Hacker News Reader

Comment by tlogan | Hacker News Reader

My concern is that courts can become corrupted or influenced by those in power, which creates a serious problem. While courts should have the authority to issue sentences—like prison terms—they shouldn’t be the ones deciding who the public is allowed to vote for.

If people want to vote for someone, that’s their democratic right. And if they make a mistake, they’ll learn from the consequences. But the decision should ultimately rest with the voters, not the courts.

View on HN

That argument makes sense in most cases. If the candidate is a rapist, voters can and should be the ones to disqualify them.

But this is a case of cheating. If a candidate cheats in an election, that should disqualify them because otherwise the election is tainted.

This is an embezzlement case. No-one tampered with election results, so can you explain how there is any logic to your argument?

They used the money on the election campaign.

All I have seen is that four people worked for the party while being paid by the EU. Nothing like routing money to advertising campaigns or anything that would actually swing an election. And the headlines are all about embezzlement, not election fraud. So this seems like a stretch.

In my experience, boots on the ground are far more effective at affecting election outcomes than advertising campaigns are.

Go and congratulate Kamala for her win against Trump.

This is just the latest example showing how wrong your take is.

So lets say you have a 6 sided die and you have two options.

1. You win when a 1 is rolled

2. You win when a 1 or a 2 is rolled

Despite both of the situations being less than 50% the 2nd one is still more effective.

(Also your comment implies Trump's campaign doesn't have boots on the ground which obviously isn't true ...)

I read that 9 European representatives, plus 12 assistants, plus 4 other members of the party were found guilty as part of a scheme to earn illegally EUR 2.9M for the party.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_des_assistants_parleme...

Say the person who the public vote for is in prison (and to make it "easier", prior to running for office. Or maybe they were a write-in).

That decision should lie with the voters, you say.

So which takes precedence? Prison, where they are serving a sentence? Or the democratic role?

After all, the same public, using their democratic rights, voted for a system in which that person was sentenced to prison.

So which vote is more important? The vote that says that "X is a crime, and if you are justly convicted, the sentence is Y"? Or the vote that says "If I want you to be our leader, that's more important than that previous application of justice"?

The appeals process is the standard here.

You aren’t the first person to have the thought you are expounding above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com