This could be weaponized as a tool of discrimination to keep minority groups or the impoverished out of office by constructing purposefully confusing questions. Just like the Jim Crow Era laws requiring people pass literacy tests to vote.
I get the problem, but I don’t think it’s really applicable. Voting is a basic right of every citizen of the country. Presidency is not for everyone. You wouldn’t want a translator who doesn’t know the languages they’re supposed to translate? Why would you accept a president who is, let’s say mentally challenged?
I could understand objecting to specifics, like why should mental aptitude get tested, but I don’t understand being against the whole idea. IMO presidency is like a job and like most jobs there are specific requirements that a person needs to meet to be fit for that job. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have certain expectations of people who are running for president.
Wow. I never thought about this. I doubt there will be a time anytime soon where I’d be ok voting for a president who isn’t fluent in english. I’d almost be ok with a grammar test including diagramming sentences from the Constitution.
But since I’m a liberal I’d accept the test also being done in a relevant First Nation’s language.
Think about it this way. Many LGBTQ+ identites have been considered to make people “mentally unwell” (even to this day, the way stuff like being trans or asexual is talked about is… >.<). Or what about, say an autistic person who may do exceptionally well in one part of the test but fail some other parts (or even be unable to complete them).
This isn’t even starting on the issues of socioeconomic and cultural biases (which have been discussed elsewhere in depth).
The problem is “mental competency” is a pretty damn flexible concept and one that is frequently weaponised en-masse against various groups of people to strip away agency >.<, as it is often based on ideas which have primarily been from very specific perspectives, which can be malicious (see disenfranchisment of black people), or dehumanisation (see the fact that the Double Empathy Problem associated with autistic people was only really acknowledged in the past 10 years when they actually considered how their behaviour could appear from autistic people’s perspective, and only really because autistic autism researchers got some publishing and papers <.<), or simple incompetence, or any combination.
There’s many more examples of this, that I haven’t even started covering. The fact is that any “mental competency” requirement for a public office implies some kind of testing and barring process, which is ripe with all the flaws listed many times :p
This makes sense when it comes to voting restrictions. I’d say anyone seeking office in the U.S. should be able to speak fluent English (as that’s the language their job will be conducted in) and be able to pass an aptitude test.
This test should be taken alone, in public view, and on camera, probably only after winning an election and failure means the runner up gets the position assuming they can pass the test.
It has to be before even filing to run for office if we bother with such a thing. I’m skeptical of the idea as a whole, but doing it after the election would cause a crisis of faith and legitimacy in the government. Not only are you depriving voters of the chance to learn the mental fortitude of candidates before they cast their vote, but you’re also invalidating their votes after the election.
pretty sure the last century of American politics has borne out that any statutes related to politicking that could be weaponized HAVE BEEN. nice try tho!
This could be weaponized as a tool of discrimination to keep minority groups or the impoverished out of office by constructing purposefully confusing questions. Just like the Jim Crow Era laws requiring people pass literacy tests to vote.
This.
It has to be something really really unassailable. Age would be a good starter.
Requiring candidates to release their IRS records in order to appear on the ballot is another close second.
I get the problem, but I don’t think it’s really applicable. Voting is a basic right of every citizen of the country. Presidency is not for everyone. You wouldn’t want a translator who doesn’t know the languages they’re supposed to translate? Why would you accept a president who is, let’s say mentally challenged?
I could understand objecting to specifics, like why should mental aptitude get tested, but I don’t understand being against the whole idea. IMO presidency is like a job and like most jobs there are specific requirements that a person needs to meet to be fit for that job. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have certain expectations of people who are running for president.
It’s a good idea but completely meaningless because the “tests” will be biased and run by sycophants on both sides.
Wow. I never thought about this. I doubt there will be a time anytime soon where I’d be ok voting for a president who isn’t fluent in english. I’d almost be ok with a grammar test including diagramming sentences from the Constitution.
But since I’m a liberal I’d accept the test also being done in a relevant First Nation’s language.
Think about it this way. Many LGBTQ+ identites have been considered to make people “mentally unwell” (even to this day, the way stuff like being trans or asexual is talked about is… >.<). Or what about, say an autistic person who may do exceptionally well in one part of the test but fail some other parts (or even be unable to complete them).
This isn’t even starting on the issues of socioeconomic and cultural biases (which have been discussed elsewhere in depth).
The problem is “mental competency” is a pretty damn flexible concept and one that is frequently weaponised en-masse against various groups of people to strip away agency >.<, as it is often based on ideas which have primarily been from very specific perspectives, which can be malicious (see disenfranchisment of black people), or dehumanisation (see the fact that the Double Empathy Problem associated with autistic people was only really acknowledged in the past 10 years when they actually considered how their behaviour could appear from autistic people’s perspective, and only really because autistic autism researchers got some publishing and papers <.<), or simple incompetence, or any combination.
There’s many more examples of this, that I haven’t even started covering. The fact is that any “mental competency” requirement for a public office implies some kind of testing and barring process, which is ripe with all the flaws listed many times :p
Just publicize the questions results, judges/proctors, etc.
This makes sense when it comes to voting restrictions. I’d say anyone seeking office in the U.S. should be able to speak fluent English (as that’s the language their job will be conducted in) and be able to pass an aptitude test.
This test should be taken alone, in public view, and on camera, probably only after winning an election and failure means the runner up gets the position assuming they can pass the test.
It has to be before even filing to run for office if we bother with such a thing. I’m skeptical of the idea as a whole, but doing it after the election would cause a crisis of faith and legitimacy in the government. Not only are you depriving voters of the chance to learn the mental fortitude of candidates before they cast their vote, but you’re also invalidating their votes after the election.
COULD, not WOULD.
If you don’t make any rules that the fascists might want to abuse, you don’t make any rules.
Your slippery slope fallacy does not invalidate the need to make sure that public officials are fit to carry out their duties.
pretty sure the last century of American politics has borne out that any statutes related to politicking that could be weaponized HAVE BEEN. nice try tho!