The puzzle here is that most people agree with these rules, but if most people agree with them, there would seem to be little chance of such people reaching office, so the rules appear to be unnecessary. Moreover, having more choice might be beneficial: perhaps some foreigners might be good candidates for example; but the rule prevents such people from reaching office, even if a majority might have preferred them. (In more technical terms, eligibility rules restrict the supply of candidates). The rule seems to suggest that majorities of people do not trust majorities to make reasonable choices about candidates. As Hanson puts it:
This example is especially interesting because it is not a case of a majority protecting a minority from themselves: a majority is being protected from itself. And who is protecting it? In a democracy, it would have to be a past majority. Yet few seem to believe future majorities are actually at much risk of knowingly electing excessively young, foreign, or criminal politicians. If the fear is of unknowingly electing such folks, that at most justifies more disclosure rules.
Should we scrap eligibility rules for office?
Na we should keep them. I think this guy has missed the point a little bit. We have laws because they show that we have certain standards within our society. We all agree that minors shouldn't hold positions in office because they are not 'mature enough', that politicians should be citizens of the state and that criminals may lack certain judgement that is required for office. You may think that this opens up technical arguments over whether or not it is right that these groups are not able to run for office, but his is irrelevant. Laws tell us what is the minimum standard in our society and by not having them a state is saying that it is OK for these groups to run for office. Therefore I argue that it is not a matter of security (protecting the majority from the majority) but rather an issue of laws setting the standard within a society.
ReplyDelete