• TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    No dude, legally. It is. It is the only criteria that restricts and defines who can run for the position.

    You can make up arbitrary things in your head, but legally you cannot stop anyone from running or winning, with the made up criteria in your head.

    You can go and campaign to change your local election laws, btw.

    • Senal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      ok, i’ll change the emphasis.

      Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.

      Ok, so leaving out the subjective argument of who should be qualified, let’s go with straight up logic, i’ll bullet point it for you.

      I’ll even start with your very correct assertion that anybody who can run, can win.

      • Anyone eligible to run, can win.
      • To win, a candidate has to be voted in (by whatever voting system is used, it doesn’t matter for this)
      • A vote is cast by an individual who has their own set of criteria for qualification.
      • Unless every single voter’s only criteria is whether or not the candidate is eligible to run then there are other criteria at play.

      I’ll also requote myself from an earlier reply.

      Perhaps “evaluated for” is more accurate.

      Eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.

      Perhaps the disconnect is that you think everyone who is eligible is qualified for the job and it’s just the winner of all these qualified people that is determined by the vote ?