I remember reading somewhere that in the US, a convicted fellon loses their voting rights. If this is true, then how can a fellon be eligible for public/political office?
Running for office and voting are unrelated things with separate criteria. You can be president if you are a natural born citizen over 35 who has lived in the US for at least 14 years.
You might have been thinking that losing voting rights entails losing citizenship, but that is not the case.
They should be the same, really. Democracy’s core principle is that people are equal. If you’re eligible to vote, you should be eligible to hold office.
I think the reasoning of the founding fathers was, that political imprisonment should not hinder the democratic process, otherwise someone running for office could be detained for something and be removed from the election when someone in a higher position does not want him/her to participate.
First of all, he is not yet convicted. Second, the people who wrote the law based it on people of their time, and considered politicians as men of honor. They simply did not foresee current-day politicians - the slimy assholes that cheat, lie and deceive just to get or stay in power that they don’t use to serve the people but only to enrich themselves and their cronies.
Wait, this just crossed my mind.
I remember reading somewhere that in the US, a convicted fellon loses their voting rights. If this is true, then how can a fellon be eligible for public/political office?
Many feel he’s already disqualified, we’re waiting to see what state AG’s do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEmMbmKOVGk
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=WEmMbmKOVGk
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Running for office and voting are unrelated things with separate criteria. You can be president if you are a natural born citizen over 35 who has lived in the US for at least 14 years.
You might have been thinking that losing voting rights entails losing citizenship, but that is not the case.
I’d say that the standards for holding office should be higher than the standards for voting for who holds said office.
That’s fine, I agree.
But the law says otherwise. Just goes to show not all laws are just.
They should be the same, really. Democracy’s core principle is that people are equal. If you’re eligible to vote, you should be eligible to hold office.
I’m fine with felons voting, even from prison. I’m not fine with felons holding the highest office in the government.
I’m fine with someone convicted of having some drugs on them or getting an abortion in the holding the highest office.
Illegal is not a character judgement.
Agreed. But trying to overthrow democracy is a nono for me.
Well wake me up when America has a democracy to overthrow.
I think the reasoning of the founding fathers was, that political imprisonment should not hinder the democratic process, otherwise someone running for office could be detained for something and be removed from the election when someone in a higher position does not want him/her to participate.
First of all, he is not yet convicted. Second, the people who wrote the law based it on people of their time, and considered politicians as men of honor. They simply did not foresee current-day politicians - the slimy assholes that cheat, lie and deceive just to get or stay in power that they don’t use to serve the people but only to enrich themselves and their cronies.
“How about we add a law that convicted criminals can’t run for presidency? Just in case people vote for them?”
“Hahaha, you crack me up!”