Conversation
Amused by the fact that convicted felons can't vote, but can apparently be elected into a position where they can appoint Supreme Court judges.
1
6
16
@dartov I'm hoping that common human physiology will prevent a similar development in this case.
0
0
1
@monsieuricon In current situation it is strange, but otherwise it makes sense. It is "public knows best who they want", and it prevents "lets convince him of something so that he can't be elected" play not-uncommon in Russia-style politics.
2
0
0
@pavel Then felons should be allowed to vote.
1
0
0
@monsieuricon Not necessary for preventing this kind of attack :-). For Russia-style country, it is easy to rig election by convincing Havel on something made up. It is not so easy to convince 10% of population in the same way.
1
0
0
@pavel Umm... "people with felony convictions account for 8 % of all adults and 33 % of the African American adult male population."
2
0
1
@monsieuricon Do you believe charges were made-up to rig an election?
1
0
0
@pavel What is "made up?" Most of the felony convictions are for possession of marijuana, which I consider "made up." It is *for sure* used as a convenient way to disenfranchise black voters.

So, in my eyes we either allow felons to participate in the electoral process both to elect and to be elected, or we allow neither.
2
1
2
@monsieuricon Made up is made up. This is different attack. Get a book on East europe history...
0
0
0
@monsieuricon (Imagine police under Trump's control "finding" marijuana at Biden. Similar stuff happened in the east.)
0
0
0

@pavel @monsieuricon
Even this statement is quite odd as migrants can't be elected even after they get full US citizenship. Surely if the population can be trusted to elect a president this rule shouldn't be needed.

Another angle to look at it: a firm that has been found guilty of corruption gets barred from gouvernement contacts for several years (at least 7 IIRC). A former president found guilty of corruption can run for office a 2nd time.

2
0
0

@pavel @monsieuricon And I didn't think of it, what's even crazier is he's technically no longer allowed in Canada and many other countries!

As much as I'd love to see which countries enforce their border control rules for the the US president, my wish is actually to never get to find out!

1
0
0
@dermoth @monsieuricon No longer allowed in Canada? Anyway, I can kind-of understand the rules; that does not mean they make sense in country with working courts such as USA.
1
0
0
@dermoth @monsieuricon Actually, I believe constitution simply did not expect people would be crazy enough to vote for convinced felon. Thus questions like "does insurrection disqualify him" and "can he pardon himself" not having clear answers. Nobody (but Simpsons) expected this level of crazyness :-(.
0
0
1

@pavel @monsieuricon this works both ways, so if your make the argument for a change it should be mutual.

0
0
0