Election Talk

I'm not a republican. I'm not a democrat. I'm an American. I became a naturalized citizen a few years ago. I'm a proud American who believes in this nation, its people and the opportunity that it offers.

However, I'm still surprised at some of the "unexplainable" aspects of the American election process. Here are three things I don't agree with.

  • You have to be born in the United States to become the President of the US. I'm not the only one who opposes this mandate. The Governor of California, for obvious reasons, wholeheartedly agrees. In today's day and age, the birth place of a person is almost irrelevant. People travel more frequently, live in different countries throughout their lives and it's feasible that their children will be born outside of their "native" country. A good example is my specific case - I was born in Iran. I'm of Indian decent and just happened to be born in Iran because my parents were there for a couple years in the 70s. I've never been there ever since. This mandate may have made sense 100+ years ago, but it doesn't make sense in this day and age.
  • Negative Campaigning. What's up with that? I approve this message.
  • Lack of Internet Voting. You can file your taxes online, why can't you register and vote online? This should be an option. It would solve many of the problems that exist today.
Comments (6)

  1. Bill says:

    I agree with the non US citizen subject, in tandem with that I would also include term limits. Why, if you find the best person for the job (president) they should be limited to 2 elections (and limit to a US Citizen)(I think this is refered to as cutting your nose off to spite your face). Keep them there, continuity is important for long term stability, goals and visions.

    I would also like to get the subject going on the vice president. Whomever loses the election becomes vice president, if they did need to take over the presidency it would be by from the country already electing this person, this way you could please all of the electoral population all of the time.

  2. Aaron says:

    Here’s why, as a US citizen, I want a president who was born here:

    Everyone has memories of their past. If we end up in the midst of an international situation, I want a leader who has absolutely no residual loyalty to another country. One can always say that they are impartial, but when push comes to shove, those memories of the homeland will be there, and may cloud the President’s judgement. The President needs to keep the best interests of only one country, the USA, in the front of his mind.

  3. Arpan Shah says:

    I disagree. This made sense decades ago when people didn’t travel, but in today’s world, it makes very little sense. I know people who were born in the US and never lived here; conversely, I know people who happened to be born somewhere else and lived in the US their entire life. Net/net: place of birth is irrelevant. A person should definitely be a US citizen to run for President, but where he/she is born is not relevant. Typically, Presidential candidates have very involved political lives and proven dedication to the nation. Just because they weren’t born in the US, a mere technicality, why should that preclude them from the race?

  4. Chris says:

    I think there should be a minimum number of years that you have been a US citizen, say 25 or 30..and ONLY a US citizen….NO dual citizenship candidates allowed…INCLUDING people born in the US …but if you meet that you don’t have to be born here..

  5. Chris says:

    "..why should that preclude them from the race?.."

    Well it will overly prevent valid candidates, you are correct, but it is overall a good rule that will prevent alot of people whose loyalties may not be in the right place….

Skip to main content