Super easy for those in power to keep their rivals from being able to run for office. Currently the president and afraid you’ll be unseated by the opposing party’s candidate? Just start an investigation on them! Boom, no more rivals.
Totally agree. These systems are critically important for our society. They need to be considered with care, and we need to be mindful of the complexities that come with any changes to them.
The real solution is you need a populace that is civically engaged and capable of enough critical thought to not fall for the right-wing fearmongering propaganda Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Murdoch, et al. spew out.
Bingo. A properly funded and functional public education system, that teaches real critical thinking and let’s include media literacy while we’re at it.
Not saying that they were right, because they were wrong, but this was actually a presented logical reason why voting was restricted to male landowners at one point. They were the only part of the population that received a formal education. Regardless of motivation this became a method of oppression.
To be clear, I agree that public education is a key to a strong democracy, as is removing restrictions on voting.
Barring those under felony indictment from running for office could help maintain public confidence in the integrity of elected officials and the political process.
It sets a higher standard for candidates, emphasizing that those seeking public office should not be facing serious criminal charges.
It underscores the expectation that public officials should be free from wrongdoing and suspicion of significant criminal activity, cultivating a political environment where ethical behavior is prioritized.
Reducing corruption and preventing distractions
Individuals under felony indictment may be more susceptible to engaging in corrupt activities. Preventing them from running for office reduces the likelihood of corrupt practices infiltrating government.
Legal battles can be time-consuming and distracting, detracting from a candidate’s ability to focus on campaigning and, if elected, governing effectively.
If an elected official is convicted of a felony while in office, it could lead to their removal, necessitating a special election and causing disruption and additional costs.
If an elected official is convicted of a felony while in office, that individual may use the office itself to avoid sentencing outcomes.
Maintaining national security
[While I am less than thrilled to include this one, ] Allowing individuals under felony indictment to run for office could pose national security risks, especially if their past actions have compromised national security.
Individuals under the influence of external and independent nations may have resources beyond the intended scope of our elections process, giving them an artificial boost towards victory. This is akin to a complete capture of our Government in the case of the Office of the Presidency. Or near enough.
Cons:
Presumption of innocence and potential for political manipulation
In the U.S. legal system, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Preventing those under indictment from running could be seen as undermining this principle by imposing a penalty based on an unproven allegation.
There is a risk that felony charges could be brought against candidates for political reasons to prevent them from running, exploiting the indictment process to eliminate competition and undermine the fairness of elections.
Limiting voters’ choices and potential for disenfranchisement
Such a restriction would limit the pool of candidates available to voters, potentially preventing them from choosing their preferred representative.
Voters may wish to support a candidate who, despite being under indictment, they believe is the best choice. Restricting candidates based on indictments can be seen as undemocratic and paternalistic.
Variable legal standards and unequal treatment
Different jurisdictions may have varying standards and processes for indictments, leading to potential inconsistencies in the application of this restriction.
This variability can result in unequal treatment of candidates based on where they are running for office, creating a patchwork of standards that complicates the electoral process.
Depending on how such a rule is applied, it could disproportionately affect certain communities that face higher rates of criminal legal system involvement.
My conclusion. This was stated elsewhere in the comments and is also my number one priority (aside from an alternative voting pipe dream):
-Education.
With an educated, well-reasoning and engaged populace, we don’t need the Government to coddle its voters. It’s a wonder Republicans are so against education and critical thinking skills.
One additional note that doesn’t really fit in the pros/cons list itself: This change would probably require a constitutional amendment, not just a standard law.
I don’t think our current system is nearly as robust as you think. Trump’s first term laid that bare.
So many laws dictating what the president can and can’t do don’t have any actual repercussions for breaking them written in them because it was assumed impeachment would be sufficient. Trump showed that with our current system that means if you can’t guarantee you’ll have 67 votes in the Senate, then those laws may as well not exist. And every week the Supreme Court shows how much “settled case law” isn’t anymore, so with a corrupt high court in his league, even the laws that do have teeth may be subverted.
We absolutely need to make changes to shore up the system and plug the gaps, but we have to do so with care that we don’t end up handing new, more powerful weapons to the very bad actors we’re trying to protect against.
The problem is not that Trump is under felony indictment. It’s not that he’s a liar, a cheater, a misogynist, narcissist, and elitist. It’s that, knowing this, a lot of people STILL support him for our nation’s top office. That’s how screwed up our populace has become. That’s the problem.
I think it’s important to consider just how… ickily inviolable most (if not all) of the right wing feels about the second amendment. I don’t think this line of logic would carry much weight with that crowd.
But I agree with what you’re saying. We need much more stringent controls on who is eligible for office.
Removed by mod
Super easy for those in power to keep their rivals from being able to run for office. Currently the president and afraid you’ll be unseated by the opposing party’s candidate? Just start an investigation on them! Boom, no more rivals.
I upvoted both of you. This requires deeper debate.
Totally agree. These systems are critically important for our society. They need to be considered with care, and we need to be mindful of the complexities that come with any changes to them.
The real solution is you need a populace that is civically engaged and capable of enough critical thought to not fall for the right-wing fearmongering propaganda Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Murdoch, et al. spew out.
Bingo. A properly funded and functional public education system, that teaches real critical thinking and let’s include media literacy while we’re at it.
Not saying that they were right, because they were wrong, but this was actually a presented logical reason why voting was restricted to male landowners at one point. They were the only part of the population that received a formal education. Regardless of motivation this became a method of oppression.
To be clear, I agree that public education is a key to a strong democracy, as is removing restrictions on voting.
Pros:
Cons:
My conclusion. This was stated elsewhere in the comments and is also my number one priority (aside from an alternative voting pipe dream):
-Education.
With an educated, well-reasoning and engaged populace, we don’t need the Government to coddle its voters. It’s a wonder Republicans are so against education and critical thinking skills.
One additional note that doesn’t really fit in the pros/cons list itself: This change would probably require a constitutional amendment, not just a standard law.
Edit- sources for further reading
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/may/24/can-donald-trump-run-president-if-indicted-or-convicted-crime/
https://thepoliticswatcher.com/pages/articles/us-politics/2023/6/17/convicted-felons-run-president-exploring-legal-political-implications
https://www.voanews.com/a/can-felons-serve-in-us-elected-federal-offices-/6703196.html
https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/articles/prison-cell-oval-office-laws-say-candidate-indictment-running-president/
Removed by mod
I don’t think our current system is nearly as robust as you think. Trump’s first term laid that bare.
So many laws dictating what the president can and can’t do don’t have any actual repercussions for breaking them written in them because it was assumed impeachment would be sufficient. Trump showed that with our current system that means if you can’t guarantee you’ll have 67 votes in the Senate, then those laws may as well not exist. And every week the Supreme Court shows how much “settled case law” isn’t anymore, so with a corrupt high court in his league, even the laws that do have teeth may be subverted.
We absolutely need to make changes to shore up the system and plug the gaps, but we have to do so with care that we don’t end up handing new, more powerful weapons to the very bad actors we’re trying to protect against.
The problem is not that Trump is under felony indictment. It’s not that he’s a liar, a cheater, a misogynist, narcissist, and elitist. It’s that, knowing this, a lot of people STILL support him for our nation’s top office. That’s how screwed up our populace has become. That’s the problem.
I think it’s important to consider just how… ickily inviolable most (if not all) of the right wing feels about the second amendment. I don’t think this line of logic would carry much weight with that crowd.
But I agree with what you’re saying. We need much more stringent controls on who is eligible for office.
Wouldn’t it take more than an investigation? A grand jury would need to sign off on the indictments.
But how is it fair for so many of his trials and investigations to drag on for 4 years, especially when the accusations are this serious?
Narrator: it isn’t.
I think we just need something like “can you legally buy a gun? Then you can run for president”