3 ms·

> Why would you want that? I don't have a strong opinion on it wither way, but the GP's opinion seems totally reasonable to me. Why shouldn't the public be ab

> Why would you want that? I don't have a strong opinion on it wither way, but the GP's opinion seems totally reasonable to me. Why shouldn't the public be able to elect whoever they want? If the courts can block candidates before they run, the courts can effectively circumvent checks and balances before the person could be elected. > Didn't history teach us better? I'm not sure what you're referring to here, help me out. What examples of history show the universal downsides when courts can't disqualify potential candidates?

mfuzzey 2y ago
>Why shouldn't the public be able to elect whoever they want? Because some types of illegal behaviour of candidates can influence the vote. This isn't about a court banning MLP because of her views or policy proposals (that would be very bad) but because she has been show to have comitted fraud by abusing EU money to pay for her own party. Unlike in the US there are strict rules in France about how much politicians can spend on campainging and where the funds can come from that are intended to ensure a level playing field rather than favouring rich candidates. If courts couldn't ban candidates who don't respect the rules then elections could be "bought" illegaly.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Sure, I'm not attempting to comment specifically on French laws, I don't know French laws nearly well enough. The comment I relied to was talking about judicial powers in general, and referenced the US rather than France. My point really isn't specific to any one country though. If an electoral system is meant to be democratic, IMO people should be able to vote for whomever they want. If a candidate can get enough support to win, so be it. That doesn't preclude us from having laws protecting our right to free and fair elections though. A candidate will absolutely influence the vote, that's the candidate's whole job. There has to be lines drawn where it goes from campaigning to impeding a democratic election, I wasn't arguing against that.

mfuzzey 2y ago

>Why shouldn't the public be able to elect whoever they want? Because some types of illegal behaviour of candidates can influence the vote. This isn't about a court banning MLP because of her views or policy proposals (that would be very bad) but because she has been show to have comitted fraud by abusing EU money to pay for her own party. Unlike in the US there are strict rules in France about how much politicians can spend on campainging and where the funds can come from that are intended to ensure a level playing field rather than favouring rich candidates. If courts couldn't ban candidates who don't respect the rules then elections could be "bought" illegaly.

_heimdall 2y ago
Sure, I'm not attempting to comment specifically on French laws, I don't know French laws nearly well enough. The comment I relied to was talking about judicial powers in general, and referenced the US rather than France. My point really isn't specific to any one country though. If an electoral system is meant to be democratic, IMO people should be able to vote for whomever they want. If a candidate can get enough support to win, so be it. That doesn't preclude us from having laws protecting our right to free and fair elections though. A candidate will absolutely influence the vote, that's the candidate's whole job. There has to be lines drawn where it goes from campaigning to impeding a democratic election, I wasn't arguing against that.