5 ms·

There's nothing messy about this. Rules should be followed. If when rules are broken no punishment is applied, the rules are meaningless. Once rules become mea

There's nothing messy about this. Rules should be followed. If when rules are broken no punishment is applied, the rules are meaningless. Once rules become meaningless, everyone will be emboldened to break the rules, to the detriment of society as a whole. If you want the rules changed, vote for them being changed, don't give free pass for any asshole to break them.

crazygringo 2y ago
Of course it's messy. > Rules should be followed. But free, democratic elections is a "rule" too -- not just a rule, but a bedrock principle. Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed to nullify my preferred vote in the present? There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office. The question is whether it's outweighed by other democratic concerns. It's messy.
- ahtihn 2y ago
  > Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed to nullify my preferred vote in the present? All elections follow rules set by a previous electorate unless you want to first vote on defining the rules for an election every time you have an election. If Trump were to actually run for a 3rd term, would you argue that he should be able to because term limits were set in place by a previous electorate?
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    Obviously they have to follow the rules for how to count votes, establish boundaries, etc. But there is definitely a serious philosophical argument that term limits are inherently undemocratic. I personally think they're necessary, but at the same time I realize they are undemocratic. They're literally taking away the ability for an electorate to freely choose. All I'm saying is, the tradeoffs get messy. Restricting candidates from running can be a slippery slope. Look at what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition candidate was just barred from running. How do you know when you've gone too far? Barring candidates can corruptly entrench power, even when following the "rules" to the letter. What then?
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      > Barring candidates can corruptly entrench power, even when following the "rules" to the letter. What then? Bold claim. Bold claims require bold evidence. You provided none.
      - crazygringo 2y ago
        Two sentences previous, I literally stated: > Look at what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition candidate was just barred from running. Are you aware of the current situation in Turkey? If that's not bold evidence, I literally don't know what is.
        surgical_fire 2y ago
        Exceptional what happens in Turkey does not resemble in the slightest what happens in France. If France failed to punish Le Pen, they would be takinya step into creating their own French Erdogan.
        crazygringo 2y ago
        > does not resemble in the slightest what happens in France. Are you really so sure? Why was she the only one barred from running from office? Why not the other eight officials also found guilty?
        surgical_fire 2y ago
        > Are you really so sure? Yes. > Why was she the only one barred from running from office? Because she was judged by an independent court and found guilty of embezzlement. > Why not the other eight officials also found guilty? I would have to read the decision to give this answer. Many things are considered when a judge gives out a sentence. Two murders may result in different prison length depending on circumstances, for example.
        2y ago
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > not just a rule, but a bedrock principle. Only when the rules are respected by everyone involved. If we are playing football (or soccer for the barbarians across the pond), a core principle is to score goals. If in the middle of the game I punch you in the face, that principle stops mattering super fast. > Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Because that is how rules and regulations work. If you want them changed, change them properly, don't go breaking them because your pet right wing politician was punished for breaking them. > There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office I fundamentally disagree. The only thing anti-democratic is to allow someone that does not respect the democratic rules for running for office, for they will undermine democracy from within.
  - psychlops 2y ago
    > The only thing anti-democratic is to allow someone that does not respect the democratic rules for running for office, for they will undermine democracy from within. Surely you see the catch in this belief. If there is a group of people who can "allow" others to run for election then the system is not democratic at its core.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      > If there is a group of people who can "allow" others to run for election then the system is not democratic at its core. It is democratic at its core. Any democracy has an independent judicial system that can ensure that rules are being followed properly. Separation of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary, does it ring a bell to you? If the judiciary stops doing its job of banning those that would cheat elections, you wouldn't have a democracy anymore.
      - psychlops 2y ago
        Or if the judiciary has any sort of bias as is implied in this case. (I don't pretend to know the details) I enthusiastically endorse the separation of powers and firmly believe that people should follow systems, not people. Perhaps it just a global coincidence, but the recent spate of candidate disqualification (US, Romania, Turkey, France) gives the appearance of democratic decay.
- teg4n_ 2y ago
  > There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office. i’m curious, do you think age minimums are ok? i feel like with this opinion have to throw out all restrictions on the ability to run for office to be consistent.
- darthrupert 2y ago
  Nobody is prevented from voting by this sentence.
rayiner 2y ago
You're acting like computers, or neutral actors external to the political system, decide "when rules are broken" and what "punishment" to apply. That's entirely the wrong way to think about government. Government isn't about rules, it's about allocation of power. You have to think about government in terms of who is entrusted with power to make which decisions. If you entrust judges and lawyers to decide "when rules are broken" by elected officials, you give them power over those officials, and over voters. Now that's okay to a degree, but the question is: where does the buck stop? If you design a system where the buck stops with lawyers and judges, then you've effectively given those lawyers and judges power to overrule voters. It's better to design a system where the lawyers and judges demur in situations like this, to avoid a "tail wagging the dog" situation where the legal system is invoked to resolve a political dispute.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > If you entrust judges and lawyers to decide "when rules are broken" by elected officials, you give them power over those officials, and over voters. What you are describing is the judiciary in any functioning democracy. Separation of powers requires an independent judiciary system. They have to be unelected, so they keep their independence when evaluating if the laws are being applied according to the written law. > Now that's okay to a degree, but the question is: where does the buck stop? With proper separation of powers and an independent justice system, like the one that judged Le Pen and found her guilty.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    You seem to have failed to see the thorniness of the problem maybe because in the current instance (Le Pen's ban by the French judiciary) you agree with the outcome.
    - woopsn 2y ago
      Probably impossible to separate Le Pen's disqualification from the situation in the U.S. It's the song of the day. I seem to recall some account arguing in 2020, nominally on their expertise as a lawyer, that the election result could not be determined except in the courtroom. If you asked in 2020, should lawyers be disgraced if not disbarred for attempting to nullify the election - answer from GOP would be no. When asked today, suddenly answer is yes.

crazygringo 2y ago

Of course it's messy. > Rules should be followed. But free, democratic elections is a "rule" too -- not just a rule, but a bedrock principle. Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed to nullify my preferred vote in the present? There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office. The question is whether it's outweighed by other democratic concerns. It's messy.

ahtihn 2y ago
> Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed to nullify my preferred vote in the present? All elections follow rules set by a previous electorate unless you want to first vote on defining the rules for an election every time you have an election. If Trump were to actually run for a 3rd term, would you argue that he should be able to because term limits were set in place by a previous electorate?
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Obviously they have to follow the rules for how to count votes, establish boundaries, etc. But there is definitely a serious philosophical argument that term limits are inherently undemocratic. I personally think they're necessary, but at the same time I realize they are undemocratic. They're literally taking away the ability for an electorate to freely choose. All I'm saying is, the tradeoffs get messy. Restricting candidates from running can be a slippery slope. Look at what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition candidate was just barred from running. How do you know when you've gone too far? Barring candidates can corruptly entrench power, even when following the "rules" to the letter. What then?
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    > Barring candidates can corruptly entrench power, even when following the "rules" to the letter. What then? Bold claim. Bold claims require bold evidence. You provided none.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      Two sentences previous, I literally stated: > Look at what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition candidate was just barred from running. Are you aware of the current situation in Turkey? If that's not bold evidence, I literally don't know what is.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        Exceptional what happens in Turkey does not resemble in the slightest what happens in France. If France failed to punish Le Pen, they would be takinya step into creating their own French Erdogan.
        crazygringo 2y ago
        > does not resemble in the slightest what happens in France. Are you really so sure? Why was she the only one barred from running from office? Why not the other eight officials also found guilty?
        surgical_fire 2y ago
        > Are you really so sure? Yes. > Why was she the only one barred from running from office? Because she was judged by an independent court and found guilty of embezzlement. > Why not the other eight officials also found guilty? I would have to read the decision to give this answer. Many things are considered when a judge gives out a sentence. Two murders may result in different prison length depending on circumstances, for example.
        2y ago
surgical_fire 2y ago
> not just a rule, but a bedrock principle. Only when the rules are respected by everyone involved. If we are playing football (or soccer for the barbarians across the pond), a core principle is to score goals. If in the middle of the game I punch you in the face, that principle stops mattering super fast. > Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Because that is how rules and regulations work. If you want them changed, change them properly, don't go breaking them because your pet right wing politician was punished for breaking them. > There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office I fundamentally disagree. The only thing anti-democratic is to allow someone that does not respect the democratic rules for running for office, for they will undermine democracy from within.
- psychlops 2y ago
  > The only thing anti-democratic is to allow someone that does not respect the democratic rules for running for office, for they will undermine democracy from within. Surely you see the catch in this belief. If there is a group of people who can "allow" others to run for election then the system is not democratic at its core.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    > If there is a group of people who can "allow" others to run for election then the system is not democratic at its core. It is democratic at its core. Any democracy has an independent judicial system that can ensure that rules are being followed properly. Separation of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary, does it ring a bell to you? If the judiciary stops doing its job of banning those that would cheat elections, you wouldn't have a democracy anymore.
    - psychlops 2y ago
      Or if the judiciary has any sort of bias as is implied in this case. (I don't pretend to know the details) I enthusiastically endorse the separation of powers and firmly believe that people should follow systems, not people. Perhaps it just a global coincidence, but the recent spate of candidate disqualification (US, Romania, Turkey, France) gives the appearance of democratic decay.
teg4n_ 2y ago
> There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office. i’m curious, do you think age minimums are ok? i feel like with this opinion have to throw out all restrictions on the ability to run for office to be consistent.
darthrupert 2y ago
Nobody is prevented from voting by this sentence.

rayiner 2y ago

You're acting like computers, or neutral actors external to the political system, decide "when rules are broken" and what "punishment" to apply. That's entirely the wrong way to think about government. Government isn't about rules, it's about allocation of power. You have to think about government in terms of who is entrusted with power to make which decisions. If you entrust judges and lawyers to decide "when rules are broken" by elected officials, you give them power over those officials, and over voters. Now that's okay to a degree, but the question is: where does the buck stop? If you design a system where the buck stops with lawyers and judges, then you've effectively given those lawyers and judges power to overrule voters. It's better to design a system where the lawyers and judges demur in situations like this, to avoid a "tail wagging the dog" situation where the legal system is invoked to resolve a political dispute.

surgical_fire 2y ago
> If you entrust judges and lawyers to decide "when rules are broken" by elected officials, you give them power over those officials, and over voters. What you are describing is the judiciary in any functioning democracy. Separation of powers requires an independent judiciary system. They have to be unelected, so they keep their independence when evaluating if the laws are being applied according to the written law. > Now that's okay to a degree, but the question is: where does the buck stop? With proper separation of powers and an independent justice system, like the one that judged Le Pen and found her guilty.
- hollerith 2y ago
  You seem to have failed to see the thorniness of the problem maybe because in the current instance (Le Pen's ban by the French judiciary) you agree with the outcome.
  - woopsn 2y ago
    Probably impossible to separate Le Pen's disqualification from the situation in the U.S. It's the song of the day. I seem to recall some account arguing in 2020, nominally on their expertise as a lawyer, that the election result could not be determined except in the courtroom. If you asked in 2020, should lawyers be disgraced if not disbarred for attempting to nullify the election - answer from GOP would be no. When asked today, suddenly answer is yes.