# Prerequisites for the Presidency **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2018, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197 "2018-01-09T02:52:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2018, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197/81 "2018-01-11T04:03:53Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Yes, it benefits small parties with a concentrated local appeal, but is detrimental to small parties with a more general appeal. The result is that it’s next to impossible for a minor party to secure parliamentary representation _unless_ it’s a regionalist party, in which case it has a good chance of securing representation which is disproportianately large by comparison with its share of the vote. Precisely. ---
**Author:** ![FloatyGimpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/floatygimpy/32/7750_2.png) [@FloatyGimpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FloatyGimpy)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2018, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197/82 "2018-01-11T06:47:30Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Don’t sell yourself short: that’s pretty eloquent and well-spoken. 🙂 > > I would just quibble with one point about your description of the Canadian system: you do have to be a Canadian to stand for election, so that’s one limitation on who we can vote for. And, as a quibble on a quibble, your place of birth can be a bar if you’re not born in Canada and haven’t taken out Canadian citizenship. You’re right but I don’t agree with those requirements, either. But I am glad that we don’t have term limits. If someone’s doing a great job and the majority still want them as PM, I’m glad we have that option. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2018, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197/83 "2018-01-11T08:48:41Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I would just quibble with one point about your description of the Canadian system: you do have to be a Canadian to stand for election, so that’s one limitation on who we can vote for. And, as a quibble on a quibble, your place of birth can be a bar if you’re not born in Canada and haven’t taken out Canadian citizenship. That’s a single limitation, though, by citizenship. Maybe you can start letting foreign legal residents run for local office 🙂 > [@UDS](#): > > Yes, it benefits small parties with a concentrated local appeal, but is detrimental to small parties with a more general appeal. The result is that it’s next to impossible for a minor party to secure parliamentary representation _unless_ it’s a regionalist party, in which case it has a good chance of securing representation which is disproportianately large by comparison with its share of the vote. Spain’s Ciudadanos managed to be an exception, but they were born in a specific region: Catalonia, as a reaction to nationalist policies (not to nationalism, but to having nationalism shoved down everybody’s throat). There are regions where they’re very strong and others where they’re unlikely to ever get any seats at any level (\*). This concentration of their followers in specific locations has made the math work well for them. - coming to Euskadi and Navarre saying “the laws here are better than in other places, so let’s bring them down to the same level as the rest” is not a good idea; try proposing bringing others up instead and we’ll be all for it ---
**Author:** ![sudont](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@sudont](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sudont)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2018, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197/84 "2018-01-12T11:25:29Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Rather than attempting a constitutional bar to electing inexperienced pop culture icons or business people, it’d be best to target the basics, and require critical thinking courses starting in grade and high school. > > That way, we might be able to minimize the “ooh, a celebrity!” factor. I agree that education is the problem. Way too many people in this country get a sub-standard education. Then again, a big part of the reason people can’t get an education is because of the philosophy that those who can’t fend for themselves should be left behind, reserving the best things for those whose parents can pay for them. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2018, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197/85 "2018-01-22T06:37:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree with the general principle. We shouldn’t need a law to stop us from electing an unqualified person to the Presidency; our intelligence should do that. > > Yes, the current occupant of the Oval Office demonstrates that American voters can fail in their role. But if we can’t be trusted to elect our own leaders then we might as well abandon the central principle of democracy rather than tinkering with the details. I agree with every bit of this. In fact, I would be on board with getting rid of some of the restrictions that currently exist, like the minimum age requirement. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197/86 "2018-02-06T08:22:03Z")
I find such constitutional requirements as are proposed in the OP crude. I think the trick is to get parties and voters to nominate someone with relevant experience. To a greater degree than most of us acknowledge, that means experience of how Congress operates, because the President has to work with and against Congress. So one might think a senior US Senator would make sense. But it would be great if we promoted internally from the State Department (and I think Secretaries of State ideally should mainly come from the foreign service, rarely from academia, and not from unrelated spheres of politics or business). So perhaps the answer is to nominate someone who’s been an executive branch careerist and has had to deal with Congress from that angle. I have thought for a while now that the next President of the USA should be one of the old hands Trump pushed out of Foggy Bottom before Secretary Tillerson was even confirmed. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197/87 "2018-02-06T11:59:06Z")
Their is talk of Oprah trying for the democratic ticket. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197/88 "2018-02-10T03:44:45Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > In fact, I think we should reexamine the _existing_ limitations for President. It’s not at all clear to me that a 34-year-old is less capable than an 80-year-old. Yet we prohibit the former from the Presidency. Similarly, the rule requiring a natural born citizen doesn’t seem to have served its purpose of preventing foreign influence in the executive branch. Well, there is a previously uncodified rule that might have helped this last election. An international businessman who embodies an international brand–the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Richard Branson–has too much inescapable conflict of interest to be suited to the job. > [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Otherwise you open the door to a fake democracy where election choices are limited to a slate of pre-approved politically correct candidates. And that would suck. Well, we do have slates of candidates approved by the party that controls your district. But at least you can vote in a primary–and be outvoted by the fanatics of that party if your state has open primaries. Um. What I’m saying is, what else is new? > [@kanicbird](#): > > The whole ‘president’ title indicates a business. Yes we didn’t want a king, but such things as prime minister or similar could have been used, but the choice was made to use such a business term. I think allowing heads of businesses to call themselves “presidents” was a mistake. Can you imagine the “Lord Protector” of the mattress factory? The “Grand Duke” of General Electric? Well, maybe you can. But it’s a mistake. > [@UDS](#): > > “President” was not really a business term in 1789. It was primarily a political term. > [snip] > I’m not saying that there were _no_ commercial enterprises in the eighteenth century whose chief executive was called a “president”, but it wasn’t common, and that certainly wasn’t the primary meaning of the word. Good to know. > [@adaher](#): > > And those who aren’t members of official parties can’t advocate effectively at all. That’s not really good democratic practice. Are you under the impression that the _USA_ is a great place for independent candidates and activists? Compare, at the absurd extreme, the relative closeness to success of Vermin Supreme and Lord Buckethead. More seriously, for independents in the USA we have Angus King and a handful of socialists, and [del]only[/del] largely in states bordering Canada, which should tell you something. > [@septimus](#): > > Wikipedia shows 16 “major” parties in the U.K. and dozens of minor parties. > [snip] > I know little about U.K. politics, but still doubt you’ve identified a key obstacle to its “good democratic practice”. And yet I suppose adaher will trot out this excuse for the USA again. Possibly a lie a teacher told him. > [@BwanaBob](#): > > I’ll throw in another and maybe even more important prerequisite. All potential candidates must pass a Top Secret security clearance process. If a person can’t pass that scrutiny, they should not be entrusted with our national security. > > And before anyone responds with “the president gets to decide what is TS and what isn’t”, I submit that he/she shouldn’t be in that position in the first place if they themselves cannot be cleared. I am sympathetic to this even as I understand the concern it could be abused. > [@adaher](#): > > The left died in this country due to its own mistakes and the American’s unique culture. As happens everywhere, even Europe, the left comes to a screeching halt as soon as they reach the limit of the public’s willingness to pay more taxes. Even in Europe, that limit was reached long ago. Which is why there aren’t any strong real left parties in Europe anymore either. All the Labor-type parties went Third Way. And now the center-left parties are being challenged by populist movements, typically of an actual leftist bent. It can be within their own party (as in the UK) or outside it (see Spain, Germany, & Greece). Oh, and (ostensibly radical left) SYRIZA is still in government in Greece, because after (center-left) PASOK lost credibility, the people chose a bunch of real leftists over (center-right) ND. > [@adaher](#): > > Seems to me that if a taxpayer is willing to give you $1000 but not $2000, that’s a win for the left, not the right. It only becomes a win for the right when the Democrats insist that it’s the taxpayer’s moral obligation to fork over the $2000. Oh, no, “moral” obligation. How about fiscal prudence? The several states don’t raise sufficient monies to cover their expenditures from local taxation. They use block grants, paid for on money borrowed by the Federal government. And the Republicans refuse to raise taxes and threaten to default on monies owed, raising interest rates. But yes, remind us that when it comes to money, the GOP is immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197/89 "2018-02-10T14:18:09Z")
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” ― H.L. Mencken, On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe The test is what is acceptable to the voting public. Some folks wanted Homer Simpson and that’s what they got. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197/90 "2018-02-10T14:23:00Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > The test is what is acceptable to the voting public. Some folks wanted Homer Simpson and that’s what they got. Or they found Homer Simpson preferable to the alternative. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prerequisites-for-the-presidency/806197.md?page=4)