1 edit
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5747992.ece
"the President vowed to stand in the next elections in 2013 and beyond. “Unless God decides otherwise, unless the people decide otherwise, this soldier is already a candidate,” Mr Chávez declared."
Mugabe said something similar to this, "Only God will remove me".
But surely, any similarities are mere coincidences.
Originally posted by generalissimoI'm not talking about allowing foreign nationals to vote, I'm talking about allowing the people to vote for a foreign national.
[b]we don't allow the people to vote for 3 year olds or foreign natiponals. Is that a restriction on democracy?
No.
People are supposed to vote for their representatives, if you're foreign you wouldn't be voting for your representative because you wouldn't be a citizen.[/b]
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo a citizen of a foreign nation or a 4 year old should be able to run for political office? 🙄
I don't really see the point of restricting age or nationality, if they are deemed unfit then people won't vote for them anyways. Besides, it's not like a foreign national or a 18 (21?) year old stand any chance in US elections anyway.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA 4 year old is clearly unfit for any elective office.
Why not?
A foreign national is not part of the body politic. Thus, him having a say in how a society he is not part of would be illogical.
As to Merk's points, he's failed to show anything but some vague, generalized fears of what people in office for a while might do. Since there's already a solution for that i.e. vote them out term limits are an unnecessary restriction of the people's right to choose their representatives.
Originally posted by no1marauderSomeone who is clearly unfit won't be elected. I think Bush was clearly unfit to be president, but he was still allowed to run for office. It's up to the voters to decide whether someone is unfit or not. If someone who has Alzheimer's can run for office (and win!) then surely a child can run for office as well.
A 4 year old is clearly unfit for any elective office.
A foreign national is not part of the body politic. Thus, him having a say in how a society he is not part of would be illogical.
As to Merk's points, he's failed to show anything but some vague, generalized fears of what people in office for a while might do. Since there' ...[text shortened]... limits are an unnecessary restriction of the people's right to choose their representatives.
As for foreign nationals: the current mayor of Rotterdam has a combined Dutch and Moroccan nationality and he was born in Morocco, I don't have a reason to assume he'll do a bad job.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraElective office is a job. If someone is unfit for the job, they shouldn't be allowed to hold it. A 4 year old is clearly unfit for any job.
Someone who is clearly unfit won't be elected. I think Bush was clearly unfit to be president, but he was still allowed to run for office. It's up to the voters to decide whether someone is unfit or not. If someone who has Alzheimer's can run for office (and win!) then surely a child can run for office as well.
As for foreign nationals: the current m ...[text shortened]... nationality and he was born in Morocco, I don't have a reason to assume he'll do a bad job.
Joint nationality is a different situation, isn't it?
Originally posted by no1marauderSo someone with (the beginning stages of) Alzheimer's in not unfit to be president? Still, there was no rule preventing Reagan from running for his second term. Arguably, a clever twelve year old would've done a better job, at least in terms of policy.
Elective office is a job. If someone is unfit for the job, they shouldn't be allowed to hold it. A 4 year old is clearly unfit for any job.
Joint nationality is a different situation, isn't it?
Joint nationality is different, agreed, but I don't see any reason why an otherwise good candidate should not be allowed to run for office. Leave it up to the voters to decide that.
Originally posted by generalissimoThere is more to Democracy (big D) than voting. The problem with pure, unrestricted democracy (little d) is that it can devolve into mob rule. Greek and Roman democracies ultimately devolved into dictatorships. Jefferson et al knew that and so studied very hard what elements needed to be added. One was a written Constitution and a Bill of Rights that are universal and very hard to modify. Another is separation of powers with checks and balances.
Term limits are considered 'undemocratic' in Japan, India, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.
Why would they be undemocratic?
As far as Im concerned, term limits would only contribute to a democracy.
Washington's (gentlemanly) contribution was recognizing that:
a) the Presidency is a tough job and eight years of it wears you out,
b) there is more than one person qualified for the job, and,
c) staying "for life" meant too much concentration of power in the hands of one man.
It's true, some countries have not found a need to install terms limits. But once having them in place, I cannot see any reason to dismantle them. They only strengthen Democracy.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358If trias politica was the goal of the Founding Fathers, they did a pretty lousy job at it.
There is more to Democracy (big D) than voting. The problem with pure, unrestricted democracy (little d) is that it can devolve into mob rule. Greek and Roman democracies ultimately devolved into dictatorships. Jefferson et al knew that and so studied very hard what elements needed to be added. One was a written Constitution and a Bill of Rights that ar ng them in place, I cannot see any reason to dismantle them. They only strengthen Democracy.
Also, weren't term limits introduced after Roosevelt, long after Washington's death?
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou are correct, the term limits were put in place after Roosevelt. But clearly, Washington was advising in favor of it.
If trias politica was the goal of the Founding Fathers, they did a pretty lousy job at it.
Also, weren't term limits introduced after Roosevelt, long after Washington's death?
With all due respect to the framers of our constitution, I personally think they made a major blunder by not putting in congressional term limits. On the other hand, I can see how they would make that mistake. In their day and age, being a lifelong congressman really wasn't as appealing as it is now with the difficulty of travel, poor benefits, etc. I don't think they imagined that it would become what it has become today.