstances" clause at the end.

The only reason they should be able to legally back out of their promises is if they have something like new information they lacked before that shows they can't or shouldn't do it.

But "Just because I didn't mean it" or "Because I thought you would have forgotten I made that promise" shouldn't be a reason.